[0:04] Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the

[0:07] special finance committee meeting of

[0:08] March 27th,

[0:10] 2025. I acknowledge that this meeting is

[0:13] taking place on the traditional

[0:14] territory of the Shanu and South First

[0:16] Nations. The district chosen is

[0:18] committed to reconciliation with

[0:19] indigenous peoples and we recognize,

[0:22] honor, and respect the pres presence of

[0:25] indigenous peoples past, present, and

[0:27] future.

[0:28] Please be sure to have your cell phones

[0:30] turned off during the

[0:32] [Music]

[0:33] meeting. Committee, we have an agenda

[0:36] before you. We have a pink to add

[0:38] through in our correspondent section. Is

[0:40] there any other additions or changes?

[0:45] Okay. Okay. Move adoption. Thank you.

[0:49] Moved by councelor Gray, second by Mayor

[0:51] Little. All in favor? Carried. Thank

[0:53] you. And public participation. Please

[0:57] note all comments made during public

[0:59] participation will be heard by the

[1:00] finance committee and taken into

[1:02] consideration. If you'd like to have a

[1:05] chance at the mic, please step forward,

[1:07] state your name. Turn on the little

[1:08] button till the red light comes on.

[1:11] There you are. And there is a timer as

[1:13] well. The green light is go. The yellow

[1:15] light is 30 seconds coming and red is

[1:18] stop. Go ahead. You have four minutes.

[1:21] I see in the financial plan an allowance

[1:23] for $500,000 has been made for the

[1:25] purchase of a replacement fire truck.

[1:29] With the recent announcement regarding

[1:31] tariffs, such a purchase may be beyond

[1:34] reach for maturity. I certainly hope so.

[1:37] For one of the things that bothers me is

[1:39] why government and many non-governmental

[1:41] organizations are being driven to spend

[1:44] and upgrade to satisfy underwriter and

[1:47] insurance

[1:49] companies. And in Thank you.

[1:52] and incredibly insidious results of

[1:55] these imposed mandate standards, often

[1:58] without any justification other than

[2:00] that they cover somebody else's

[2:04] um insurance or organizational standards

[2:07] and requests for uh quest for

[2:10] perfection. Many of these insurance and

[2:12] test best practice programs may be fine

[2:15] for municipalities with the resources to

[2:18] adopt and follow them.

[2:22] But the onesizefits-all practice

[2:25] approach

[2:27] uh presents a huge problem for the

[2:29] lesser

[2:30] endowed. Hence, we see Sanage, I believe

[2:33] it was Sanage, giving away a perfectly

[2:36] good fire truck in the last couple weeks

[2:39] to a community that needs one but

[2:41] clearly is not even attempting to follow

[2:44] the insurance and underwriter

[2:45] specifications.

[2:48] Liability is often thrown back as a

[2:51] default reaction when you asked to

[2:53] respond to why we are following some of

[2:55] the insurance

[2:57] guidelines. But I do wonder how serious

[3:00] the liability issue is. When was the

[3:03] last time that any fire department

[3:05] anywhere suffered a liability issue

[3:08] based on the use of an older firet truck

[3:10] that no longer met the requirements of

[3:12] the insurance industry.

[3:15] I have a couple other just quick points

[3:18] in the U text that were given us. What

[3:21] is this about an operations officer in

[3:23] the fire

[3:25] department? And when the union

[3:27] negotiations are completed, how will

[3:29] that big

[3:32] uh some including retroactive payments

[3:35] be handled by the budget? Thank you very

[3:38] much.

[3:41] [Music]

[3:46] Nicole Shukin, the Leon Road resident.

[3:48] Sorry, I just took a cough drop, so I

[3:52] just have to swallow that.

[3:54] Um, yeah, I submitted a letter to this

[3:56] committee and so I don't want to go over

[3:57] that, but I did in that letter just

[4:00] reflect a little bit on the remarkable

[4:02] history and spirit of Mosen's public

[4:04] trail network and suggested that it's

[4:07] the last thing that should be targeted

[4:10] um by or for austerity. And I use the

[4:13] word austerity instead of affordability

[4:15] because to my mind affordability rests

[4:18] on an actual economic rationale for not

[4:21] publicly investing in a in a good trail

[4:23] network or active transportation

[4:25] infrastructure. Whereas austerity is a

[4:28] political agenda and it's a choice or a

[4:32] decision to not spend on certain

[4:34] community goods or assets. Um so yeah, I

[4:37] just um hope that the committee will

[4:40] look at this remarkable public trail

[4:43] network through the lens of climate

[4:45] rather than austerity. And I suggest

[4:48] that the um priority actions in the

[4:51] climate action plan which include

[4:54] improving the active transportation

[4:56] network could be a really good lens to

[4:58] look through. But just for now, I want

[5:00] to talk to two different budgetary

[5:02] matters that also pertain to the climate

[5:04] action plan and priorities. And the

[5:06] first has to do with the hefty

[5:08] $800,000 surplus that council will be

[5:12] discussing this afternoon. and um

[5:14] putting this big surplus back into

[5:16] general reserves makes a lot of sense.

[5:19] But I think that there might be a case

[5:22] for um putting a portion of the surplus

[5:25] into one reserve in particular and that

[5:28] is the parkland acquisition fund. And

[5:31] again I think the rationale for this

[5:32] comes in our climate action plan which

[5:36] states as a priority action if I can

[5:39] quote may not be able to quote but it

[5:43] does in fact

[5:44] identify land acquisition for habitat

[5:47] protection as a priority action and

[5:49] currently the the parkland acquisition

[5:53] fund is one of the the lowest or the

[5:55] smallest reserves that we have. I think

[5:58] there's only $200,000 or so dollars in

[6:00] that fund, whereas most of our other

[6:03] reserves, as Mr. Creek's excellent

[6:04] overview of the reserve balances show,

[6:07] are are really healthy. So, I would love

[6:10] to see that acquisition fund topped up

[6:12] to half a million in our South Vancouver

[6:16] Island real estate market. There's no

[6:19] way you can do anything with

[6:20] $200,000. But if we grew that fund, we

[6:23] could actually make a difference. Um,

[6:26] and then the last point I wanted to make

[6:28] was just around a a much smaller

[6:30] budgetary item, and it appeared on a

[6:33] budget line way back under recreation

[6:38] and it involves the allocation of $5,000

[6:41] to the community hall to Machosen

[6:43] Community Hall. And as you can tell from

[6:45] my letter, I am a huge supporter of

[6:48] public investment in common goods. And I

[6:50] think the community hall is a amazing

[6:53] asset. So I support tax dollars going

[6:56] towards the hall. But one thing I wonder

[6:59] is whether it might make sense to

[7:02] earmark that tax those tax dollars for

[7:05] supporting the hall towards energy

[7:07] transition or energy retrofitting so

[7:10] that it can get off diesel heating and

[7:12] onto a heat pump. So I don't know if

[7:15] that's a possibility or not, but it

[7:17] would sure help the owners of the hall

[7:19] and would also align with our climate

[7:21] action plan. Thank you.

[7:25] Thank you,

[7:30] Patty Williams, Park Drive. I want to

[7:33] thank our CFO for the overview of our

[7:35] reserve balances as well as for

[7:37] attaching the reserves and surplus

[7:40] policy to the staff report. It was

[7:42] really helpful for me to understand the

[7:44] funding and how it can be used in our

[7:46] community. I think everyone should read

[7:48] this policy and understand the process

[7:50] and allocation of these funds. At the

[7:53] February 11th meeting, the finance

[7:55] committee approved funding for the Duke

[7:57] Roadies Trail and for the parks and

[7:59] trails master plan. Both projects

[8:01] received funding from the gas tax

[8:03] reserve, which is now called the

[8:05] community building fund, which is a

[8:07] renewable fund provided annually by the

[8:10] province and meets the active

[8:11] transportation criteria.

[8:13] I also want to thank all of you for the

[8:16] wonderful um opportunity to come to the

[8:18] open house and get a better

[8:20] understanding of where tax dollars are

[8:22] spent. Um it was really interesting to

[8:24] me to see the pie chart where three

[8:27] times the amount of our tax dollars go

[8:29] to BC transit versus

[8:32] hospitals. I was stunned to see that.

[8:36] And I think we should be asking for

[8:37] better bus service. I had originally

[8:40] written down we're an aging population,

[8:42] but I got to speak just for myself. I'm

[8:44] getting old. I would love to be able to

[8:45] take transit from our community to other

[8:48] places. And I realize that active

[8:51] transportation is defined as

[8:52] humanpowered, but why not address this

[8:55] option in our active transportation

[8:57] project that is being done by urban

[8:59] systems. Thank you.

[9:07] [Music]

[9:12] Hi, Beth Bacon. I'm a chosen resident.

[9:16] Um, I wanted I'm just a real big

[9:18] advocate of trails, so I wanted to talk

[9:20] about roadside trails in particular and

[9:24] uh the use of the active transportation

[9:26] funding for that.

[9:29] Um it seems to be with some people a

[9:32] confusion about um if we make these

[9:35] trails it's going to increase our taxes.

[9:38] And I'd just like council to clarify as

[9:41] much as you can that uh that's not a

[9:44] connection. That's not a correct

[9:45] connection that we have funding from

[9:47] elsewhere for active transportation and

[9:50] it's not raising the taxes. I have a

[9:53] long history with advocating for trails

[9:55] as an equestrian and a lot of our trails

[9:59] were made by volunteers and we still and

[10:02] you know for example Machosen Park um no

[10:05] machines went in there. The horse people

[10:08] did that and they they dragged the

[10:09] covert in by horse. We still have access

[10:13] to fantastic volunteers who can both do

[10:17] planning and physical work and um and

[10:21] donate uh time with machinery when

[10:25] machinery is needed. So I the financial

[10:29] thing I'd like that out of the equation

[10:31] and then let's see what boxes we check

[10:35] for having roadside trails. We've got

[10:38] health and fitness. We've got safety.

[10:42] We've got reus reduced vehicle use.

[10:45] That's part of our climate action

[10:47] plan. We've got our contribution to our

[10:50] neighbors. Uh if we're going to stay

[10:52] rural, we providing them with recreation

[10:56] space. Um and that's an obligation that

[10:59] I think we have um for the to

[11:03] accommodate the people with higher

[11:05] density neighbor neighborhoods.

[11:07] Um people are saying the cost of living

[11:10] is top of mind for them. If they can

[11:13] walk or cycle to do their errands uh or

[11:17] um go to work, they're saving money and

[11:20] that's going to be appreciated by

[11:23] all. So I'm talking here more about

[11:28] roadside trails because I think that's

[11:31] what fits best with the act of

[11:32] transportation.

[11:34] I would go on and on about the other

[11:36] interior

[11:37] trails and gee I'd almost given up on

[11:41] saying why don't we have anything in our

[11:44] land acquisition budget until Nicole

[11:47] brought it up. I talked about that for

[11:50] years and years and years and that fund

[11:52] never grew. And here I I think you're

[11:55] all in support of us getting a corridor

[11:58] for um biodiversity and

[12:02] and what's what's our contribution? It's

[12:05] we get something from the province, we

[12:08] may get federal money, we may get uh

[12:11] money from nonprofits, but I think

[12:13] Machosen should have something to kick

[12:15] in as well. So I would strongly support

[12:18] the idea of growing that fund. Thank

[12:21] you.

[12:23] Thank

[12:34] you. Okay. Um Gary Lamb, 860 Hackmore

[12:38] Drive. Um what I wanted to uh speak to

[12:42] is the

[12:44] uh the budget figures having gone

[12:48] through the 20

[12:52] 2024 to 2029 budget and then the

[12:57] actual to uh budget for

[13:01] 2024 and then carrying that over to the

[13:05] 25 29 budget.

[13:09] Um there appears to be some areas where

[13:13] the the numbers are soft and and by that

[13:17] I

[13:18] mean they

[13:21] don't provide a clear picture of what uh

[13:25] they in fact entail.

[13:29] Um and just

[13:31] uh one other uh point is the reserves.

[13:37] There's a a range that's outlined in the

[13:41] documentation on the reserves. A minimum

[13:44] level of 2.9 million to an optimum level

[13:48] of 10.1 million which gives a difference

[13:52] of uh

[13:55] 72

[13:56] million which is a big number. So it it

[14:00] raises the question well what is it that

[14:04] we feel we need because we've said a

[14:08] minimum requirement is the two but yet

[14:11] we say the optimum is

[14:13] 10 and then the the other thing and and

[14:17] you know in regards to previous speakers

[14:21] I I think it's going to be imperative

[14:23] upon um ultimate council uh to decide

[14:28] what the the priorities are given our

[14:32] limited tax base in the chosen um you

[14:38] know there's a number of things that are

[14:41] on the books or pending the fire hall um

[14:45] road maintenance school

[14:48] um we've have the Lumbard site that has

[14:50] to be ultimately determined how we move

[14:53] forward with that um Duke Road East uh

[14:58] Village center, flesh road, bridge, all

[15:01] of those things um ultimately uh will

[15:05] require money depending what decision

[15:08] council makes. So that being said, it's

[15:11] going to be critical that um there be

[15:17] sufficient information for people to

[15:20] clearly understand how it is that

[15:23] council u feels that they will move

[15:26] forward with this. Thank you. Thank you.

[15:33] [Music]

[15:43] So, I'm Allison Luk. I'm a chosen

[15:45] resident and I wasn't intending to speak

[15:47] today, but I would speak in in favor of

[15:50] uh if you're going to be putting money

[15:51] into reserves, the parkland acquisition.

[15:54] Um, I just see from my work with the

[15:57] Bilston group, we are losing

[15:59] biodiversity and

[16:02] uh, we're just losing ground all the

[16:04] time. And so, even though it's something

[16:06] that I think everybody probably supports

[16:08] maybe in the

[16:09] future, I feel like we're running out of

[16:12] time. So, if we can put money in and

[16:14] acquire

[16:15] uh, anything like for the Wilston

[16:17] Corridor um, work with the Mosen

[16:20] Foundation, that sort of thing, I would

[16:22] sure support that. Thank you.

[16:24] Thank you.

