Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the
special finance committee meeting of
March 27th,
2025. I acknowledge that this meeting is
taking place on the traditional
territory of the Shanu and South First
Nations. The district chosen is
committed to reconciliation with
indigenous peoples and we recognize,
honor, and respect the pres presence of
indigenous peoples past, present, and
future.
Please be sure to have your cell phones
turned off during the
[Music]
meeting. Committee, we have an agenda
before you. We have a pink to add
through in our correspondent section. Is
there any other additions or changes?
Okay. Okay. Move adoption. Thank you.
Moved by councelor Gray, second by Mayor
Little. All in favor? Carried. Thank
you. And public participation. Please
note all comments made during public
participation will be heard by the
finance committee and taken into
consideration. If you'd like to have a
chance at the mic, please step forward,
state your name. Turn on the little
button till the red light comes on.
There you are. And there is a timer as
well. The green light is go. The yellow
light is 30 seconds coming and red is
stop. Go ahead. You have four minutes.
I see in the financial plan an allowance
for $500,000 has been made for the
purchase of a replacement fire truck.
With the recent announcement regarding
tariffs, such a purchase may be beyond
reach for maturity. I certainly hope so.
For one of the things that bothers me is
why government and many non-governmental
organizations are being driven to spend
and upgrade to satisfy underwriter and
insurance
companies. And in Thank you.
and incredibly insidious results of
these imposed mandate standards, often
without any justification other than
that they cover somebody else's
um insurance or organizational standards
and requests for uh quest for
perfection. Many of these insurance and
test best practice programs may be fine
for municipalities with the resources to
adopt and follow them.
But the onesizefits-all practice
approach
uh presents a huge problem for the
lesser
endowed. Hence, we see Sanage, I believe
it was Sanage, giving away a perfectly
good fire truck in the last couple weeks
to a community that needs one but
clearly is not even attempting to follow
the insurance and underwriter
specifications.
Liability is often thrown back as a
default reaction when you asked to
respond to why we are following some of
the insurance
guidelines. But I do wonder how serious
the liability issue is. When was the
last time that any fire department
anywhere suffered a liability issue
based on the use of an older firet truck
that no longer met the requirements of
the insurance industry.
I have a couple other just quick points
in the U text that were given us. What
is this about an operations officer in
the fire
department? And when the union
negotiations are completed, how will
that big
uh some including retroactive payments
be handled by the budget? Thank you very
much.
[Music]
Nicole Shukin, the Leon Road resident.
Sorry, I just took a cough drop, so I
just have to swallow that.
Um, yeah, I submitted a letter to this
committee and so I don't want to go over
that, but I did in that letter just
reflect a little bit on the remarkable
history and spirit of Mosen's public
trail network and suggested that it's
the last thing that should be targeted
um by or for austerity. And I use the
word austerity instead of affordability
because to my mind affordability rests
on an actual economic rationale for not
publicly investing in a in a good trail
network or active transportation
infrastructure. Whereas austerity is a
political agenda and it's a choice or a
decision to not spend on certain
community goods or assets. Um so yeah, I
just um hope that the committee will
look at this remarkable public trail
network through the lens of climate
rather than austerity. And I suggest
that the um priority actions in the
climate action plan which include
improving the active transportation
network could be a really good lens to
look through. But just for now, I want
to talk to two different budgetary
matters that also pertain to the climate
action plan and priorities. And the
first has to do with the hefty
$800,000 surplus that council will be
discussing this afternoon. and um
putting this big surplus back into
general reserves makes a lot of sense.
But I think that there might be a case
for um putting a portion of the surplus
into one reserve in particular and that
is the parkland acquisition fund. And
again I think the rationale for this
comes in our climate action plan which
states as a priority action if I can
quote may not be able to quote but it
does in fact
identify land acquisition for habitat
protection as a priority action and
currently the the parkland acquisition
fund is one of the the lowest or the
smallest reserves that we have. I think
there's only $200,000 or so dollars in
that fund, whereas most of our other
reserves, as Mr. Creek's excellent
overview of the reserve balances show,
are are really healthy. So, I would love
to see that acquisition fund topped up
to half a million in our South Vancouver
Island real estate market. There's no
way you can do anything with
$200,000. But if we grew that fund, we
could actually make a difference. Um,
and then the last point I wanted to make
was just around a a much smaller
budgetary item, and it appeared on a
budget line way back under recreation
and it involves the allocation of $5,000
to the community hall to Machosen
Community Hall. And as you can tell from
my letter, I am a huge supporter of
public investment in common goods. And I
think the community hall is a amazing
asset. So I support tax dollars going
towards the hall. But one thing I wonder
is whether it might make sense to
earmark that tax those tax dollars for
supporting the hall towards energy
transition or energy retrofitting so
that it can get off diesel heating and
onto a heat pump. So I don't know if
that's a possibility or not, but it
would sure help the owners of the hall
and would also align with our climate
action plan. Thank you.