[16:27] [Music]

[16:35] Uh good afternoon, council, fellow

[16:37] residents. Darren Brown, Graceland. I

[16:40] want to speak today about the importance

[16:41] of fiscal responsibility, community

[16:43] values, and transparency, especially as

[16:46] it relates to the use of our limited

[16:47] funds like the gas tax, now known as the

[16:50] Canadian, the Canada Community Building

[16:52] Fund. So there's only one

[16:56] taxpayer. Thought through a little um

[16:58] illustration of how I can describe it to

[17:00] you. Right. So I pay out of municipal

[17:03] taxes out of this pocket. Federal taxes

[17:06] out of this pocket and provincial taxes.

[17:09] Oh, I do have one more out of this

[17:11] pocket back here. There is one

[17:13] taxpayer. Let's not pretend there's

[17:16] three or

[17:17] more. It's all of us. And every time we

[17:20] spend from a finite fund like the gas

[17:22] tax, we're making a choice. A choice

[17:24] that affects what we can no longer

[17:26] afford somewhere else. Those dollars

[17:29] don't replenish on demand and they were

[17:32] never meant to be a bottomless well for

[17:34] pet projects.

[17:36] They were designed for core

[17:37] infrastructure things like clean water,

[17:40] wastewater system, roads, disaster

[17:43] mitigation, fireh

[17:45] hall, not just beautifification or trail

[17:48] expansions. Now, I respect that everyone

[17:52] is entitled to their opinion. In fact, I

[17:53] deeply value a diversity of opinion. But

[17:56] I do think it's important for the public

[17:58] to know that the letter submitted by

[18:01] Nicole Schukan in our supplemental

[18:03] agenda today was written by the spouse

[18:06] of councelor Schukan who is the liaison

[18:08] to the parks and trails committee. Can I

[18:10] point of order for a second? Why does

[18:11] that matter? Um Mr. Brown because the

[18:13] committee has brought Excuse me, Mr.

[18:15] Brown. Mr. Brown is accusing making an

[18:17] accusation of something that is

[18:19] unsubstantiated. I I'm I I'm sorry. I

[18:22] just I can't let that go right now.

[18:24] What's the accusation? It's very wrong.

[18:26] Apologies if you're not. It's sorry.

[18:28] It's absolutely wrong that I had written

[18:30] that letter. So, I did not say that. I

[18:32] said it was written by written by the

[18:35] spouse of councelor Schukan who is the

[18:37] liazison to the parks and trails

[18:38] committee. I think the exact words were

[18:40] were written by councelor Schukan. If

[18:42] I'm if I'm Did I Okay. Oh, I'm

[18:46] sorry. I I missed hearing the word

[18:49] spouse. It was not written by me but

[18:51] thank you very

[18:53] [Music]

[18:56] now why does that matter

[19:01] Mr. round. Can you just focus on the

[19:03] issue and absolutely I'd be happy to

[19:05] explain why that matters. What? Because

[19:07] the committee has brought forward some

[19:09] very spendy ideas increasing their

[19:11] budget by a staggering 50%. And while

[19:14] some of these might be well-intentioned,

[19:16] we have to ask is it fair or fiscally

[19:18] responsible to push forward significant

[19:20] funding towards one area like phase one

[19:23] of phase three of two road east trail

[19:26] while other critical infrastructure is

[19:28] left wanting. This is not about personal

[19:30] attacks. This is about good

[19:33] governance. When someone closely

[19:35] connected to a counselor makes a public

[19:36] appeal that supports that counselor's

[19:38] portfolio, we must at least acknowledge

[19:41] it. It at least acknowledge the optics

[19:44] if not the conflict because transparency

[19:47] actually

[19:49] matters. And let's be honest, fiscal

[19:51] responsibility isn't about saying no to

[19:53] everything. It's about making choices

[19:54] that align with the broad community

[19:56] needs, not just the loudest voices, but

[19:58] the most politically connected ones. So,

[20:01] we need to prioritize infrastructure

[20:03] that serves the greatest number of

[20:04] people. It includes roads,

[20:06] communications, clean water, the

[20:08] basics. And I say this with full respect

[20:11] to our parks and trails system, which I

[20:13] love. But they are not more important

[20:15] than keeping the lights on, the roads

[20:16] safe, or our old school water based

[20:18] water systems functional. So, let's

[20:21] remember that spending is not neutral.

[20:22] Every dollar spent on one thing is a

[20:24] dollar that's not available for another.

[20:26] And the only people footing the bill are

[20:27] us, the taxpayers, the residents. So I

[20:30] urge this council and this finance

[20:32] committee to be cautious, to be fair,

[20:34] and to resist the pull of single

[20:36] interest priorities that don't reflect

[20:38] the whole of Machosen's needs. Thank you

[20:40] very much, Mr. Brown. Thank you,

[20:42] [Music]

[20:44] Councelor Johnson. I I I will apologize

[20:47] again for interrupting Mr. Brown and and

[20:50] this table. I I I didn't hear the word

[20:51] spouse. So, apologies. Thank you. Thank

[20:54] you, Mr. Shuken. May I speak again since

[20:57] I was implicated in has everyone else

[21:00] had a chance to speak for the first

[21:02] time? Now is the time and then Miss

[21:05] Shukin can speak the second time.

[21:09] Go ahead. Thank you. Yes. No, I also

[21:11] heard Mr. Brown say uh written by the

[21:14] spouse, so that was accurate. However,

[21:16] that doesn't make it any less

[21:17] problematic. sposes of council members

[21:20] are also independent citizens. Because

[21:22] one is married does not mean one is

[21:24] wedded in the head and we should not be

[21:28] disenfranchised of elected

[21:30] representatives from exercising our

[21:32] rights as citizens and our ability to

[21:34] speak. That would be medieval thinking

[21:36] frankly where married women aren't

[21:38] allowed to speak because a spouse is on

[21:41] council. I also want to just touch on

[21:44] what Mr. Brown said about there being

[21:46] one one taxpayer. I also think that's a

[21:49] real simplification of the tax system

[21:52] because when we pay money from this

[21:54] pocket into provincial

[21:57] taxes, when we win that money back

[22:00] through a fund like councelor F was

[22:02] awarded, we're winning back the tax

[22:04] dollars we spent so that they can be

[22:06] used for the benefit of our community.

[22:08] So rather than that being a loss, I see

[22:11] that as a gain where we've in fact won

[22:14] back provincial tax dollars to serve

[22:17] Machosen. Also those tax dollars are

[22:20] distributed across a huge population. So

[22:23] when we pay into provincial taxes, it's

[22:25] very different than when we pay our

[22:26] local taxes. When we win money back from

[22:29] the province, we're winning money back

[22:30] from the entire population of BC that

[22:32] pays into provincial taxes ditto with

[22:35] with federal money. So I think it is a

[22:37] real simplistic way of thinking to say

[22:39] that there's only one taxpayer. Thank

[22:42] you. Thank

[22:47] you. Okay.

[22:50] Turn my mic off. Go on to the next part

[22:53] of our agenda. Do we all get a chance to

[22:55] do two speeches?

[22:58] No, it's fine. Thanks.

[23:03] [Music]

[23:06] The

[23:10] next is

[23:13] [Music]

[23:30] All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council.

[23:32] uh through the chair. I'll start off by

[23:35] saying thank you for all the kind words

[23:36] everybody uh throughout all the

[23:38] meetings. Um I didn't do that first

[23:40] number of times people thank me for the

[23:42] work done but I do appreciate it. Um oh

[23:47] nothing now. All right. Sorry about

[23:50] that. Thank you for all the kind words

[23:52] uh throughout this process. Um it does

[23:55] give me a little more energy and uh

[23:57] support me in standing up here and

[23:59] blabbing on about numbers. So, in

[24:02] regards to reserves, um not going to go

[24:05] into the detail of each individual one.

[24:08] Uh there's a little blurb uh in regards

[24:10] to each reserve and where it's sitting.

[24:13] Just kind of cover off to the end part.

[24:15] Uh the recommendations

[24:18] uh indicating that I would staff would

[24:20] recommend that we increase the admin

[24:22] computer reserve uh to an optimal level

[24:24] of

[24:25] $50,000. This would be enough to cover a

[24:27] future server purchase. Uh so we've got

[24:30] a new one coming in uh next week, but a

[24:34] decade from now we'll need another one

[24:36] eventually. Uh so if we start putting a

[24:38] little bit of money away, we'll have

[24:39] enough in 10 years to acquire a new one

[24:42] or whatever the heck they have invented

[24:44] by then. And then also increasing the

[24:47] legal insurance and consulting reserve

[24:49] to an optimal level of 250,000. Uh when

[24:52] I was reviewing that policy that we have

[24:54] on place right now, it didn't seem like

[24:57] the $150,000 would cover off all of the

[25:00] contingencies that were indicated on

[25:01] there, like two court cases, uh

[25:05] insurance premiums, and like on the

[25:07] other one, I think four consulting

[25:09] contracts. It didn't seem like that

[25:11] would be sufficient. So, I'm

[25:13] recommending to increase that to 250.

[25:15] And then below that um recommending the

[25:19] allocation of the surplus from the 2024

[25:22] fiscal year um into general capital

[25:26] municipal equipment uh using the admin

[25:28] staffing as indicated in last year's

[25:30] reserve report uh adding some to the

[25:32] fire equipment building replacement

[25:35] snowtorm public works efficiency

[25:37] planning environment and

[25:39] election. Any questions in regards to

[25:42] that?

[25:45] Do you have any questions?

[25:48] Go ahead. Councelor Shman uh through you

[25:51] councelor Donaldson. Uh sorry just for

[25:53] clarification the the amounts

[25:57] uh that you mentioned to the computer

[25:59] reserve and then legal insurance and

[26:01] consulting

[26:03] they are distinct from the amounts in in

[26:08] the table under item three correct um so

[26:13] that money for admin and legal insurance

[26:16] consulting that's coming from where?

[26:19] Well, that'll come from future surplus

[26:22] or whatever to allocate. We're not I'm

[26:24] not saying bump it all up now and apply

[26:25] money to it. I'm saying we should set an

[26:27] optimal level now and then over the next

[26:30] 5 10 years we'll just add a little bit

[26:32] to them. Okay. If there's surplus or

[26:34] available. Great. Thank you very much.

[26:36] Okay.

[26:38] Uh councelor Gray.

[26:41] Thanks um councelor Donaldson through

[26:43] the

[26:44] chair. Mr. Creek. I was wondering about

[26:47] that you pick those color reserves. We

[26:49] heard from Gary Lamb just now about this

[26:51] issue. The spread is quite amazing on

[26:53] some of them. Um and I'm wondering if um

[26:56] also whether or not some of the other

[26:58] reserves might increase due to

[26:59] inflation, the economy and other things

[27:00] like that. Is that something for today

[27:02] or or we pick it up pick that up another

[27:04] day through the chair? Um yeah, when Mr.

[27:08] Lamb brought that up. Well, that's

[27:09] probably a good idea. We could take a

[27:11] dive into actually setting minimum

[27:14] amounts uh for a number of reserves. You

[27:15] can see that there's absolutely nothing

[27:17] indicating that the minimum would be

[27:19] zero. Uh which is probably not the

[27:21] smartest way to handle it. But at the

[27:24] end of the day, if we needed something,

[27:26] it would end up coming from the general

[27:28] capital reserve um in order to finish

[27:31] off whatever project that we do have.

[27:34] But we I can certainly take a further

[27:35] look into that and come back with a a

[27:37] revised optimal number and minimum level

[27:39] for each reserve.

[27:42] Thanks for the chair. I think that would

[27:43] be a helpful exercise simply to get

[27:45] fresh eyes on the package as a whole.

[27:47] Actually do appreciate that Mr. Creep.

[27:50] The other question I had um we heard a

[27:53] few people referring to the

[27:55] um parkland acquisition reserve and am I

[28:00] correct in saying that that's that's

[28:02] built in a certain way but the surpluses

[28:04] can't necessarily be applied to it so

[28:07] through the chair um it's not that we

[28:10] can't apply money to it it's just been

[28:12] the policy of the district previously to

[28:14] only apply money to that preserve by

[28:17] selling parkland or getting fundsirect

[28:19] directly from the province for that

[28:21] reserve. Um there's nothing that

[28:24] prevents council from indicating, hey,

[28:27] we should throw some money in there uh

[28:28] to actually increase it because as she

[28:31] indicated and you see all we're doing is

[28:34] earning interest on it and so it's

[28:35] increasing at a pretty slow clip and

[28:37] that's going to slow down for 2025

[28:40] certainly. But there's nothing stopping

[28:42] you from allocating.

[28:45] So through the chair, is that a written

[28:46] reser a written policy or is it

[28:48] something that's been done on the fly?

[28:52] Through the chair, it's it's basic it's

[28:54] a written policy that you would only

[28:56] take money from parkland sales, but

[28:58] there's nothing saying it prevents you

[29:00] from allocating a surplus to it. Thank

[29:03] you, Council Shook.

[29:07] Thank you, Councelor Donaldson. Through

[29:09] you to Mr. Creek.

[29:11] Um, thank you. Another question on the

[29:13] Parkland reserve, parkland acquisition

[29:16] reserve. If there was um an opportunity

[29:20] that came our way, is there anything

[29:24] preventing us from possibly pulling

[29:26] money from the general capital reserve

[29:29] in the future if we and putting it into

[29:31] the parkland acquisition reserve or

[29:33] using those funds for an acquisition if

[29:35] we decide through the chair? No, you

[29:38] could certainly do that. You just have

[29:39] to pass a motion here. Gotcha. If you

[29:41] want to move money from the general

[29:43] capital reserve into Parkland

[29:45] acquisition reserve. Okay. And you know

[29:49] speaking personally, I'm I I don't think

[29:51] I'm in favor of um adding more money to

[29:55] the parkland reserve at this time.

[29:59] Um, one of the big reasons is is we are

[30:01] going through the parks and trails

[30:02] master plan and I think we are going to

[30:03] be touching on um some of the parcels in

[30:07] Machos that the district owns but are

[30:11] not as yet used for park purposes and

[30:14] there may be opportunities there to um

[30:17] to to to bump up the fund. But more than

[30:20] anything, I think we have to have an

[30:22] um a line toward an actual project. So,

[30:26] but um as one of the speakers mentioned

[30:28] earlier that that the fund isn't really

[30:30] at a level right now that we can act on,

[30:32] but um getting it there I think uh we we

[30:35] probably have a little need a little bit

[30:37] more rigor and process before we kind of

[30:39] bump it up and hopefully bump it up with

[30:41] purpose. So,

[30:43] yes,

[30:46] go ahead, Mr.

[30:47] [Music]

[30:49] Oh, um I I don't have much else to say.

[30:52] So, we have questions. Yeah, just a

[30:54] different question. Of course, we're all

[30:56] aware that the um steering committee and

[31:00] our staff are working on the fireh hall

[31:02] um question whether or not replacements

[31:04] needed or fixing it up or whatever. And

[31:06] I wondered what um reserve would that

[31:09] come out of the building replacement

[31:11] reserve and or the cap general capital

[31:13] reserve if we were to

[31:15] proceed through the chair. Um, so yeah,

[31:18] it would start with the building uh

[31:20] replacement reserve. Uh, and then you

[31:24] could end up using money from that

[31:25] growing communities fund uh that the

[31:27] province gave to the district last year.

[31:29] Uh, that money does have to be used

[31:31] within the next four years now or

[31:33] actually think we're down to three down

[31:36] to has to be used by 2028. Uh, and then

[31:39] you also end up using general capital

[31:41] reserve.

[31:44] Thank you.

[31:46] [Music]

[31:48] um through you councelor Johnson. Um Mr.

[31:52] McFerson earlier mentioned the

[31:54] possibility of a new purchase of a a

[31:57] firet truck next year and um interesting

[32:01] comments about you know the insurance

[32:03] demands and I'm not at all too

[32:05] insightful on those but the one thing

[32:07] that I I believe we've encountered in

[32:10] the past is the fact that we strike semi

[32:14] early with equipment we know we will

[32:17] need in the future um allows us to

[32:20] actually realize some savings because as

[32:22] we know And as we've seen with this

[32:23] district, the longer you put things off,

[32:26] the more expensive they are to become

[32:29] seen that with certain bridge fireall is

[32:32] going to be a big example here. But I

[32:34] just wonder if I could ask you, Mr.

[32:35] Creek, do you have any insights into

[32:37] that? So through the chair, uh, no,

[32:40] you're you're right on that regard in

[32:42] that pretty much anything that we're

[32:44] going to need in three years, it's like

[32:47] if you aren't buying now, you are going

[32:49] to be saving a decent amount of money on

[32:51] it. uh we just don't know exactly how

[32:53] much, but everything is just going to

[32:54] keep getting more expensive, especially

[32:56] in relation to automobiles, vehicles,

[32:58] that type of thing. There might be some

[33:01] savings. Um if the next administration

[33:04] in the US removes the tariffs, uh that's

[33:08] debatable. Like last time uh President

[33:11] Trump was in there, he set tariffs on a

[33:14] number of countries and then when

[33:17] President Biden showed up, he didn't

[33:18] remove any of them and they just kept

[33:20] going and now Mr. Trump's back and

[33:23] doubling up, tripling up on everything.

[33:24] So whether or not anybody removes him, I

[33:28] have no idea. But certainly, I would bet

[33:30] you dollars and donuts that yes, it's

[33:32] going to be more expensive in the

[33:34] future. Uh, I've been looking into some

[33:36] other financing options for these types

[33:38] of things, too. Uh, so that we don't

[33:40] actually have to pay like the $500,000

[33:43] upfront. We'd end up with a operating

[33:45] lease in order to acquire the equipment.

[33:47] Now, we pay for a little bit every

[33:50] month, every year. Uh, so then we get to

[33:54] save and invest 500,000, pay 30 $40,000

[33:57] in the first year. We still earn

[33:59] interest. uh we still get the use of the

[34:01] vehicle without having to deal with the

[34:03] ramifications of inflation catching up

[34:05] after three five years.

[34:07] So certainly certainly something we can

[34:10] think about and I'll I'll talk about

[34:11] once I get more information from the

[34:12] company I'm working with

[34:17] council

[34:19] and through the chair then again Mr. Mr.

[34:21] Creek, I wondered if we might just talk

[34:23] a little bit about this the fire hall

[34:24] question. We've got um the building

[34:28] replacement reserve on hand and I think

[34:32] you're suggesting that we put $200,000

[34:34] in there. So that would lift that

[34:35] reserve to 3.87 million.

[34:39] Um if that doesn't do it, then we turn

[34:41] to growing communities fund which has a

[34:43] couple of million looks like.

[34:48] Um presently it's at 2.6 66 million and

[34:53] then the general capital

[34:55] reserve. So there might or might not be

[34:57] the funds we need for a fireh hall, but

[35:00] you know combining all those reserves

[35:02] depending on the ultimate cost. I don't

[35:04] know if we have any ideas at the moment

[35:05] about the cost of a new building might

[35:07] be.

[35:08] Um we've also

[35:11] um got your report to us talking about

[35:14] how we're short on money to replace our

[35:16] assets. So, we've got a big um

[35:19] potentially if if things go in the

[35:21] direction some are thinking about the

[35:23] big fire hole project, uh then we're

[35:25] short um I think your report said we're

[35:28] $672,000 to replace our assets that need

[35:31] repairing when they need replacing

[35:33] rather. And you gave us two options. One

[35:36] was when the time comes we go into debt.

[35:38] Um we reduce services. Um or and then

[35:43] the other option reduce services take on

[35:46] debt. And then the other option was that

[35:47] we put some money aside each year to

[35:49] build up our reserves because we're

[35:51] short. Um and I think that was a good

[35:55] report that gave you gave to us combined

[35:57] with your other report on future costs

[35:58] and taxations which have given quite a

[36:00] fright to a lot of people about the

[36:02] ongoing costs that we're facing. And so

[36:05] the idea of being prudent with our

[36:06] finances is kind of critical at this

[36:08] juncture. And it's my view that the use

[36:10] of the reserves should be done

[36:12] carefully. Um we've got that. Your

[36:16] proposal here is $300,000 into the

[36:19] general capital, 200 into the building

[36:22] replacement. We also talked previously

[36:24] about adding 1% of the taxes this year

[36:27] in order to fund to build up our well

[36:29] new I guess it be a new reserve fund, an

[36:31] asset replacement fund or something like

[36:33] that.

[36:34] Um, so council, that's not in our

[36:38] documents at the moment, this additional

[36:39] 1% to get us set us up correctly. As we

[36:43] know, we're spending money from our

[36:45] reserves at the moment. And so it makes

[36:48] me think that we should be thinking

[36:49] about that additional 1% um on our tax

[36:52] bill this year. The alternative to that,

[36:56] you know, if we did take care, you know,

[36:57] going forward, then we would then

[37:00] there's a variety of things that we

[37:01] could cut from our budget. I think we

[37:02] can easily get to to get that 1% to to

[37:05] make the future look good. Um, we can

[37:07] talk about that maybe when you're we get

[37:09] to the budget aspect of things, but I

[37:11] wanted to introduce it now.

[37:14] [Music]

[37:16] Any other comments? Committee?

[37:20] [Music]

[37:24] Yeah. Um, I'd like to speak in favor of

[37:26] adding more to the parkland acquisition

[37:29] reserve. Um this is not something that

[37:32] we would use this term, maybe not even

[37:34] next term. Uh but um it is for for the

[37:38] future. Um but it also signifies and

[37:42] signals that we are uh serious about

[37:46] conservation and and

[37:49] um canopied areas uh for preservation.

[37:54] Uh so uh I don't want to throw that off

[37:56] the table completely um because I I

[38:00] think it it signals that that this

[38:03] council is interested in in conservation

[38:06] in general and in and interested in

[38:10] helping out future generations towards

[38:12] this.

[38:17] [Music]

[38:19] Okay, good points. Any other com

[38:22] council? If I can through the chair ask

[38:24] Mr. Creek about the PILT that's the um

[38:26] payment in le of taxes we get from the

[38:28] federal government. We've got that

[38:31] what's called the PILT or it's called

[38:32] the revenue shortfall reserve and in the

[38:35] notes you mentioned Mary Hill but I

[38:37] think we also get PILT for section 95 25

[38:40] and 28

[38:42] um and those the income there would be

[38:45] lost in the future and I'm not sure um

[38:48] Mr. Creek, I know, you know, you've been

[38:50] looking at all the stuff and thank you

[38:51] so much for all of the work you're

[38:52] putting in. Um, but I wonder if we've

[38:55] modeled the estimated annual tax

[38:57] increase that we'll expect once we lose

[38:59] that income over different time periods.

[39:02] I don't know the work that was done for

[39:04] the RCMP reserve, but that idea of

[39:07] causing a gentle increase in taxes when

[39:09] we get a big hit, in this case, a loss

[39:11] of revenue. I think it might be

[39:13] worthwhile to um I don't know that we

[39:16] need to take action today on it, but I

[39:18] would certainly appreciate some idea of

[39:20] what what kind of money we've got there

[39:23] and how that might help us in the

[39:25] future. Is that something you might be

[39:26] able to take on

[39:29] through the chair? Um yeah, we should be

[39:32] able to do that. It's not a problem. Um,

[39:34] so when I was calculating everything was

[39:36] based on Mary Hill land itself and what

[39:40] we were collecting from them, uh, which

[39:42] was I think it was about $148,000 a

[39:46] year. And right now we've in that

[39:49] revenue shortfall reserve I think is

[39:52] just under half a million dollars or so.

[39:56] Um, which would equate to just over

[39:58] three years worth of revenue. So that

[40:01] that would be able to spread it over

[40:03] that amount of time. Um right now like

[40:06] projected in that 25 to 29 budget I'm

[40:09] showing that it starts basically

[40:11] disappears in 2028. Uh and then we're

[40:14] looking at it was about a 5% tax

[40:18] 5.26% tax increase for that year.

[40:21] Although um reviewing the numbers when I

[40:23] was talking to some other CFOs in the

[40:25] area, it's like I was we had a lower tax

[40:29] increase in the year prior. So it's

[40:31] probably going to smooth that out. We're

[40:33] year before was going to bump up from

[40:35] two and a half to 3.75 and then making

[40:38] 3.75 for that year then be three and a

[40:41] half the following year

[40:43] 2029. But I could I could come up with a

[40:46] little report for you and show a greater

[40:48] detail for you. Would that be okay with

[40:50] council if Mr. Creek did that? I think

[40:52] it would be help us understand that

[40:54] transition is a pretty important one.

[40:56] Yeah, good point. Well,

[40:59] then just for clarification uh through

[41:02] the chair uh to our CFO, do we receive

[41:05] Pilts on uh section 9525 and 28? I don't

[41:09] think we do. Do we do chair? I would

[41:11] have to check that final deduction what

[41:14] that land is like. Nothing striking me

[41:17] would be but I think it was just the DND

[41:20] or the former DND lands. Okay. But I I

[41:24] could stand corrected having to get some

[41:26] more information from Council Gray in

[41:28] regards to that land just to make sure

[41:30] we are collecting it on that if we

[41:31] aren't.

[41:36] Council Gray. Yeah, that was a question

[41:39] for me too just to find out and then

[41:41] build from there. the I wondered about

[41:44] um looking perhaps I'm jumping from the

[41:48] the reserves to the talk later but um we

[41:52] were looking forward to a roads

[41:53] management plan and I see the you know

[41:55] we've paid somebody for a roads

[41:56] management plan but we haven't seen it

[41:58] yet here and we've got a number of

[42:00] things on the schedule for next year

[42:04] um the uh Happy Valley Road to Leaffield

[42:07] Road and I think it's a paving there the

[42:09] Flesh Road bridge possibly the Neil

[42:12] cover c coververt replacements the next

[42:14] year and I'm just wondering um what

[42:17] comfort we can have as a council if we

[42:19] approve the proposal without having a

[42:22] plan whether or not we're covering off

[42:23] the most important um

[42:26] um road road repairs

[42:31] so through the chair um I know Chief

[42:35] Payet was

[42:37] arranging that uh the consultant who

[42:40] made up the asset management report to

[42:41] do a present presentation. Not too sure

[42:43] exactly what happened to it. Thought we

[42:45] were supposed to be going for that

[42:46] sometime in March here, but basically at

[42:49] the end of it, so I got to imagine

[42:50] they're going to be showing up in April

[42:51] to give you greater detail on exactly

[42:54] what was laid out. Um, and then him

[42:58] along with public work supervisor Mr.

[43:00] Watkins will be able to provide greater

[43:02] detail on it

[43:04] as them how much should we book and go

[43:07] from there.

[43:09] That's through the chair. I think that

[43:10] would be helpful to have that

[43:12] information in order that when we

[43:13] approve this financial plan, we actually

[43:16] have the meat behind it to understand

[43:17] it. I guess I'm also looking at the

[43:20] issue of the outy years and they're

[43:23] blank. um 2027 2028 um

[43:28] sorry page

[43:30] um there's some money for Culver

[43:33] placeholders you just said you know 50

[43:34] grand a year but I'm concerned that the

[43:37] find five-year financial plan be it be

[43:39] um how shall I say informed by the roads

[43:42] management plan uh that we get a look at

[43:44] so that we can we actually have an idea

[43:46] what's coming rather than zeros because

[43:49] I I expect there will be money spent

[43:51] every year on the roads

[43:54] through the chair. Uh so I put in a

[43:56] placeholder for the roads of half a

[43:58] million dollars a year um to to do going

[44:02] forward. And so with the culverts

[44:04] themselves, like discussing that with

[44:06] the public works supervisor, it was

[44:08] they're going to work on the culverts

[44:10] that were going to be on the roads that

[44:12] were going to be repaired in the

[44:13] following year. So they're going to do

[44:15] those, get them ready for the paving,

[44:18] and then kind of work through that for

[44:20] the next five years.

[44:22] It was more replaceers. I didn't get the

[44:24] actual names of each road for the next

[44:26] five years to put into the the financial

[44:29] plan itself through the chair. Thanks. I

[44:31] see that now that's the patching. Um but

[44:33] I guess no money for paving. At any

[44:36] rate, I think that it would be helpful

[44:38] to have that plan before we approve this

[44:44] [Music]

[44:46] plan. Councelor Shuken.

[44:50] So, um, thank you, Council Johnson

[44:53] through you. Um, so Council Gray is, um,

[44:57] asking for something that's fairly

[45:01] complicated in a way and will probably

[45:04] interfere with the time, not interfere,

[45:06] but it'll complicate your timelines to

[45:08] get this approved. Do you think that we

[45:11] can have that information and move ahead

[45:14] with the budget on schedule?