Thank you,
Patty Williams, Park Drive. I want to
thank our CFO for the overview of our
reserve balances as well as for
attaching the reserves and surplus
policy to the staff report. It was
really helpful for me to understand the
funding and how it can be used in our
community. I think everyone should read
this policy and understand the process
and allocation of these funds. At the
February 11th meeting, the finance
committee approved funding for the Duke
Roadies Trail and for the parks and
trails master plan. Both projects
received funding from the gas tax
reserve, which is now called the
community building fund, which is a
renewable fund provided annually by the
province and meets the active
transportation criteria.
I also want to thank all of you for the
wonderful um opportunity to come to the
open house and get a better
understanding of where tax dollars are
spent. Um it was really interesting to
me to see the pie chart where three
times the amount of our tax dollars go
to BC transit versus
hospitals. I was stunned to see that.
And I think we should be asking for
better bus service. I had originally
written down we're an aging population,
but I got to speak just for myself. I'm
getting old. I would love to be able to
take transit from our community to other
places. And I realize that active
transportation is defined as
humanpowered, but why not address this
option in our active transportation
project that is being done by urban
systems. Thank you.
[Music]
Hi, Beth Bacon. I'm a chosen resident.
Um, I wanted I'm just a real big
advocate of trails, so I wanted to talk
about roadside trails in particular and
uh the use of the active transportation
funding for that.
Um it seems to be with some people a
confusion about um if we make these
trails it's going to increase our taxes.
And I'd just like council to clarify as
much as you can that uh that's not a
connection. That's not a correct
connection that we have funding from
elsewhere for active transportation and
it's not raising the taxes. I have a
long history with advocating for trails
as an equestrian and a lot of our trails
were made by volunteers and we still and
you know for example Machosen Park um no
machines went in there. The horse people
did that and they they dragged the
covert in by horse. We still have access
to fantastic volunteers who can both do
planning and physical work and um and
donate uh time with machinery when
machinery is needed. So I the financial
thing I'd like that out of the equation
and then let's see what boxes we check
for having roadside trails. We've got
health and fitness. We've got safety.
We've got reus reduced vehicle use.
That's part of our climate action
plan. We've got our contribution to our
neighbors. Uh if we're going to stay
rural, we providing them with recreation
space. Um and that's an obligation that
I think we have um for the to
accommodate the people with higher
density neighbor neighborhoods.
Um people are saying the cost of living
is top of mind for them. If they can
walk or cycle to do their errands uh or
um go to work, they're saving money and
that's going to be appreciated by
all. So I'm talking here more about
roadside trails because I think that's
what fits best with the act of
transportation.
I would go on and on about the other
interior
trails and gee I'd almost given up on
saying why don't we have anything in our
land acquisition budget until Nicole
brought it up. I talked about that for
years and years and years and that fund
never grew. And here I I think you're
all in support of us getting a corridor
for um biodiversity and
and what's what's our contribution? It's
we get something from the province, we
may get federal money, we may get uh
money from nonprofits, but I think
Machosen should have something to kick
in as well. So I would strongly support
the idea of growing that fund. Thank
you.
Thank
you. Okay. Um Gary Lamb, 860 Hackmore
Drive. Um what I wanted to uh speak to
is the
uh the budget figures having gone
through the 20
2024 to 2029 budget and then the
actual to uh budget for
2024 and then carrying that over to the
25 29 budget.
Um there appears to be some areas where
the the numbers are soft and and by that
I
mean they
don't provide a clear picture of what uh
they in fact entail.
Um and just
uh one other uh point is the reserves.
There's a a range that's outlined in the
documentation on the reserves. A minimum
level of 2.9 million to an optimum level
of 10.1 million which gives a difference
of uh
72
million which is a big number. So it it
raises the question well what is it that
we feel we need because we've said a
minimum requirement is the two but yet
we say the optimum is
10 and then the the other thing and and
you know in regards to previous speakers
I I think it's going to be imperative
upon um ultimate council uh to decide
what the the priorities are given our
limited tax base in the chosen um you
know there's a number of things that are
on the books or pending the fire hall um
road maintenance school
um we've have the Lumbard site that has
to be ultimately determined how we move
forward with that um Duke Road East uh
Village center, flesh road, bridge, all
of those things um ultimately uh will
require money depending what decision
council makes. So that being said, it's
going to be critical that um there be
sufficient information for people to
clearly understand how it is that
council u feels that they will move
forward with this. Thank you. Thank you.
[Music]
So, I'm Allison Luk. I'm a chosen
resident and I wasn't intending to speak
today, but I would speak in in favor of
uh if you're going to be putting money
into reserves, the parkland acquisition.
Um, I just see from my work with the
Bilston group, we are losing
biodiversity and
uh, we're just losing ground all the
time. And so, even though it's something
that I think everybody probably supports
maybe in the
future, I feel like we're running out of
time. So, if we can put money in and
acquire
uh, anything like for the Wilston
Corridor um, work with the Mosen
Foundation, that sort of thing, I would
sure support that. Thank you.
Thank you.
[Music]
Uh good afternoon, council, fellow
residents. Darren Brown, Graceland. I
want to speak today about the importance
of fiscal responsibility, community
values, and transparency, especially as
it relates to the use of our limited
funds like the gas tax, now known as the
Canadian, the Canada Community Building
Fund. So there's only one
taxpayer. Thought through a little um
illustration of how I can describe it to
you. Right. So I pay out of municipal
taxes out of this pocket. Federal taxes
out of this pocket and provincial taxes.
Oh, I do have one more out of this
pocket back here. There is one
taxpayer. Let's not pretend there's
three or
more. It's all of us. And every time we
spend from a finite fund like the gas
tax, we're making a choice. A choice
that affects what we can no longer
afford somewhere else. Those dollars
don't replenish on demand and they were
never meant to be a bottomless well for
pet projects.
They were designed for core
infrastructure things like clean water,
wastewater system, roads, disaster
mitigation, fireh
hall, not just beautifification or trail
expansions. Now, I respect that everyone
is entitled to their opinion. In fact, I
deeply value a diversity of opinion. But
I do think it's important for the public
to know that the letter submitted by
Nicole Schukan in our supplemental
agenda today was written by the spouse
of councelor Schukan who is the liaison
to the parks and trails committee. Can I
point of order for a second? Why does
that matter? Um Mr. Brown because the
committee has brought Excuse me, Mr.
Brown. Mr. Brown is accusing making an
accusation of something that is
unsubstantiated. I I'm I I'm sorry. I
just I can't let that go right now.
What's the accusation? It's very wrong.
Apologies if you're not. It's sorry.
It's absolutely wrong that I had written
that letter. So, I did not say that. I
said it was written by written by the
spouse of councelor Schukan who is the
liazison to the parks and trails
committee. I think the exact words were
were written by councelor Schukan. If
I'm if I'm Did I Okay. Oh, I'm
sorry. I I missed hearing the word
spouse. It was not written by me but
thank you very
[Music]
now why does that matter
Mr. round. Can you just focus on the
issue and absolutely I'd be happy to
explain why that matters. What? Because
the committee has brought forward some
very spendy ideas increasing their
budget by a staggering 50%. And while
some of these might be well-intentioned,
we have to ask is it fair or fiscally
responsible to push forward significant
funding towards one area like phase one
of phase three of two road east trail
while other critical infrastructure is
left wanting. This is not about personal
attacks. This is about good
governance. When someone closely
connected to a counselor makes a public
appeal that supports that counselor's
portfolio, we must at least acknowledge
it. It at least acknowledge the optics
if not the conflict because transparency
actually
matters. And let's be honest, fiscal
responsibility isn't about saying no to
everything. It's about making choices
that align with the broad community
needs, not just the loudest voices, but
the most politically connected ones. So,
we need to prioritize infrastructure
that serves the greatest number of
people. It includes roads,
communications, clean water, the
basics. And I say this with full respect
to our parks and trails system, which I
love. But they are not more important
than keeping the lights on, the roads
safe, or our old school water based
water systems functional. So, let's
remember that spending is not neutral.
Every dollar spent on one thing is a
dollar that's not available for another.