[45:18] through the

[45:19] chair. Top of my head, I I doubt it. No.

[45:23] Unless we have some special meetings uh

[45:26] come up in April and we actually get

[45:29] that consultant to show up in the next

[45:31] two weeks,

[45:32] then I don't see how that would fit.

[45:37] [Music]

[45:38] Our deputy corporate officer has a

[45:40] comment.

[45:42] Uh just through the chair, the

[45:44] consultant is scheduled, I believe, for

[45:46] the April 28th meeting. That would not

[45:49] give past enough time to to have the

[45:54] bylaws read and adopted. Okay. Okay.

[45:57] Thank you. So, I I I can see councelor

[46:00] Gray's point to a point, but one thing I

[46:04] just want to clarify though

[46:07] is we have a schedule, a depreciation

[46:10] schedule. we knock basically a million

[46:12] dollars off the um the operating budget

[46:14] and put it into capital for future

[46:17] projects. So there is some flexibility

[46:19] that we have if um in terms of building

[46:22] a new road uh road repair road

[46:26] resurfacing schedule as I understand it

[46:28] and I I guess my question is is that

[46:32] true like do we have some flexibility?

[46:35] Can we move ahead with um projects and

[46:37] if we see that they're not sound or fit

[46:39] within the plan we can adapt is through

[46:43] the chair. Yeah. Like so but we know

[46:44] what we're going to be doing in 2025. Uh

[46:47] and

[46:48] then we go through this process every

[46:50] year um thankfully or unthankfully. So

[46:54] all the projects for 26, 27, 28, 29, um

[46:58] you'll you'll end up seeing those come

[47:01] this November, December, January to

[47:03] approve those. Whether or not you want

[47:05] to do which roads just kind of like the

[47:07] the first time we brought these these

[47:08] roads up for 2025 was there's a list of

[47:12] six of them and we're like, "Okay, we

[47:14] don't need to do this one. We don't need

[47:15] to do that one. Let's put that one off

[47:17] for a year. Put that one off for a

[47:18] year." um you'll be able to do that

[47:21] fully for 26 27 28

[47:24] 29 but we we should really push forward

[47:27] with okay we know what we're doing for

[47:29] 2025 that one set the next four years

[47:32] totally understand well you want to know

[47:34] exactly what's going to be going into it

[47:36] but we've we've got some placeholders

[47:38] for the funding uh there is money

[47:40] available for those projects either

[47:42] through a gas tax our road reserve is

[47:45] quite adequate to fill in these minor

[47:48] projects 3.8 million. Uh so we've got

[47:50] plenty of money to do whatever does come

[47:52] up in the short term.

[47:58] Good. Thank you for that. And uh

[47:59] fortunately we do have some historical

[48:02] data to fall back on as well. As as much

[48:04] as we're trying to get away from, you

[48:06] know, that schedule, it still is history

[48:08] that is useful. And with the uh report

[48:11] coming up in the next month, that will

[48:14] all um help us uh go forward. Thank you

[48:18] for

[48:22] that. Okay. So, uh any other questions

[48:25] on this part of the

[48:27] budget? Okay.

[48:30] So, so the recommendation is that the

[48:33] committee receive the report of 2024

[48:36] reserve balances for information and

[48:38] that the committee recommend to council

[48:41] that the optimum levels of the following

[48:43] reserves be changed as follows. um and

[48:46] they are listed here. And that the

[48:49] following amounts be transferred to or

[48:51] from the specific reserves as stated in

[48:54] the chart below.

[48:58] Okay. No, I I would move those

[49:00] recommendations.

[49:01] Okay. Moved by councelor Shukin, second

[49:04] by councelor. All in favor? Carried.

[49:07] Thank

[49:10] you. All right. So, we'll go to page 19,

[49:14] staff report on the 202025 to 2029 draft

[49:18] 5-year financial plan. And Mr. Freak, if

[49:21] you could present that for us now.

[49:24] Thank you. Through the chair. Okay. So,

[49:27] this is

[49:28] um the 2025 2029 draft financial plan.

[49:33] After our meeting on February 11th, uh

[49:36] there's a few more items that came up

[49:37] and need to be changed. um part of those

[49:41] uh four is BC BC Hydro both said what

[49:44] their rates increases were going to be

[49:45] for 2025. Uh BC Hydro also added in

[49:49] 2026 and then uh because of the carbon

[49:52] tax being eliminated on April 1st. Uh I

[49:54] adjusted the fuel cost for the public

[49:56] works department and fire

[49:58] department didn't save us a whole lot of

[50:00] money but just a little bit. Uh, and

[50:03] then also since then,

[50:06] um, I guess based on what happened at

[50:08] the February 11th meeting, so the Ecom

[50:10] 911 costs, uh, council was good to say,

[50:14] let's use the reserve money that we

[50:15] saved in 2024, apply that against the

[50:18] next five years of EOP costs, $60,000 a

[50:21] year. We increased the budget for the

[50:24] youth parliament by $1,000 to support

[50:26] two youth attendees. Uh and then the

[50:29] Duke roadies trail parks and trail

[50:31] master plan. Both help with uh funding

[50:33] for the gas tax reserve. Uh the school

[50:36] capital budget, we increased that for

[50:37] $5,000 to replace the um accessibility

[50:40] door kind of near the front. It's a bit

[50:43] malfunctioning right now. Uh and then

[50:45] public work staffing was approved for an

[50:47] additional full-time

[50:49] employee. Uh we also received new uh 1%

[50:52] utility revenue projections from BC

[50:54] Hydro. Uh so that increase there to help

[50:57] us out a little bit

[50:58] [Music]

[50:59] more. Uh and then I had a bit of a

[51:02] payroll correction uh based on the wage

[51:04] that was being paid to the operations

[51:06] officer. Uh and so that ended up

[51:08] increasing that budget a little

[51:10] bit. Overall with all of those impacts

[51:14] uh being taking place, the total

[51:17] increase uh in taxes for the average

[51:19] residential taxpayer is estimated to be

[51:22] $56.29 a year.

[51:24] Uh that might change slightly when we

[51:27] get the final numbers from BC assessment

[51:29] uh on Monday, but it shouldn't be too

[51:32] big of a change. Uh now that does not

[51:34] include anybody else, BC Transit or CRD

[51:39] or possible school or anybody else but

[51:42] just the cost for us it'll be

[51:46] $5629. So about the average resident

[51:50] paid about $1,500 last

[51:52] year$1540 or just under

[51:57] $1,600. So any questions in regard to

[52:00] this

[52:05] gray through the chair, Mr. Creek, what

[52:08] would that end up being then? You know,

[52:10] folks are interested in the percentages.

[52:12] So the municipal tax without police and

[52:14] ecom, do you have a number for that?

[52:17] through the chair without police and

[52:19] ecom. Yeah, just

[52:22] oh I think it was like two point 2.73 or

[52:27] 2.37

[52:29] [Music]

[52:31] was 2.9 I think the police was 2.9 I

[52:34] think uh is it please 2.9% increase

[52:38] based on the

[52:40] police budget right like the overall

[52:43] increase sure is 3.65%

[52:45] 65%. So that's with ecom, police, and

[52:49] the district all wrapped up. 3.65 is the

[52:53] tax increase for the district. Correct.

[52:55] So it's um each one of those percentages

[52:59] uh cost the average residential taxpayer

[53:03] [Music]

[53:04] $14.33. So take the 3.65 times by

[53:09] $14.33 should come up to 569.

[53:14] Thank you.

[53:17] Not so sure. Can you have a comment?

[53:18] Yeah. Um through you. So, Mr. Creek, um

[53:23] thanks. That's a a wonderful number to

[53:25] hear, but I I just want to clarify that

[53:28] um I I thought we had discussed earlier

[53:31] like the average residential increase

[53:33] was about 5%. Am I and I think maybe

[53:36] that's missing from is it that includes

[53:39] Sorry, that number would include ecom.

[53:42] Am I taking or three chair? Correct. So

[53:45] that 5% that we were talking about

[53:46] before um after doing the final review

[53:50] on everything putting in the tax

[53:51] calculator like we got it down to this

[53:54] amount. Okay. My initial calculation

[53:56] wasn't including the non-market growth

[53:59] which helped out lowering that dollar

[54:02] value.

[54:03] Okay. So yeah went went from just over

[54:06] five to down

[54:09] 3.65. Wow.

[54:12] [Music]

[54:13] Wow. Sorry. Wow. Thank you. Sounds

[54:17] great.

[54:19] There's lots more to talk about, but on

[54:21] that

[54:22] point, we council made a decision not

[54:25] too long ago to say, "Let's not do ecom

[54:27] this year. We better soften the blow

[54:28] because the taxes be too high." Um, I

[54:32] oppose that. So, I can't um I don't

[54:34] think I'm permitted to ask to reconsider

[54:36] that, but I wonder if council would like

[54:38] to reconsider that that um decision. We

[54:41] were thinking that the tax rate was much

[54:43] higher at the time if it's 3.65. The

[54:46] point here being that everybody knows

[54:48] ecom costs are on us and

[54:51] um and uh we delay it. If we delay it,

[54:54] then we'll have to it's just deferring

[54:55] it. It's not it's not making it go away

[54:57] or anything like that. Um, and should we

[55:00] be deferring it if we have a such a low

[55:01] tax rate this year? A question for

[55:04] others to think of, but um, you know, my

[55:06] view on it would be to take it now and

[55:08] and deal with

[55:11] it. I'm thinking about the uncertainty

[55:14] out there, how costs are going to be

[55:15] rising, all the troubles we don't know

[55:17] are going to be happening to us. And my

[55:19] argument previously was, let's get it

[55:20] done. Um, so we've got money in the bank

[55:23] for what might be heady our way.

[55:30] Um, thank you, Councelor Donaldson. To

[55:33] to councelor Gray's point, um, yeah,

[55:36] sorry, I shouldn't be too exuberant. Um,

[55:40] the one thing I will say though is that

[55:42] we have had sizable increases over the

[55:45] last two years. And this is a delight to

[55:49] hear that it's low in upon like relative

[55:53] to the last two years. Uh I I think I

[55:56] want to give significant credit to Mr.

[55:58] Payet and Mr. Creek and um I I think we

[56:02] should continue with the course ahead

[56:04] using that reserve to offset E911. This

[56:07] is the kind of thing that that sometimes

[56:10] these reserves are used for is the

[56:11] surprises that come our way. So um I'm

[56:16] sort of uh supportive of maintaining

[56:19] course. So I just and I yeah that's

[56:22] subject to the rule of the table of

[56:24] course but okay councelor do you have

[56:26] any comments on this? Yeah I also agree

[56:28] with uh with the plan that we have right

[56:30] now continuing with that. Thank you Mel.

[56:36] Yeah I concur. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[56:39] you. Councelor Gray you have another

[56:41] comment? Sure. I wondered we have some

[56:44] pretty hefty increases um in in budgets

[56:47] and I wonder it's you know we didn't um

[56:50] have a good look at it but if we're down

[56:52] that low that means we've made some cuts

[56:54] and is there any way to summarize where

[56:57] we've made all the cuts to pay for the

[56:59] increases through the chair or is it

[57:02] simply going through the sheets and

[57:04] trying to figure it out

[57:06] [Music]

[57:07] through the chair

[57:08] um cuts there there are some Um there's

[57:13] had definitely some budget surpluses

[57:16] related to public works that got trimmed

[57:18] back even with the additional public

[57:21] works staff being added in there. Uh and

[57:23] then I would say a good chunk of this is

[57:26] coming from the revenue side. So the way

[57:28] that the pill was being budgeted for u

[57:31] was basically based on what you're

[57:33] collecting back in 2022

[57:35] um rather than what you're collecting in

[57:37] 23 or 24. uh well certainly what we're

[57:40] expecting in 2025. So that help bring

[57:44] down the tax increase uh where rather

[57:47] than just leaving it to a surplus at the

[57:49] end of the year now we're saying okay

[57:51] let's not have a not have a $100,000

[57:53] surplus coming from pills we use that to

[57:55] actually reduce our property taxes for

[57:57] the residents here rather than just

[58:00] storing it up in another surplus. So the

[58:02] surplus that we saw in

[58:04] 2024 not going to happen unless some

[58:10] some

[58:10] unknown thing happens that everybody

[58:13] stops working and we don't have to pay

[58:14] anybody. But going forward, we're not

[58:17] we're not going to see this 800,000

[58:19] again because one, the interest rates

[58:21] aren't going to be there. Two, the RCMP

[58:23] charges are going to be increasing. Uh

[58:25] three, basically gobbled up the built

[58:28] surplus. So those three things combined,

[58:31] it's like over $600,000 of that surplus.

[58:35] So it's

[58:38] by using that. So we're we didn't really

[58:41] cut a whole lot. It was more massaging

[58:44] the revenue to actually get to actuals

[58:46] rather than low budget. Thank you. And

[58:49] that's not dissimilar to last year when

[58:51] it was our investments had done so well

[58:52] and that's what kept our tax rate lower

[58:54] than it would have been otherwise. But I

[58:56] wonder then just hearing what you're

[58:58] saying this will be up the other thing

[59:00] will be up. The third thing will be up.

[59:01] Council I hope you heard that. So when

[59:03] the PILT you know kicks in we may have a

[59:05] lot other costs that we'll have to face

[59:06] now much higher tax rate.

[59:10] Council have you had a comment?

[59:12] Um yeah I think uh since Mr. Creek

[59:15] arrived. This is the first time the

[59:17] district has had a full-time

[59:20] financial person doing it. And I think

[59:23] uh you know I think it's it's made a lot

[59:25] of difference and just smoothed out

[59:27] things that have have been done

[59:29] differently in the past. And given the

[59:31] information that we've had through the

[59:33] budget process, which has been been very

[59:35] clear, I think that uh you know, we just

[59:38] need to go with it. Have some faith that

[59:40] Mr.

[59:40] that knows what he's doing and um and

[59:43] and allow this to proceed to the end.