And the only people footing the bill are
us, the taxpayers, the residents. So I
urge this council and this finance
committee to be cautious, to be fair,
and to resist the pull of single
interest priorities that don't reflect
the whole of Machosen's needs. Thank you
very much, Mr. Brown. Thank you,
[Music]
Councelor Johnson. I I I will apologize
again for interrupting Mr. Brown and and
this table. I I I didn't hear the word
spouse. So, apologies. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Shuken. May I speak again since
I was implicated in has everyone else
had a chance to speak for the first
time? Now is the time and then Miss
Shukin can speak the second time.
Go ahead. Thank you. Yes. No, I also
heard Mr. Brown say uh written by the
spouse, so that was accurate. However,
that doesn't make it any less
problematic. sposes of council members
are also independent citizens. Because
one is married does not mean one is
wedded in the head and we should not be
disenfranchised of elected
representatives from exercising our
rights as citizens and our ability to
speak. That would be medieval thinking
frankly where married women aren't
allowed to speak because a spouse is on
council. I also want to just touch on
what Mr. Brown said about there being
one one taxpayer. I also think that's a
real simplification of the tax system
because when we pay money from this
pocket into provincial
taxes, when we win that money back
through a fund like councelor F was
awarded, we're winning back the tax
dollars we spent so that they can be
used for the benefit of our community.
So rather than that being a loss, I see
that as a gain where we've in fact won
back provincial tax dollars to serve
Machosen. Also those tax dollars are
distributed across a huge population. So
when we pay into provincial taxes, it's
very different than when we pay our
local taxes. When we win money back from
the province, we're winning money back
from the entire population of BC that
pays into provincial taxes ditto with
with federal money. So I think it is a
real simplistic way of thinking to say
that there's only one taxpayer. Thank
you. Thank
you. Okay.
Turn my mic off. Go on to the next part
of our agenda. Do we all get a chance to
do two speeches?
No, it's fine. Thanks.
[Music]
The
next is
[Music]
All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council.
uh through the chair. I'll start off by
saying thank you for all the kind words
everybody uh throughout all the
meetings. Um I didn't do that first
number of times people thank me for the
work done but I do appreciate it. Um oh
nothing now. All right. Sorry about
that. Thank you for all the kind words
uh throughout this process. Um it does
give me a little more energy and uh
support me in standing up here and
blabbing on about numbers. So, in
regards to reserves, um not going to go
into the detail of each individual one.
Uh there's a little blurb uh in regards
to each reserve and where it's sitting.
Just kind of cover off to the end part.
Uh the recommendations
uh indicating that I would staff would
recommend that we increase the admin
computer reserve uh to an optimal level
of
$50,000. This would be enough to cover a
future server purchase. Uh so we've got
a new one coming in uh next week, but a
decade from now we'll need another one
eventually. Uh so if we start putting a
little bit of money away, we'll have
enough in 10 years to acquire a new one
or whatever the heck they have invented
by then. And then also increasing the
legal insurance and consulting reserve
to an optimal level of 250,000. Uh when
I was reviewing that policy that we have
on place right now, it didn't seem like
the $150,000 would cover off all of the
contingencies that were indicated on
there, like two court cases, uh
insurance premiums, and like on the
other one, I think four consulting
contracts. It didn't seem like that
would be sufficient. So, I'm
recommending to increase that to 250.
And then below that um recommending the
allocation of the surplus from the 2024
fiscal year um into general capital
municipal equipment uh using the admin
staffing as indicated in last year's
reserve report uh adding some to the
fire equipment building replacement
snowtorm public works efficiency
planning environment and
election. Any questions in regards to
that?
Do you have any questions?
Go ahead. Councelor Shman uh through you
councelor Donaldson. Uh sorry just for
clarification the the amounts
uh that you mentioned to the computer
reserve and then legal insurance and
consulting
they are distinct from the amounts in in
the table under item three correct um so
that money for admin and legal insurance
consulting that's coming from where?
Well, that'll come from future surplus
or whatever to allocate. We're not I'm
not saying bump it all up now and apply
money to it. I'm saying we should set an
optimal level now and then over the next
5 10 years we'll just add a little bit
to them. Okay. If there's surplus or
available. Great. Thank you very much.
Okay.
Uh councelor Gray.
Thanks um councelor Donaldson through
the
chair. Mr. Creek. I was wondering about
that you pick those color reserves. We
heard from Gary Lamb just now about this
issue. The spread is quite amazing on
some of them. Um and I'm wondering if um
also whether or not some of the other
reserves might increase due to
inflation, the economy and other things
like that. Is that something for today
or or we pick it up pick that up another
day through the chair? Um yeah, when Mr.