[59:49] Thank you. And yeah, thank you. And and

[59:52] then I appreciate through the chair. I

[59:53] appreciate Mr. Creek's um vision for the

[59:56] future because I think this is a more

[59:58] honest way and this is just in my non um

[1:00:02] financial background um point of view. I

[1:00:05] think it's a more honest way of taxing

[1:00:08] that um taxing for what we need, not

[1:00:11] taxing hoping that we'll have a surplus

[1:00:13] and then we can spend on oneoffs. But

[1:00:15] that that always seemed very odd to me

[1:00:17] that we were we were taxing at one level

[1:00:20] and we knew we were going to have a

[1:00:22] surplus and then there were all these

[1:00:24] requests for one-time um uh expenses. I

[1:00:27] think it's better uh to do it this way.

[1:00:30] Um, and there obviously is areas where

[1:00:32] it's buffered so that we don't, you

[1:00:34] know, if we go a dollar over tea bags,

[1:00:36] it's it's uh accounted for in the

[1:00:39] budget, but I think this is a better way

[1:00:41] of going and and and uh Mr. Creek does

[1:00:45] have a handle on all of the budget

[1:00:48] items, and I trust him to to um manage

[1:00:52] it and and um shepherd us through this.

[1:00:54] Thank you. I have to agree it's um it's

[1:00:59] been helpful for our residents to

[1:01:00] understand as well and to have the

[1:01:02] report in real time. So thanks for that

[1:01:05] work thus

[1:01:07] far councelor Shukin. Yeah, we'll we'll

[1:01:10] very much echo what uh you've just said,

[1:01:12] councelor Donaldson and you may

[1:01:14] little councelor rap. Um one little

[1:01:18] point I just want to raise. Um we have

[1:01:21] had correspondence from the bills and

[1:01:23] wershed habitat protection association

[1:01:26] about their request for

[1:01:28] uh

[1:01:30] $2,100 and I don't want to lose sight of

[1:01:34] that

[1:01:36] um within this process. Um, and we we

[1:01:40] talked about it before, but I forget

[1:01:42] where where we ended up with. So, and

[1:01:46] sorry, minor matter of bigger scheme

[1:01:48] things, but don't want to lose sight of

[1:01:49] it.

[1:01:50] [Music]

[1:01:58] Yeah, I was a bit confused because in

[1:02:00] the past I remembered and maybe

[1:02:02] councelor EP would remember this, we had

[1:02:05] uh the Bilston Creek watering or uh

[1:02:08] water monitoring as a line item um in

[1:02:11] the past and um and uh I think that we

[1:02:15] should it's it's our creek. It's not

[1:02:17] just their creek. Uh I think it should

[1:02:19] be something that we should be uh

[1:02:22] providing every year. And so the ask

[1:02:24] this year is is 2150, right?

[1:02:28] Yes.

[1:02:29] Um there's a couple different parts to

[1:02:32] this. So in the past there was a

[1:02:34] monitoring program and I believe that

[1:02:36] was funds we actually paid LER to

[1:02:39] monitor that uh several terms ago has

[1:02:43] stopped. Um those boxes I think are

[1:02:45] still in place but they're not working.

[1:02:47] they're not in operation.

[1:02:49] Um, when we had the buffer lands, we

[1:02:51] also budgeted $20,000 for water quality

[1:02:54] testing. We've only spent 2,000 of that.

[1:02:57] I'm not sure where it's in the budget

[1:03:00] right now for that. And this question

[1:03:02] came up recently when I spoke with um

[1:03:06] members of of the Billston uh wershed

[1:03:09] group if um is there interest in doing

[1:03:12] water quality if we have that built in

[1:03:13] our budget that 18,000 from the past. So

[1:03:17] that's a question to Mr. Creek and then

[1:03:20] going forward. So that's water quality

[1:03:23] pre previously it's not been it's been

[1:03:25] water monitoring for flow two different

[1:03:27] things. So certainly not to lose sight

[1:03:29] of it, especially as we're getting

[1:03:32] heavier and heavier rains and there's

[1:03:34] more construction going on in the uh

[1:03:37] land swap

[1:03:38] properties, fewer trees daily.

[1:03:44] [Music]

[1:03:48] Yeah. So I think um just to remind

[1:03:50] people on December 5th of 2024 we talked

[1:03:52] about uh supporting the business habitat

[1:03:55] protection association with

[1:03:57] $2150 as a one-time expense with

[1:04:00] recommendation of um Mr. Creek and that

[1:04:03] was for water quality testing. So I

[1:04:05] think it may be already accounted for

[1:04:07] Mr. Creek's um numbers although we can

[1:04:09] hear from him but I'm noticing that

[1:04:12] today we have a different request an

[1:04:13] additional request and we're giving it

[1:04:15] at the table for

[1:04:19] another here someone else can shout it

[1:04:21] out 22 something dollars

[1:04:24] um oh no it's not clear here it's um um

[1:04:29] that the Bill wershed habitat protection

[1:04:30] association would like to put up some

[1:04:33] streamside identification signs about

[1:04:35] sensitive habitat the riparian Of

[1:04:38] course, um they can contribute $2,250,

[1:04:41] but I don't know if that tells us what

[1:04:43] they're looking for from us.

[1:04:47] [Music]

[1:04:50] Chair. Uh so, correct. Uh this sign is

[1:04:54] an extra ask that they have. Uh now, we

[1:04:57] have plenty of funding available to do

[1:04:59] that. Uh right now, there is

[1:05:02] $6,400 related to environmental planning

[1:05:05] uh that we have. We have the district

[1:05:07] hasn't used that in 2024 or 2023 uh in

[1:05:11] actually the funding from this year um

[1:05:14] in the reserves. We bumped that into the

[1:05:16] environmental reserve uh which now has

[1:05:18] over $50,000 in it. Uh so is planning on

[1:05:21] using that 6,400 this year to help pay

[1:05:23] for all these Bel Creek initiatives. Uh

[1:05:27] and then the 20,000 that councelor

[1:05:29] Donaldson mentioned. Uh yeah, we didn't

[1:05:31] use all of it. So we rolled over those

[1:05:33] funds for the next 5 years in order to

[1:05:35] pay for the mon.

[1:05:42] [Music]

[1:05:46] Okay. Any any more comments on this part

[1:05:50] of the So just in summary, we have

[1:05:55] allocated money for the water testing it

[1:05:57] sounds like.

[1:05:59] Good. Okay. And in terms of the signs,

[1:06:03] um, we're I it sounds like we're not we

[1:06:05] could do it, but we're not

[1:06:07] sure. We could do it, but we don't we're

[1:06:10] not able to action like a a specific

[1:06:12] proposal right now. Is it

[1:06:16] we do that, Mr. Chair? Yeah, you you

[1:06:18] totally could. Um, because right now

[1:06:20] there's nothing allocated under that

[1:06:22] 6,400 has to be what it would be used

[1:06:25] for. You can certainly say yes, we're

[1:06:27] going to use that funding that we have

[1:06:29] in the budget right now for building

[1:06:31] watered.

[1:06:32] Yeah. Can I

[1:06:36] um Well, I'm I'm I'm supportive of the

[1:06:39] signs and the watershed association. I I

[1:06:43] feel like we might be better to get a

[1:06:45] more specific proposal from them in

[1:06:47] terms of the actual amount of money that

[1:06:50] they're looking for.

[1:06:51] Um and and again even even a even even a

[1:06:55] a plan in terms of where the signs are

[1:06:57] going to go. I I see the map here for

[1:06:59] sure but how many and and what date um

[1:07:03] this has come to us just just recently.

[1:07:06] So I don't want to make I mean as again

[1:07:08] as supportive as I am I I don't want to

[1:07:10] make maybe a decision right at the table

[1:07:13] today again I sounds like yeah so okay

[1:07:18] so they have indicated that it's 15

[1:07:20] signs um it's not necessary that all of

[1:07:23] them need to be put up in one year uh so

[1:07:25] those are things to think about as well

[1:07:27] so we could take this away and have a

[1:07:31] further discussion about it Mr.

[1:07:34] through the chair. Thank you. Um, so I

[1:07:36] was talking to the person that was kind

[1:07:38] of pushing that initiative, forget her

[1:07:40] name. Apologies. Um, but she was

[1:07:43] wondering what the Telespars would cost.

[1:07:45] Um, they they were quoted a number. Um,

[1:07:47] but she knew that as a municipal

[1:07:50] government, we probably get a better

[1:07:51] deal on the Telespars to put the signs

[1:07:53] on. Uh, and so when I looked at our last

[1:07:56] invoice, which was in November, for

[1:07:58] Telespar posts, uh, we were paying 197

[1:08:00] for the post in the base that goes into

[1:08:02] it. Um, so we're looking at about $3,000

[1:08:05] for the posts and then another $800 for

[1:08:08] the sign. So it' be 3,800. So basically

[1:08:11] covering 65 70% of the cost with their

[1:08:15] contribution. The um they're looking at

[1:08:18] another

[1:08:19] 1,300,500 bucks on the district's part

[1:08:22] to contribute to that. The post might

[1:08:24] have gone up. Not too sure if they're

[1:08:26] part of the tariff deal because they're

[1:08:28] steel or but

[1:08:31] yeah,

[1:08:34] um I think I'd like to move that we

[1:08:36] allocate the

[1:08:38] $6400 to the Billston watershed habitat

[1:08:41] association for to be used for creek

[1:08:44] cleanups, water quality testing, and

[1:08:46] roadside stream identification

[1:08:49] signs. Do we have a seconder?

[1:08:53] Second by Mayor Little and

[1:08:56] discussion councelor Sh. Yeah and

[1:08:58] thanks. You know what Mr. Creek has

[1:09:00] reminded me of the um the partnerships

[1:09:02] that would be in place between the

[1:09:04] district and Billston wershed. So um

[1:09:06] yeah I'm willing to support this as

[1:09:08] well. Okay councelor Gray. Yeah, just to

[1:09:13] on the math.

[1:09:15] Um, so we we've got 21 uh

[1:09:19] 2150 that we talked about for water

[1:09:21] monitoring and $1,500 for um the signs.

[1:09:26] So that adds up to

[1:09:29] $3,650. And now we're talking about

[1:09:31] committing

[1:09:33] $6,400.

[1:09:34] Um, and I'm just not clear why we would

[1:09:37] do do that.

[1:09:45] uh councelor.

[1:09:47] Um well I just feel since we don't have

[1:09:49] the absolute specifics uh for everything

[1:09:51] I thought if that money is just

[1:09:53] allocated for that and then we can as

[1:09:56] the prices come in then it can be used

[1:09:59] and if it isn't all used then it'll just

[1:10:02] be rolled over to the next year or the

[1:10:05] next

[1:10:06] time. So we work with excuse me we work

[1:10:09] within the funds that we have allocated

[1:10:11] in the more so work within a budget

[1:10:17] council shin and the other thing we're

[1:10:19] working with too should be the plan that

[1:10:22] has been put forward here today with the

[1:10:24] science and uh stick within that. So,

[1:10:30] okay. Any other

[1:10:32] discussion? Councilor Gray,

[1:10:35] just so we're clear, the motion wasn't

[1:10:39] up to $6,400. It was $6,400. So, that's

[1:10:42] what the votes about.

[1:10:46] [Music]

[1:10:50] Mayor Little, um, Councelor F, would you

[1:10:53] mind amending that to up to $6,400? I

[1:10:56] think that's was your intent. Sure. Yep.

[1:11:00] And so that would be okay. Uh seconded

[1:11:02] by me.

[1:11:04] Okay. Any further

[1:11:08] discussion? Okay. So the motion has been

[1:11:10] amended by councelor EP and seconded by

[1:11:13] Mayor

[1:11:16] Little. Call the question. All in

[1:11:20] favor? Post by uh councelor Gray.

[1:11:26] Yeah. Is there there's no other motion?

[1:11:29] Yeah. Actually, so so we just voted on

[1:11:31] the amendment of the up to and then now

[1:11:34] vote on the main motion as amended.

[1:11:39] Point of order. Council,

[1:11:42] I wonder if you could explain that

[1:11:44] again. I think the motion was made and

[1:11:46] amendment was agreed across the table.

[1:11:48] We weren't voting on

[1:11:49] it. Or are we voting on an amendment?

[1:11:52] Then that should be clear.

[1:11:54] [Music]

[1:11:56] Sorry, I just I thought there was a

[1:11:57] friendly discussion between the mover

[1:11:58] and seconder. Okay, so we have an

[1:12:00] amendment which was to uh the motion was

[1:12:04] spent up to

[1:12:05] 6,400 seconded by correct seconded by

[1:12:09] coun u mayor

[1:12:11] little called the question. There was

[1:12:13] one opposition. Now I go back to the

[1:12:15] original motion which is can you help me

[1:12:18] out with this um co Hansen?

[1:12:21] [Music]

[1:12:27] If the intent was to um amend the

[1:12:32] motion, then the amendment is voted on

[1:12:36] first and then you move to the um main

[1:12:40] motion. However,

[1:12:44] um yeah, you have to decide whether that

[1:12:47] was an agreed upon amendment or just if

[1:12:51] you were just voting on voting on the

[1:12:53] amend amendment to the motion and then

[1:12:56] the main motion.

[1:12:58] Right. So, can you repeat what the main

[1:13:00] motion is then, please? So, the main

[1:13:03] motion the main motion was um that

[1:13:08] council allocate funding to recommend

[1:13:10] that council allocate funding in the

[1:13:13] amount of $6,400 to the Bilston

[1:13:16] watershed habitat protection association

[1:13:19] for the um water quality monitoring and

[1:13:24] signage. And the amendment was

[1:13:28] um to add the words up to

[1:13:32] $6,400. Okay. Thank you, Council. Maybe

[1:13:36] we should do the whole thing again. Vote

[1:13:38] on the amendments.

[1:13:40] [Music]

[1:13:42] Okay. So So the amendment was to uh

[1:13:48] um to budget up to

[1:13:52] $6,400. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And and we

[1:13:56] and I think it was moved by it was moved

[1:13:59] by councelor F and it was second by

[1:14:02] Mayor Little. We called the question and

[1:14:04] everyone's in favor with one opposition

[1:14:06] which was council. I was voting on a

[1:14:08] different

[1:14:09] motion the amendment. No, I was voting

[1:14:12] on I thought there was an agreement.

[1:14:14] Okay. So that the motion call the

[1:14:16] question then on the amendment. Thank

[1:14:17] you. So call the question. All in

[1:14:21] favor? Okay. That's all in favor. Now,

[1:14:23] we'll go back to the original. And the

[1:14:25] original motion by councelor F is that

[1:14:29] we will um budget

[1:14:32] for

[1:14:34] $6,400 up up to

[1:14:37] $6,400. Second by Mayor

[1:14:40] Little. Call the question. All in favor?