Lamb brought that up. Well, that's
probably a good idea. We could take a
dive into actually setting minimum
amounts uh for a number of reserves. You
can see that there's absolutely nothing
indicating that the minimum would be
zero. Uh which is probably not the
smartest way to handle it. But at the
end of the day, if we needed something,
it would end up coming from the general
capital reserve um in order to finish
off whatever project that we do have.
But we I can certainly take a further
look into that and come back with a a
revised optimal number and minimum level
for each reserve.
Thanks for the chair. I think that would
be a helpful exercise simply to get
fresh eyes on the package as a whole.
Actually do appreciate that Mr. Creep.
The other question I had um we heard a
few people referring to the
um parkland acquisition reserve and am I
correct in saying that that's that's
built in a certain way but the surpluses
can't necessarily be applied to it so
through the chair um it's not that we
can't apply money to it it's just been
the policy of the district previously to
only apply money to that preserve by
selling parkland or getting fundsirect
directly from the province for that
reserve. Um there's nothing that
prevents council from indicating, hey,
we should throw some money in there uh
to actually increase it because as she
indicated and you see all we're doing is
earning interest on it and so it's
increasing at a pretty slow clip and
that's going to slow down for 2025
certainly. But there's nothing stopping
you from allocating.
So through the chair, is that a written
reser a written policy or is it
something that's been done on the fly?
Through the chair, it's it's basic it's
a written policy that you would only
take money from parkland sales, but
there's nothing saying it prevents you
from allocating a surplus to it. Thank
you, Council Shook.
Thank you, Councelor Donaldson. Through
you to Mr. Creek.
Um, thank you. Another question on the
Parkland reserve, parkland acquisition
reserve. If there was um an opportunity
that came our way, is there anything
preventing us from possibly pulling
money from the general capital reserve
in the future if we and putting it into
the parkland acquisition reserve or
using those funds for an acquisition if
we decide through the chair? No, you
could certainly do that. You just have
to pass a motion here. Gotcha. If you
want to move money from the general
capital reserve into Parkland
acquisition reserve. Okay. And you know
speaking personally, I'm I I don't think
I'm in favor of um adding more money to
the parkland reserve at this time.
Um, one of the big reasons is is we are
going through the parks and trails
master plan and I think we are going to
be touching on um some of the parcels in
Machos that the district owns but are
not as yet used for park purposes and
there may be opportunities there to um
to to to bump up the fund. But more than
anything, I think we have to have an
um a line toward an actual project. So,
but um as one of the speakers mentioned
earlier that that the fund isn't really
at a level right now that we can act on,
but um getting it there I think uh we we
probably have a little need a little bit
more rigor and process before we kind of
bump it up and hopefully bump it up with
purpose. So,
yes,
go ahead, Mr.
[Music]
Oh, um I I don't have much else to say.
So, we have questions. Yeah, just a
different question. Of course, we're all
aware that the um steering committee and
our staff are working on the fireh hall
um question whether or not replacements
needed or fixing it up or whatever. And
I wondered what um reserve would that
come out of the building replacement
reserve and or the cap general capital
reserve if we were to
proceed through the chair. Um, so yeah,
it would start with the building uh
replacement reserve. Uh, and then you
could end up using money from that
growing communities fund uh that the
province gave to the district last year.
Uh, that money does have to be used
within the next four years now or
actually think we're down to three down
to has to be used by 2028. Uh, and then
you also end up using general capital
reserve.
Thank you.
[Music]
um through you councelor Johnson. Um Mr.
McFerson earlier mentioned the
possibility of a new purchase of a a
firet truck next year and um interesting
comments about you know the insurance
demands and I'm not at all too
insightful on those but the one thing
that I I believe we've encountered in
the past is the fact that we strike semi
early with equipment we know we will
need in the future um allows us to
actually realize some savings because as
we know And as we've seen with this
district, the longer you put things off,
the more expensive they are to become
seen that with certain bridge fireall is
going to be a big example here. But I
just wonder if I could ask you, Mr.