[1:14:44] Opposed? Councelor Gray closes the

[1:14:47] motion. Thank you.

[1:14:55] Okay. Next. Where are

[1:15:00] we? Okay.

[1:15:03] So, okay. So, we've now addressed, have

[1:15:07] we addressed fully um the correspondence

[1:15:10] we have in the package from Miss

[1:15:13] Neielson?

[1:15:15] Um

[1:15:17] yes. Co Hansen.

[1:15:21] Sorry, through the chair. Um, was

[1:15:24] there there was you were having

[1:15:26] discussions on the five-year financial

[1:15:28] plan and and so were you

[1:15:33] going to um sorry make that motion um

[1:15:37] the recommend recommended motion

[1:15:40] or were you still having discussions?

[1:15:42] You kind of balanced. Okay.

[1:15:45] [Music]

[1:15:46] committee. Is there any more discussion

[1:15:48] for or questions for um CFO Creek on the

[1:15:52] five-year

[1:15:57] [Music]

[1:15:59] plan? Councelor. Um, uh, I'll move the

[1:16:03] finance committee approve the 2025 to

[1:16:06] 2029 5-year financial plan as presented

[1:16:09] and direct staff to draft the 2025 to

[1:16:12] 2029 5-year financial plan and 2025

[1:16:15] property tax rate bylaws for

[1:16:17] consideration of the April 7th, 2025

[1:16:20] council meeting. Thank you, council.

[1:16:23] Seconded by Mayor Little.

[1:16:26] Questions? Council Gray, I had a

[1:16:29] question through the chair to Mr. Creek.

[1:16:32] I wondered if the

[1:16:34] um line item to do

[1:16:39] with it's called

[1:16:41] trail couple if that involves completing

[1:16:44] the We's Beach stairs. There's $40,000

[1:16:47] there

[1:16:52] through the sorry through the chair.

[1:16:56] Can you tell me which one you're looking

[1:16:57] at

[1:16:58] there? A bearing

[1:17:00] [Music]

[1:17:11] straight through the chair. It's in the

[1:17:13] capital um expenditures. It's called

[1:17:15] it's under the other about mint page. Um

[1:17:18] trails capital improvement.

[1:17:21] [Music]

[1:17:23] Um, that's $10,000 there. And then

[1:17:27] there's another $40,000 in a different

[1:17:30] location. Or you can Yeah, that is under

[1:17:33] the recreation budget. Recreation where

[1:17:37] came in at Well, there it is. 50,000

[1:17:40] bucks for trail development. So that

[1:17:42] $50,000 includes the 40,000 that for the

[1:17:46] parks trails master plan and the Duke

[1:17:48] road study. Uh so then we'd have 10,000

[1:17:52] there and 10,000 regular capital to be

[1:17:55] used towards the speech stairs prepare.

[1:17:58] So dro is 20 and the master plan is 20.

[1:18:02] Correct. And the we speech stairs then

[1:18:04] would be the remaining not that we would

[1:18:07] use it but yeah who

[1:18:10] and then there's another $10,000 then in

[1:18:12] capital expenditures. What would that be

[1:18:14] for

[1:18:18] under?

[1:18:20] Oh, whatever might be um like what

[1:18:23] whatever might come up and a type of

[1:18:25] repairs. Um any

[1:18:28] expansion I know public works keeps

[1:18:31] asking for using money to resurface. Uh

[1:18:34] there's a lot of trails that have been

[1:18:36] kind of overgrown that type of thing and

[1:18:38] it's now just a pile of mud. So they

[1:18:40] need money for gravel etc.

[1:18:45] Be sure that we don't lose touch of the

[1:18:47] we stairs. It may be that the solution

[1:18:48] at Wei's Beach is to naturalize it and

[1:18:50] remove some of the things that are there

[1:18:52] that might be at least expensive and

[1:18:54] most fruitful way to go, but having so

[1:18:58] many available so we could at least

[1:18:59] complete the one trail we've been

[1:19:00] working on might be a good idea.

[1:19:03] Councelor Shuken. Um, thank you

[1:19:05] councelor Gray. As I understand it,

[1:19:07] there has long been a trails capital

[1:19:11] amount in there also and I think this is

[1:19:14] just what it is. um maybe put in a

[1:19:17] different place than in the years past,

[1:19:18] but there's also um a

[1:19:23] $5,000 trails and maintenance amount,

[1:19:25] which I notice has been knocked down by

[1:19:27] $2,000. Um my my my friends on PAS may

[1:19:32] be going to be a little bit annoyed by

[1:19:34] that, but the reality is is we have not

[1:19:36] been using it all that often. Uh mainly

[1:19:39] because it's it's more uh volunteer

[1:19:42] muscle than anything. So I I just just

[1:19:44] again to the question of the 10,000 I

[1:19:46] think is the regular amount that we

[1:19:48] have. So you're you're quite correct and

[1:19:50] it's been 10,000 for many many years.

[1:19:52] Yeah. And it would go into things like

[1:19:54] right now we have identified that Helman

[1:19:57] Trail is got ruts because of all the

[1:19:59] water and stuff. So things like that

[1:20:02] maintenance of the trails.

[1:20:05] Very good. My my question was mostly

[1:20:07] about the we will we do we have the

[1:20:09] funds to complete the we beach trail and

[1:20:12] it looks like it's there. I was anxious

[1:20:14] that seeing it's picked off with other

[1:20:16] purposes we might not have the money

[1:20:18] which would be an unfortunate

[1:20:19] circumstance.

[1:20:22] Yes, good question. Thank you.

[1:20:25] Go ahead. Maybe I can um move along to a

[1:20:27] different question which is I suppose

[1:20:29] also a capital one. the um or it's in

[1:20:35] the discussion here about the

[1:20:39] U Flesh Road Bridge. We've got

[1:20:42] $142,000 in the budget for that, but

[1:20:46] council's all seen the numbers. It's

[1:20:47] quite possibly a lot more expensive than

[1:20:49] that. The CEO was anxious this happened

[1:20:51] this year. What do we do if the money is

[1:20:54] not there? Is it pulled from a reserve

[1:20:56] somewhere?

[1:20:59] Chair. Uh correct. it would if uh if the

[1:21:02] quotes on that kind of end up coming

[1:21:05] back significantly higher, but we were

[1:21:07] going to come back to council anyway

[1:21:08] because we got the quotes on it to find

[1:21:10] out what the final number was actually

[1:21:12] going to cost. Uh so then we'd actually

[1:21:14] get approval from everybody here. Uh

[1:21:16] anything over 142 would end up coming

[1:21:19] out of the general capital or the roads

[1:21:22] maintenance reserve or the gas tax

[1:21:24] reserve.

[1:21:25] any any of those would fit the bill for

[1:21:28] using the funds. Thank you,

[1:21:32] Mar. Yeah, thank you through the chair.

[1:21:35] I just had a question about the

[1:21:36] municipal hall roof replacement. Uh so

[1:21:39] that's subdivided over two years,

[1:21:41] 115,000 and 120,000 per year. Oh, I see.

[1:21:46] I just saw it. So one was 2024 and the

[1:21:49] 2025 is the 120,000

[1:21:52] third year. Correct. Yeah. So, it it um

[1:21:55] unfortunately we couldn't find anybody

[1:21:56] last year do it, but we had uh somebody

[1:21:58] out here yesterday or the day before

[1:22:02] actually come in to take a look and see

[1:22:03] what it's going to cost and what they

[1:22:05] can do for it. Uh so, we should be able

[1:22:07] to actually get that completed this

[1:22:08] year. Uh hoping for that budget of 120.

[1:22:11] We just added a little bit up just

[1:22:12] because of the extra year. So, add cost.

[1:22:16] So, I have a question with that, Mr.

[1:22:17] Creek. Are we also getting quotes on a

[1:22:20] tin roof as that's what most of our

[1:22:22] buildings are? because I understand that

[1:22:24] tim actually come down although I don't

[1:22:28] know if the tariff is going to affect

[1:22:29] any of it right now because we have

[1:22:31] stock on you know in Canada so who knows

[1:22:34] but are we looking at that as an option

[1:22:36] as well good question I would have to

[1:22:40] check with public works supervisor and

[1:22:42] chief on that one I don't know exactly

[1:22:46] what they were looking at and what

[1:22:47] options they were taking to consider

[1:22:50] certainly find out and get back to it it

[1:22:52] would be great for us to actually have a

[1:22:54] comparison that especially as we're

[1:22:55] doing fire smarting and stuff although I

[1:22:57] do understand that gerroid is also fire

[1:23:00] smart material. Thank you. Any other

[1:23:04] questions committee on

[1:23:06] this counc uh gray? Yeah, I wondered I

[1:23:10] saw in the budget an amount of $6,000

[1:23:13] for garbage bins in the village core but

[1:23:17] I went back to our minutes and we um

[1:23:19] never had a motion about that. So I

[1:23:21] wonder if that could be taken out of the

[1:23:26] budget through the chair.

[1:23:29] We may not have had a motion about that,

[1:23:31] but we do have sufficient funds within

[1:23:34] the uh uh building reserves. Actually,

[1:23:37] it's well over the the um I think even

[1:23:41] the maximum and the business community

[1:23:43] has been asking what's going to happen

[1:23:45] with the funds that they have been

[1:23:46] paying into. So, do we do we know if

[1:23:50] that's where maybe that money is coming

[1:23:51] from or is

[1:23:52] this like councelor Grace says, is it

[1:23:55] going to be in in the budget for the

[1:23:58] taxpayers to pay? So, through the chair,

[1:24:00] correct? So, that was that was by

[1:24:02] mistake. Uh I thought when we were

[1:24:04] discussing that originally uh when we

[1:24:06] were talking about all the other capital

[1:24:08] projects that was approved uh

[1:24:10] unfortunately there was there was no

[1:24:11] action taken on it. uh the money would

[1:24:14] come from the business development

[1:24:16] reserve which has over $50,000 in it. So

[1:24:20] if we remove it, it's not going to save

[1:24:22] us any money on the taxes or lower

[1:24:24] anything in that regard. But um if you

[1:24:27] want to move forward with it, we can. If

[1:24:29] we

[1:24:30] don't, no harm, no bail on that one.

[1:24:33] Okay. Thank you, Council Gray. Many of

[1:24:36] our discussions aren't about tax rates,

[1:24:38] but they're about the spending of the

[1:24:39] money that we have. Um this one, I think

[1:24:41] we talked about it. There's very little

[1:24:43] garbage in the in the village court.

[1:24:44] Anybody can walk over there and take a

[1:24:46] look. The businesses take care of their

[1:24:48] end of the deal. I would just suggest

[1:24:50] it's a spend that we don't it's not a

[1:24:52] necessary spend at the moment and we

[1:24:54] hashed it out and didn't make a motion

[1:24:55] the other day on that one. So, I was

[1:24:58] just saying it could come out of the

[1:24:59] budget and change the numbers a little

[1:25:00] bit for us. Mayor Little. Yeah, we had

[1:25:04] um uh significant correspondence last

[1:25:07] year and correspondence this year that

[1:25:09] there was garbage but that the business

[1:25:12] community was uh picking up the garbage

[1:25:14] themselves. Um and so it is claimed

[1:25:18] probably because of the the the

[1:25:20] stakeholders within the the village are

[1:25:22] are removing it. Um I I would like to

[1:25:24] see uh garbage cans there. I think that

[1:25:28] would be prudent.

[1:25:33] Did you want to make a motion to that

[1:25:34] effect so that it's affirmative? Sure.

[1:25:36] You have to remind me. Was it the 6,000?

[1:25:40] It was uh was two 6,000.

[1:25:44] Yeah. I I believe at the time it was it

[1:25:47] was done. It was some research that our

[1:25:49] CO had. I'll make a motion to spend up

[1:25:51] to $6,000 on the uh garbage cans for the

[1:25:55] village poor

[1:25:57] and to come out of the business reserve.

[1:25:59] to come out the business for reserve.

[1:26:00] Okay, I have a second for that motion

[1:26:08] for discussion. Okay, thank you.

[1:26:10] Discussion,

[1:26:14] council. Yeah. Uh, well, my concern with

[1:26:17] this is is not just getting the garbage

[1:26:20] cans, it's who's going to look after

[1:26:22] them. it's picking up the garbage

[1:26:24] because we know that if there are going

[1:26:26] to be garbage cans right out there where

[1:26:28] everybody can see considering the amount

[1:26:30] of junk that's piled up by the metal

[1:26:32] bin. Um I think the garbage that could

[1:26:34] just become a receptacle for the for the

[1:26:37] whole community to just start dumping

[1:26:39] their garbage. I mean they even put it

[1:26:41] beside the the lion's um box um by the

[1:26:45] by the former preschool. So it's uh you

[1:26:48] know it would be a concern to me. I

[1:26:49] think it's a good idea. I think if

[1:26:50] people if people were responsible that

[1:26:53] it would be a great thing to have there,

[1:26:54] but but I really hesitate to um you know

[1:26:58] to kind of go the route of the of the

[1:27:01] dog poop receptacles

[1:27:03] um to do that. I I just uh really don't

[1:27:06] know whether it's worth spending the

[1:27:07] money. Um it is in the business

[1:27:09] development fund if that's what they

[1:27:11] want, whether it's worth, you know,

[1:27:12] spending that money out of that fund um

[1:27:15] to as an experiment uh to see if it

[1:27:17] works or not. you know, maybe that's the

[1:27:19] best way to do

[1:27:21] it. And I, as I recall when we were

[1:27:24] discussing this, um, we had also talked

[1:27:27] about whether or not we contract a

[1:27:29] service to actually empty those those

[1:27:31] garbage bins. Um, and I'm not sure what

[1:27:33] the opening size is, how much garbage

[1:27:36] can be put in, but as council says, we

[1:27:39] do know people will leave garbage at the

[1:27:41] base of it. Uh, some of the problems

[1:27:43] that we had, it's not so much the

[1:27:44] ongoing garbage, it is when there's

[1:27:46] events. So, I'm wondering if maybe we

[1:27:49] invest then in garbage receptacles that

[1:27:52] when we have events, the district pulls

[1:27:54] the events out or not the events, the uh

[1:27:57] receptacles out um for the events so

[1:28:00] that uh perhaps the business district

[1:28:03] isn't having to clean up all those

[1:28:05] things that people leave behind when we

[1:28:07] have functions going on in the core.

[1:28:13] Similarly to what we do with Machos Day,

[1:28:16] we set up lots of garbage cans all over

[1:28:18] the property because we have mass

[1:28:20] amounts of people that are coming. So

[1:28:21] maybe this is um I'm not sure because I

[1:28:24] don't

[1:28:25] recall the letters that had come in if

[1:28:28] it was just for events or if it's an

[1:28:29] ongoing concern with with garbage, but

[1:28:33] that's another uh consideration that

[1:28:35] we're still providing a service when we

[1:28:38] have large amounts of people that that

[1:28:40] come. But again, we we need that

[1:28:42] community calendar to know what events

[1:28:43] are happening when, too.

[1:28:46] So, many different balls in the

[1:28:49] air. Council

[1:28:52] Gray, I guess I'm just concerned that

[1:28:55] this is a solution looking for a

[1:28:57] problem. Um, you don't see garbage

[1:29:01] around. Talk to the business owners.

[1:29:03] They're taking care of it. So, the

[1:29:05] country store takes care of it. The

[1:29:06] restaurant takes care of it. I'm not

[1:29:08] sure um the correspondence that we've

[1:29:10] got asking for garbage containers, but

[1:29:12] maybe it would be good for those that to

[1:29:13] come forward or us to ask the various

[1:29:15] business owners who haven't jumped at

[1:29:17] this. But I'm like you, Council

[1:29:20] Donaldson, Council EP, um household

[1:29:23] garbage will be headed that way and

[1:29:25] we'll have lots of issues to clean, but

[1:29:26] we'll have garbage downtown now. We

[1:29:28] don't have it now. I don't think we're a

[1:29:30] big city. I don't think we need some of

[1:29:31] these things at the moment.

[1:29:33] [Music]

[1:29:34] Mayor Little. Yeah. Thank you. Um the

[1:29:37] correspondence last year was the the

[1:29:39] owner of the the Machosen Business

[1:29:41] Center and she said that it wasn't

[1:29:43] special events. It was you know at the

[1:29:44] end of the weekend uh she was cleaning

[1:29:47] up garbage that wasn't related to her

[1:29:49] businesses that were renting in in her

[1:29:52] space. Um and I applaud all the business

[1:29:55] owners uh from the school to the cafe

[1:29:59] and the business center for for picking

[1:30:01] up other garbage that is not um their

[1:30:04] own. Uh but I think it would be a good

[1:30:07] service that we could provide as a

[1:30:09] municipality uh to the commercial

[1:30:11] businesses which are small in in

[1:30:14] Machosen.

[1:30:16] Yes. Well, we've we also know that

[1:30:17] people have um deposited their domestic

[1:30:20] um garbage even in the dumpsters behind

[1:30:23] the fire hall from time to time as well.

[1:30:24] I've seen it with my own eyes. So um

[1:30:27] Councelor Schukan,

[1:30:29] thank you. Thank you, Councelor Donson.

[1:30:30] I I have to confess to being nervous

[1:30:33] about moving ahead with this on two

[1:30:36] fronts. Um the first being what we may

[1:30:39] be ex what the potential is for garbage

[1:30:42] coming our way that isn't there now.

[1:30:44] Case in point is the metal bin. Um but

[1:30:47] also the um you know the

[1:30:50] cost. Great to have this pulled from

[1:30:52] reserve, but it's the ongoing

[1:30:54] operational maintenance costs as well

[1:30:56] that I that I'm nervous about. And I

[1:30:59] know this isn't dog poop per se, but the

[1:31:02] forecast for dealing with those two

[1:31:05] receptacles was um something in the

[1:31:07] order of $25,000 annually. So yeah, I'm

[1:31:11] I'm quite nervous about I I don't think

[1:31:13] household garbage is going to be the

[1:31:15] same thing, but it's another cost that

[1:31:17] we're going to incur that just right

[1:31:19] now. I don't know if we need to. Um

[1:31:23] yeah, so I I I I'm not in favor of this

[1:31:26] right now. Okay. Any further discussion?

[1:31:30] Okay, seeing none, I'll call the

[1:31:31] question. All in favor and

[1:31:37] oppos.

[1:31:39] Okay.

[1:31:41] Um,

[1:31:43] next, council gray. I wasn't expecting

[1:31:46] such a long discussion about that. Um

[1:31:49] the the other uh one that I see in the

[1:31:51] budget I wasn't certain of was a school

[1:31:54] leasing agent an increase from $5,000 to

[1:31:59] $11,500. And I seem to recall that

[1:32:01] we had otherwise discussed. We hadn't

[1:32:04] had a motion, but we were um doing away

[1:32:07] with the school leasing agent. So I

[1:32:09] wondered if I could ask Mr. Creek what

[1:32:10] the $1,500 is for

[1:32:14] to the chair. Thank you. Um, so I I

[1:32:16] actually removed the leasing agent in

[1:32:19] the first iteration of the budget. Uh,

[1:32:21] and then there is some push back

[1:32:23] regarding, well, we we're going to need

[1:32:24] somebody in there, so let's leave the

[1:32:26] budget amount in so we don't have to

[1:32:28] come back in four or five years and add

[1:32:31] some something in. Um, so that's why I

[1:32:33] put it in there in in this case it going

[1:32:36] from five to 16 what it was. Um the

[1:32:41] leasing agent was actually recorded in

[1:32:44] two lines in in the school there. Uh

[1:32:46] there was one

[1:32:48] under one

[1:32:51] [Music]

[1:32:53] second. You have a leasing agent under

[1:32:56] the school contracted services plus the

[1:32:58] line for leasing agent. Um so I just

[1:33:02] chopped off the leasing agent out of the

[1:33:05] school contracted services, moved it

[1:33:06] down into one line. So it's contracted

[1:33:09] services, you know, uh like rod and

[1:33:12] disposal, that type of thing. And then

[1:33:13] the leasing agents, that's their own

[1:33:14] separate line. It was it was a little

[1:33:16] cute confusing when I first found it.

[1:33:20] Thanks for the explanation. And I might

[1:33:23] have been part of the push back. I was

[1:33:24] just anxious that we get the place

[1:33:26] rented and commercial leases. So, thank

[1:33:28] you very much for that explanation.

[1:33:30] Another one I was curious about was the

[1:33:32] new or the additional $2,100 to the

[1:33:35] Peninsula Agricultural um um commission.

[1:33:40] I didn't recall a request for more money

[1:33:42] from them. And I think the current

[1:33:44] budget is about $1,500. So it's it's a

[1:33:46] big lift and I didn't know what that was

[1:33:47] about. Wondered if you might explain

[1:33:49] through the

[1:33:51] chair through the chair. Uh there's a

[1:33:54] bit of a change in that. I'm going to

[1:33:55] pass that over to the corporate officer.

[1:33:57] she's got a little bit more detail and

[1:33:59] knowledge on how that whole thing worked

[1:34:01] out

[1:34:04] through through the chair. Um so each

[1:34:08] year um the members of the pack which

[1:34:11] are central Sanich North Sanage

[1:34:15] um Sanich and Machosen pay an annual fee

[1:34:19] to pack. I think it might be around

[1:34:22] $1,000 or $1,200 per municipality. Um

[1:34:26] but Sanage has now stepped down from um

[1:34:31] providing support for pack and it's

[1:34:34] going to be rotating between the four

[1:34:36] member municipalities. North Sanich has

[1:34:39] now taken it on and they will also be

[1:34:42] invoicing the other three municipalities

[1:34:45] for the the costs incurred for the

[1:34:49] administrative support provided to um to

[1:34:53] the commission.

[1:34:56] Thank you.

[1:35:00] Thank you very much the deputy corporate

[1:35:02] officer through the chair. I'm wondering

[1:35:05] if today is not the day to talk about

[1:35:07] that but I would appreciate hearing back

[1:35:08] at some point from our own agriculture

[1:35:10] advisory subcommittee which is a

[1:35:12] volunteer group um to find out whether

[1:35:15] or not we're double paying by having a

[1:35:17] group in the peninsula working on the

[1:35:18] same topics. Um maybe when we if we are

[1:35:21] going to look at terms of reference of

[1:35:23] the committees, we can compare the two

[1:35:24] and see what the difference is between

[1:35:26] committees. I recognize one involves

[1:35:28] more people and more places but it's

[1:35:31] providing the same service here and it

[1:35:34] just brought to my attention I

[1:35:35] appreciate all the work that various

[1:35:37] people are doing but just the brought to

[1:35:39] my attention because of the cost

[1:35:40] increases

[1:35:42] 2.1 two $2100.

[1:35:46] M excuse me little yeah thank you. So

[1:35:49] the Peninsula Area Agricultural

[1:35:52] Commission is um um focused on advancing

[1:35:57] agricultural issues with in a regional

[1:36:00] context. So um they they provided uh for

[1:36:05] the workshop that you attended um and

[1:36:08] councelor Schukan and councelor EP and

[1:36:10] councelor Donaldson on the the um

[1:36:13] landfilling um dumping of of fill and

[1:36:16] lands. Um that is beyond the capacity of

[1:36:19] our our our our agriculture advisory

[1:36:23] select committee. Um, so they they look

[1:36:26] at more regional um um issues in

[1:36:30] supporting agriculture. I guess it is a

[1:36:32] little bit redundant because they're

[1:36:33] both talking about um about advancing

[1:36:37] agriculture and supporting agriculture,

[1:36:40] but one is regional and and ours is

[1:36:43] Mosen. Um the chair of the pack right

[1:36:46] now is Robin Toddcliffe from Mosen. Um,

[1:36:49] but I'm sure she'd be very happy to uh

[1:36:52] come back and report on specifically

[1:36:54] what PAC does. And actually um we

[1:36:57] actually as a a council even though we

[1:37:00] pay the fees of about 1,500 a year um we

[1:37:04] don't use them very much. So for

[1:37:05] instance, our agricultural plan could

[1:37:08] have gone to them uh for review and for

[1:37:10] comment but any other um issues uh we

[1:37:14] can always refer to um the pack because

[1:37:18] they have considerable expertise in all

[1:37:21] areas of of agriculture and in planning.

[1:37:26] Yeah. Yeah. I had the the privilege of

[1:37:28] attending one of the meetings this past

[1:37:30] fall and uh uh there's a lot of

[1:37:33] expertise at the table. some of the

[1:37:34] other things that they have done

[1:37:35] regionally which may be a little bit of

[1:37:38] overlap but actually it's

[1:37:39] all-encompassing as they've been

[1:37:41] supportive of the newly formed South

[1:37:43] Island

[1:37:45] um farmers institute which puts on a

[1:37:48] week long uh conference uh full day

[1:37:50] in-house conference but one where you

[1:37:53] get to tour farms and you can sign up

[1:37:55] for these different things. So, um an

[1:37:57] educational component that is um open to

[1:38:00] um anyone that's interested in

[1:38:03] agriculture. Uh in speaking with the the

[1:38:07] chair um earlier today um and having

[1:38:10] been um at a workshop on Tuesday where

[1:38:13] minister uh Lana PPA and our new um uh

[1:38:19] Emily uh Dana Dana Lejun Yeah. um out in

[1:38:24] Souk, there's a a large contingent of

[1:38:27] farmers in that area. So, I propose that

[1:38:30] perhaps PAC actually consider taking on

[1:38:33] um some

[1:38:36] uh maybe some membership out of uh going

[1:38:39] um west of us as well with Souk and the

[1:38:42] Wanuka Electoral District. So, I'll be

[1:38:44] talking to um our um uh government local

[1:38:49] government partners in that area as

[1:38:50] well. And certainly PAC is is interested

[1:38:52] in broadening the horizon. So it's

[1:38:55] unfortunate one we've lost one of our

[1:38:57] partners on the peninsula but there you

[1:38:59] know as we realize and more and more

[1:39:02] food security is is critical on the

[1:39:03] island. So there is an interest and

[1:39:05] there's a lot of passionate people out

[1:39:07] there.

[1:39:08] support and education and certainly um

[1:39:11] PAC could uh lease or we could lease as

[1:39:14] a a council with PAC more and certainly

[1:39:18] our um agriculture committee could too.

[1:39:20] So we have a longstanding relationship

[1:39:23] and yearly membership with

[1:39:27] [Music]

[1:39:28] them. So they're valuable.

[1:39:32] I'll ask and see if um if we can have

[1:39:34] chair come and give us a presentation on

[1:39:36] that on their history and all that they

[1:39:40] do. You have comment. Yeah. And so PAC

[1:39:43] has been around for 27 years and we have

[1:39:45] not hosted or or paid for any of the

[1:39:48] administrative costs uh over and above

[1:39:52] the the $1,500. So um I think probably

[1:39:56] uh they said, "Well, you know, we've

[1:39:58] hosted it for so long. How about some of

[1:40:00] you?" um uh step up to the plate and I

[1:40:03] think that's where the modest increase

[1:40:05] is.

[1:40:09] Okay. Any other comments on on the

[1:40:11] budget?

[1:40:14] I'd raised a question previously about

[1:40:16] the $5,000 for voting machines and I see

[1:40:19] the response from staff is related to

[1:40:20] the notion that we can get some um

[1:40:24] benefit in terms of staff time or it's

[1:40:26] difficult to find people to do that kind

[1:40:28] of work. Um, I just wanted to report I

[1:40:30] did hear from one member of the

[1:40:31] community, Neil West, who's um quite

[1:40:34] opposed to these machines from the

[1:40:35] thinking that they uh we do a good job

[1:40:38] of hand counting the accuracies there

[1:40:39] and some worries about um how well these

[1:40:42] machines work.

[1:40:44] Yeah, I believe the concern was the

[1:40:47] overtime that was required for staff to

[1:40:50] stay late and u making sure that

[1:40:52] counting was accurate and it wasn't just

[1:40:55] one person um counting ballots. There

[1:40:57] was quite a group of people and as I

[1:40:59] recall it was 2 a.m. when they finally

[1:41:02] finished.