Creek, do you have any insights into
that? So through the chair, uh, no,
you're you're right on that regard in
that pretty much anything that we're
going to need in three years, it's like
if you aren't buying now, you are going
to be saving a decent amount of money on
it. uh we just don't know exactly how
much, but everything is just going to
keep getting more expensive, especially
in relation to automobiles, vehicles,
that type of thing. There might be some
savings. Um if the next administration
in the US removes the tariffs, uh that's
debatable. Like last time uh President
Trump was in there, he set tariffs on a
number of countries and then when
President Biden showed up, he didn't
remove any of them and they just kept
going and now Mr. Trump's back and
doubling up, tripling up on everything.
So whether or not anybody removes him, I
have no idea. But certainly, I would bet
you dollars and donuts that yes, it's
going to be more expensive in the
future. Uh, I've been looking into some
other financing options for these types
of things, too. Uh, so that we don't
actually have to pay like the $500,000
upfront. We'd end up with a operating
lease in order to acquire the equipment.
Now, we pay for a little bit every
month, every year. Uh, so then we get to
save and invest 500,000, pay 30 $40,000
in the first year. We still earn
interest. uh we still get the use of the
vehicle without having to deal with the
ramifications of inflation catching up
after three five years.
So certainly certainly something we can
think about and I'll I'll talk about
once I get more information from the
company I'm working with
council
and through the chair then again Mr. Mr.
Creek, I wondered if we might just talk
a little bit about this the fire hall
question. We've got um the building
replacement reserve on hand and I think
you're suggesting that we put $200,000
in there. So that would lift that
reserve to 3.87 million.
Um if that doesn't do it, then we turn
to growing communities fund which has a
couple of million looks like.
Um presently it's at 2.6 66 million and
then the general capital
reserve. So there might or might not be
the funds we need for a fireh hall, but
you know combining all those reserves
depending on the ultimate cost. I don't
know if we have any ideas at the moment
about the cost of a new building might
be.
Um we've also
um got your report to us talking about
how we're short on money to replace our
assets. So, we've got a big um
potentially if if things go in the
direction some are thinking about the
big fire hole project, uh then we're
short um I think your report said we're
$672,000 to replace our assets that need
repairing when they need replacing
rather. And you gave us two options. One
was when the time comes we go into debt.
Um we reduce services. Um or and then
the other option reduce services take on
debt. And then the other option was that
we put some money aside each year to
build up our reserves because we're
short. Um and I think that was a good
report that gave you gave to us combined
with your other report on future costs
and taxations which have given quite a
fright to a lot of people about the
ongoing costs that we're facing. And so
the idea of being prudent with our
finances is kind of critical at this
juncture. And it's my view that the use
of the reserves should be done
carefully. Um we've got that. Your
proposal here is $300,000 into the
general capital, 200 into the building
replacement. We also talked previously
about adding 1% of the taxes this year
in order to fund to build up our well
new I guess it be a new reserve fund, an
asset replacement fund or something like
that.
Um, so council, that's not in our
documents at the moment, this additional
1% to get us set us up correctly. As we
know, we're spending money from our
reserves at the moment. And so it makes
me think that we should be thinking
about that additional 1% um on our tax
bill this year. The alternative to that,
you know, if we did take care, you know,
going forward, then we would then
there's a variety of things that we
could cut from our budget. I think we
can easily get to to get that 1% to to
make the future look good. Um, we can
talk about that maybe when you're we get
to the budget aspect of things, but I
wanted to introduce it now.
[Music]
Any other comments? Committee?
[Music]
Yeah. Um, I'd like to speak in favor of
adding more to the parkland acquisition
reserve. Um this is not something that
we would use this term, maybe not even
next term. Uh but um it is for for the
future. Um but it also signifies and
signals that we are uh serious about
conservation and and
um canopied areas uh for preservation.
Uh so uh I don't want to throw that off
the table completely um because I I
think it it signals that that this
council is interested in in conservation
in general and in and interested in
helping out future generations towards
this.
[Music]
Okay, good points. Any other com
council? If I can through the chair ask
Mr. Creek about the PILT that's the um
payment in le of taxes we get from the
federal government. We've got that
what's called the PILT or it's called
the revenue shortfall reserve and in the
notes you mentioned Mary Hill but I
think we also get PILT for section 95 25
and 28
um and those the income there would be
lost in the future and I'm not sure um
Mr. Creek, I know, you know, you've been
looking at all the stuff and thank you
so much for all of the work you're
putting in. Um, but I wonder if we've
modeled the estimated annual tax
increase that we'll expect once we lose
that income over different time periods.
I don't know the work that was done for
the RCMP reserve, but that idea of
causing a gentle increase in taxes when
we get a big hit, in this case, a loss
of revenue. I think it might be
worthwhile to um I don't know that we
need to take action today on it, but I
would certainly appreciate some idea of
what what kind of money we've got there
and how that might help us in the
future. Is that something you might be
able to take on
through the chair? Um yeah, we should be
able to do that. It's not a problem. Um,
so when I was calculating everything was
based on Mary Hill land itself and what
we were collecting from them, uh, which
was I think it was about $148,000 a
year. And right now we've in that
revenue shortfall reserve I think is
just under half a million dollars or so.
Um, which would equate to just over
three years worth of revenue. So that
that would be able to spread it over
that amount of time. Um right now like
projected in that 25 to 29 budget I'm
showing that it starts basically
disappears in 2028. Uh and then we're
looking at it was about a 5% tax
5.26% tax increase for that year.
Although um reviewing the numbers when I
was talking to some other CFOs in the
area, it's like I was we had a lower tax
increase in the year prior. So it's
probably going to smooth that out. We're
year before was going to bump up from
two and a half to 3.75 and then making
3.75 for that year then be three and a
half the following year
2029. But I could I could come up with a
little report for you and show a greater
detail for you. Would that be okay with
council if Mr. Creek did that? I think
it would be help us understand that
transition is a pretty important one.
Yeah, good point. Well,
then just for clarification uh through
the chair uh to our CFO, do we receive
Pilts on uh section 9525 and 28? I don't
think we do. Do we do chair? I would
have to check that final deduction what
that land is like. Nothing striking me
would be but I think it was just the DND
or the former DND lands. Okay. But I I
could stand corrected having to get some
more information from Council Gray in
regards to that land just to make sure
we are collecting it on that if we
aren't.
Council Gray. Yeah, that was a question
for me too just to find out and then
build from there. the I wondered about
um looking perhaps I'm jumping from the
the reserves to the talk later but um we
were looking forward to a roads
management plan and I see the you know
we've paid somebody for a roads
management plan but we haven't seen it
yet here and we've got a number of
things on the schedule for next year
um the uh Happy Valley Road to Leaffield
Road and I think it's a paving there the
Flesh Road bridge possibly the Neil
cover c coververt replacements the next
year and I'm just wondering um what
comfort we can have as a council if we
approve the proposal without having a
plan whether or not we're covering off
the most important um
um road road repairs
so through the chair um I know Chief
Payet was
arranging that uh the consultant who
made up the asset management report to
do a present presentation. Not too sure
exactly what happened to it. Thought we
were supposed to be going for that
sometime in March here, but basically at
the end of it, so I got to imagine
they're going to be showing up in April
to give you greater detail on exactly
what was laid out. Um, and then him
along with public work supervisor Mr.
Watkins will be able to provide greater
detail on it
as them how much should we book and go
from there.
That's through the chair. I think that
would be helpful to have that
information in order that when we
approve this financial plan, we actually
have the meat behind it to understand
it. I guess I'm also looking at the
issue of the outy years and they're
blank. um 2027 2028 um
sorry page
um there's some money for Culver
placeholders you just said you know 50
grand a year but I'm concerned that the
find five-year financial plan be it be
um how shall I say informed by the roads
management plan uh that we get a look at
so that we can we actually have an idea
what's coming rather than zeros because
I I expect there will be money spent
every year on the roads
through the chair. Uh so I put in a
placeholder for the roads of half a
million dollars a year um to to do going
forward. And so with the culverts
themselves, like discussing that with
the public works supervisor, it was
they're going to work on the culverts
that were going to be on the roads that
were going to be repaired in the
following year. So they're going to do
those, get them ready for the paving,
and then kind of work through that for
the next five years.
It was more replaceers. I didn't get the
actual names of each road for the next
five years to put into the the financial
plan itself through the chair. Thanks. I
see that now that's the patching. Um but
I guess no money for paving. At any
rate, I think that it would be helpful
to have that plan before we approve this
[Music]
plan. Councelor Shuken.
So, um, thank you, Council Johnson
through you. Um, so Council Gray is, um,
asking for something that's fairly
complicated in a way and will probably
interfere with the time, not interfere,
but it'll complicate your timelines to
get this approved. Do you think that we
can have that information and move ahead
with the budget on schedule?
through the
chair. Top of my head, I I doubt it. No.
Unless we have some special meetings uh
come up in April and we actually get
that consultant to show up in the next
two weeks,
then I don't see how that would fit.