[1:41:03] Council Shook. Yeah, thank you councelor

[1:41:06] Donaldson. I don't think it was that

[1:41:08] late but it was late and um I'm I'm in

[1:41:12] support of voting machines. I talked to

[1:41:14] a number of people who are part of that

[1:41:16] process and they describe it as

[1:41:19] exhausting and tedious and we have to

[1:41:24] keep an eye on the the number of people

[1:41:26] who are involved and again the quality

[1:41:29] of the people involved as well. We had a

[1:41:31] great team at the last the last vote.

[1:41:33] Um, but the one thing that's going to

[1:41:36] happen is if we don't

[1:41:37] have good system in place, whether it's

[1:41:40] the people or the machines, there's a

[1:41:43] potential of us paying even more if we

[1:41:45] don't get things right in terms of um

[1:41:48] time lags or legal challenges. So, yeah,

[1:41:51] I I'm supportive of maintaining the uh

[1:41:53] the budget for the for the vocations.

[1:41:55] And as I recall, Mr. Creek, you were

[1:41:57] going to check to see if we could do

[1:41:59] lease as opposed to purchase considering

[1:42:01] it's every four years. Correct. Uh

[1:42:04] through correct. Uh so it will be lease

[1:42:07] rather than purchase. Uh and the overall

[1:42:10] cost increase to the district was is

[1:42:12] going to be about

[1:42:14] $1,300 because the overtime that we had

[1:42:16] to pay to our staff along with all the

[1:42:19] accounting staff. Um and I don't know.

[1:42:23] So when well I worked in election coalks

[1:42:25] and that thing was you're trapped inside

[1:42:27] a building for 14 hours. So like trying

[1:42:29] to find was gets a little more difficult

[1:42:31] when you are paying them like not the

[1:42:34] greatest amount of money in the world

[1:42:35] but still it is still costly because the

[1:42:37] ex

[1:42:40] Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I've just been

[1:42:43] reminded we do have a server update at

[1:42:45] six o'clock tonight. So we need to um

[1:42:48] wrap up our discussion. Um do you have

[1:42:52] some questions? Yeah, I had some

[1:42:53] questions about the fire department. Um,

[1:42:55] kind of like the trails, which I love

[1:42:57] and and want to meet and so much

[1:42:59] appreciate the people working on it. I'd

[1:43:00] appreciate the people fire department as

[1:43:02] well, the staff and the volunteers. But

[1:43:03] I had some money questions.

[1:43:05] Um, we got a look at a summary of of um

[1:43:10] u pay um expenses from the fire chief

[1:43:14] and I noticed that

[1:43:17] um her expectation is that we'll spend

[1:43:20] $16,000 more than we have in our budget

[1:43:24] um for um fire allowances in honor area

[1:43:27] and I wondered how we might manage that.

[1:43:29] So that's a question through to to

[1:43:32] our CFO. I I guess it's really a

[1:43:35] question for the CEO, but he's not here

[1:43:36] today. So, Mr. K, if you're not able to

[1:43:39] answer, that's okay. It just we got a

[1:43:41] few questions that are maybe um for the

[1:43:45] CEO, but let's proceed anyway.

[1:43:48] Thank you. Through the chair. Uh so, the

[1:43:50] the way that ends up being covered, it's

[1:43:52] because of the financial plan and what

[1:43:54] uh council approves breaks down into

[1:43:56] general administration, protective

[1:43:57] services, uh that type of thing. We've

[1:44:00] the fire department's in protective

[1:44:02] services uh and the the extra 16 $17,000

[1:44:07] uh we just reduce the surplus coming

[1:44:09] from the protective services for the

[1:44:11] 2025

[1:44:12] year that that's how we end up being

[1:44:15] covered in the

[1:44:16] end. Thank you. So keep it within the

[1:44:19] departmental budget. Great. And um on

[1:44:24] the firefighter allowances, we we had um

[1:44:27] I think there's

[1:44:28] 66,300 proposed for firefighter

[1:44:30] allowance that was over spent in

[1:44:33] 2023. Again, it was overspent last year

[1:44:35] by

[1:44:36] $10,000. Um so I wondered if we can

[1:44:40] confirm that this resulted from an

[1:44:42] increase in calls and a change in the

[1:44:44] weekend stipen during the 2024 year from

[1:44:47] $50 to $100 a shift.

[1:44:51] And the reason I'm asking is I got one

[1:44:53] note from one staff saying, "Oh, yeah,

[1:44:55] that's um not in place yet." And another

[1:44:58] staff saying, "No, no, those are the

[1:44:59] current rates." Just get get it clear.

[1:45:01] Are we have did that change during the

[1:45:03] 2024 year?

[1:45:05] [Music]

[1:45:07] Sure. Uh so the the $100 for the weekend

[1:45:10] shifts, u what from what I gather is in

[1:45:13] the budget it was all $50 per shift. uh

[1:45:16] seemed like that did occur during 2024

[1:45:19] where it increased to $100 uh per shift

[1:45:22] for the weekend and still remain at $50

[1:45:24] for the majority of the time of the

[1:45:27] regular week. Thank you. Followup

[1:45:30] question then. Who other than council

[1:45:32] presumably during the budget process has

[1:45:34] the authority to authorize increases to

[1:45:36] stipen rates through the chair

[1:45:40] through chair. Uh so that basically

[1:45:42] comes down to the CEO uh going to

[1:45:45] approve what people end up getting paid

[1:45:47] uh and whether or not that will fit

[1:45:49] inside the budget for protective

[1:45:52] services or general administration or

[1:45:54] that type of thing. Um the hourly rates

[1:45:57] and that type of thing generally does

[1:45:59] not come back to council uh for

[1:46:01] approval.

[1:46:02] [Music]

[1:46:04] Thank you. And so that we made it

[1:46:07] through because that department um made

[1:46:10] it in

[1:46:11] um within their budget. So this was all

[1:46:14] a legal and undertaking that it sounds

[1:46:17] like. But this year we can't reverse

[1:46:19] that because we have people who are

[1:46:22] expecting that money. So the decision

[1:46:24] was made last year but it you can't can

[1:46:27] the budget happen without those the

[1:46:28] increase in that budget line this year I

[1:46:30] guess is my question.

[1:46:33] [Music]

[1:46:36] Chair could you repeat that? Didn't

[1:46:39] quite understand. Last year we spent

[1:46:41] $73,000 on this budget item. Um that's

[1:46:46] right. Sorry, maybe I may have jumped.

[1:46:49] Yes.

[1:46:50] Um yeah, I think so. Well, let me just

[1:46:53] find it here. Well, we're we're short of

[1:46:56] time, but just to say an increase was

[1:46:58] made last year, um mid year without

[1:47:01] council's review, and that was okay

[1:47:05] because it didn't exceed budget. No,

[1:47:07] it's coming to us this year because it

[1:47:09] will exceed the budget or can we manage

[1:47:10] with the same numbers this year as we

[1:47:12] did last year? Okay. Uh thank you chair.

[1:47:15] Yeah,

[1:47:17] we based on the number that we had uh

[1:47:20] and is projected uh it'll still fit

[1:47:22] within what we end up with a little bit

[1:47:25] of a surplus under protective services.

[1:47:27] Um that that

[1:47:30] number for those officers is still just

[1:47:33] an estimate based on calls. uh if

[1:47:35] there's fewer calls, won't end up

[1:47:37] spending that much. If they're if they

[1:47:39] end up having even more calls, uh that

[1:47:41] number will be even higher. So, we'll

[1:47:44] see where we're at kind mid year and

[1:47:47] then possibly come back to say, hey,

[1:47:50] we're we're on track to go way over

[1:47:53] budget. Then we could come back and say

[1:47:55] we need a financial plan just depending

[1:47:57] on how every other account is looking.

[1:48:00] Thank you. That sounds like a good idea.

[1:48:02] I think last year, Mr. Payet our CEO

[1:48:05] said that we would be getting was it

[1:48:06] quarterly reports and how the finances

[1:48:08] were going because of these ups and

[1:48:10] downs and we weren't able to pull it off

[1:48:13] this year but that would be a great idea

[1:48:15] through the chair to Mr. Creek if we did

[1:48:16] have sort of a regular look to see that

[1:48:18] we don't

[1:48:19] overshoot. Um I had a kind of a similar

[1:48:22] question about the fire prevention

[1:48:23] officer. It was mentioned by someone in

[1:48:25] the audience. What who has the authority

[1:48:27] to authorize a pay rate higher than that

[1:48:28] rate approved by council?

[1:48:31] [Music]

[1:48:34] through the chair.

[1:48:36] So through the chair, I believe that

[1:48:38] would have to come from the

[1:48:41] CEO, but I could be mistaken on that.

[1:48:44] I'll have to confirm. Thank you. When

[1:48:46] they're

[1:48:50] back and then I just had the question of

[1:48:53] um the fire

[1:48:55] honorariums again. I so much appreciate

[1:48:57] all the work people are doing, but these

[1:48:58] financial questions need to be sorted in

[1:49:00] terms of clarity for to know. Last year,

[1:49:04] I understood we'd authorized a change in

[1:49:06] payments for duty officer hours and we

[1:49:08] bought a

[1:49:09] package. This year, we see a

[1:49:12] 7070% increase in that budget line. And

[1:49:15] I wondered if what the explanation was.

[1:49:18] I think it has to do with hiring

[1:49:20] additional people to do the job that we

[1:49:22] thought last year was covered by the

[1:49:23] compensation scheme that we had

[1:49:25] approved.

[1:49:27] through the chair. through the chair.

[1:49:29] Uh, correct. So, it was they're adding

[1:49:31] additional officers or aiming to have

[1:49:34] additional officers. U recent

[1:49:35] conversation with the chief showed that

[1:49:38] like we're going to have an extra one

[1:49:40] for a little bit and then we're going to

[1:49:41] end up losing a few through the year.

[1:49:43] So, that budget amount is unlikely to be

[1:49:47] met in 2025.

[1:49:49] [Music]

[1:49:51] Thank you.

[1:49:54] Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Greek

[1:49:56] while we have them here? Mayor Little.

[1:49:59] Yeah. Um, thank you. I'd like to move

[1:50:01] that the finance committee approved the

[1:50:02] 2025 2029 FIN 5-year financial plan as

[1:50:06] presented and direct staff to draft the

[1:50:09] 2025 2029 fin-year financial plan and

[1:50:13] 2025 property tax rate bylaws for

[1:50:16] consideration at the April 7th, 2025

[1:50:19] council meeting.

[1:50:22] I already moved that. Oh, sorry. Did

[1:50:26] you seconded it? Okay. And we're having

[1:50:29] discussion. That's a long time ago.

[1:50:31] Okay. So perhaps

[1:50:34] the Oh, no. Sorry, that almost exceeded

[1:50:37] my memory too discussion. So far, yeah,

[1:50:41] counc. Yeah. I guess the other question

[1:50:45] I had which I posed earlier was this

[1:50:47] idea of um adding 1% to the budget to

[1:50:52] start building up our reserves as

[1:50:54] recommended by our CFO. There were two

[1:50:56] choices in future. We go on jet debt or

[1:50:59] we um we put a little bit of money in

[1:51:02] this year. We can do that additional to

[1:51:04] the money we have already on the table

[1:51:07] uh in terms of taxes and or we could

[1:51:09] decrease some items in our budget to

[1:51:11] make way for that. And I rather than

[1:51:14] making a motion, I'm just interested if

[1:51:15] people have any appetite for that. I'm

[1:51:17] certainly keen on doing it because now

[1:51:19] I'm seeing the tax rate is much lower

[1:51:20] than we'd anticipated. But is that okay

[1:51:23] if we could just ask the group what

[1:51:25] they're thinking?

[1:51:27] Sure. So we're in discussion right now.

[1:51:29] Council, your thoughts on that? Um

[1:51:32] Councelor Donaldson, I would just call

[1:51:34] Prius question. I think we should vote

[1:51:36] on the motion.

[1:51:38] Yeah. What I'm asking about is not so

[1:51:40] much um voting on the motion, but this

[1:51:42] will be amendment to the motion. Um I

[1:51:44] can make maybe I'll just make the

[1:51:45] amendment or move the amendment if you'd

[1:51:48] like. I just was So, I'll make a motion

[1:51:51] that we um add an additional 1% to the

[1:51:54] tax

[1:51:55] um rate in order to build up our asset

[1:52:00] replacements reserves. Motion by

[1:52:03] councelor um Gray. Uh do I have a second

[1:52:06] for that amendment?

[1:52:12] There's no second. So, that doesn't

[1:52:16] pass. Um, so I'll call the question if

[1:52:18] there's any other discussion on on this

[1:52:21] uh

[1:52:22] motion. I'll call the question then. All

[1:52:24] in favor and opposed. Uh opposed by

[1:52:30] councelor

[1:52:31] [Music]

[1:52:33] Gray.

[1:52:36] Okay. All right. So, um we are out of

[1:52:39] time. So, unfortunately, we don't have

[1:52:41] time for public input.

[1:52:43] Um, so I would like

[1:52:45] [Music]

[1:52:47] to ask for agreement. Sorry, go ahead.

[1:52:51] Um, we have correspondence maybe just to

[1:52:54] receive that and there's nothing about

[1:52:55] another public participation session. So

[1:52:58] we're we are sticking to the agenda. So

[1:53:01] oh, sorry. Okay. Sorry.

[1:53:05] Yeah, we we're out of time because our

[1:53:07] servers are going to stop in a minute.

[1:53:11] I move receipt of the be correspondence

[1:53:13] from the Wilson wershed association.

[1:53:14] Yes. And also uh Miss Shuken with her

[1:53:17] letter as well um commenting on our

[1:53:20] budget today. Okay. So um so uh call we

[1:53:26] have we have a mover to adjurnn and a

[1:53:29] seconder. Mayor little um you should do

[1:53:32] the receipt of correspondence first. Of

[1:53:35] course we should. Yeah.

[1:53:38] Okay. So,

[1:53:40] uh, motion to receive the

[1:53:42] correspondence.

[1:53:43] Moved by councelor Jukin. Uh, second by

[1:53:47] Mayor Little. All in favor? Carried.

[1:53:49] And, uh, move for adjournment. Moved by

[1:53:52] councelor

[1:53:53] Zukan. Seconded by Mayor Little. All in

[1:53:55] favor? Carrie. Thank you very much for

[1:53:57] your patience.

[1:54:07] [Music]

[1:54:13] Okay.

Special Finance Committee Budget Meeting - 27 Mar 2025

Transcript