[Music]
Our deputy corporate officer has a
comment.
Uh just through the chair, the
consultant is scheduled, I believe, for
the April 28th meeting. That would not
give past enough time to to have the
bylaws read and adopted. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. So, I I I can see councelor
Gray's point to a point, but one thing I
just want to clarify though
is we have a schedule, a depreciation
schedule. we knock basically a million
dollars off the um the operating budget
and put it into capital for future
projects. So there is some flexibility
that we have if um in terms of building
a new road uh road repair road
resurfacing schedule as I understand it
and I I guess my question is is that
true like do we have some flexibility?
Can we move ahead with um projects and
if we see that they're not sound or fit
within the plan we can adapt is through
the chair. Yeah. Like so but we know
what we're going to be doing in 2025. Uh
and
then we go through this process every
year um thankfully or unthankfully. So
all the projects for 26, 27, 28, 29, um
you'll you'll end up seeing those come
this November, December, January to
approve those. Whether or not you want
to do which roads just kind of like the
the first time we brought these these
roads up for 2025 was there's a list of
six of them and we're like, "Okay, we
don't need to do this one. We don't need
to do that one. Let's put that one off
for a year. Put that one off for a
year." um you'll be able to do that
fully for 26 27 28
29 but we we should really push forward
with okay we know what we're doing for
2025 that one set the next four years
totally understand well you want to know
exactly what's going to be going into it
but we've we've got some placeholders
for the funding uh there is money
available for those projects either
through a gas tax our road reserve is
quite adequate to fill in these minor
projects 3.8 million. Uh so we've got
plenty of money to do whatever does come
up in the short term.
Good. Thank you for that. And uh
fortunately we do have some historical
data to fall back on as well. As as much
as we're trying to get away from, you
know, that schedule, it still is history
that is useful. And with the uh report
coming up in the next month, that will
all um help us uh go forward. Thank you
for
that. Okay. So, uh any other questions
on this part of the
budget? Okay.
So, so the recommendation is that the
committee receive the report of 2024
reserve balances for information and
that the committee recommend to council
that the optimum levels of the following
reserves be changed as follows. um and
they are listed here. And that the
following amounts be transferred to or
from the specific reserves as stated in
the chart below.
Okay. No, I I would move those
recommendations.
Okay. Moved by councelor Shukin, second
by councelor. All in favor? Carried.
Thank
you. All right. So, we'll go to page 19,
staff report on the 202025 to 2029 draft
5-year financial plan. And Mr. Freak, if
you could present that for us now.
Thank you. Through the chair. Okay. So,
this is
um the 2025 2029 draft financial plan.
After our meeting on February 11th, uh
there's a few more items that came up
and need to be changed. um part of those
uh four is BC BC Hydro both said what
their rates increases were going to be
for 2025. Uh BC Hydro also added in
2026 and then uh because of the carbon
tax being eliminated on April 1st. Uh I
adjusted the fuel cost for the public
works department and fire
department didn't save us a whole lot of
money but just a little bit. Uh, and
then also since then,
um, I guess based on what happened at
the February 11th meeting, so the Ecom
911 costs, uh, council was good to say,
let's use the reserve money that we
saved in 2024, apply that against the
next five years of EOP costs, $60,000 a
year. We increased the budget for the
youth parliament by $1,000 to support
two youth attendees. Uh and then the
Duke roadies trail parks and trail
master plan. Both help with uh funding
for the gas tax reserve. Uh the school
capital budget, we increased that for
$5,000 to replace the um accessibility
door kind of near the front. It's a bit
malfunctioning right now. Uh and then
public work staffing was approved for an
additional full-time
employee. Uh we also received new uh 1%
utility revenue projections from BC
Hydro. Uh so that increase there to help
us out a little bit
[Music]
more. Uh and then I had a bit of a
payroll correction uh based on the wage
that was being paid to the operations
officer. Uh and so that ended up
increasing that budget a little
bit. Overall with all of those impacts
uh being taking place, the total
increase uh in taxes for the average
residential taxpayer is estimated to be
$56.29 a year.
Uh that might change slightly when we
get the final numbers from BC assessment
uh on Monday, but it shouldn't be too
big of a change. Uh now that does not
include anybody else, BC Transit or CRD
or possible school or anybody else but
just the cost for us it'll be
$5629. So about the average resident
paid about $1,500 last
year$1540 or just under
$1,600. So any questions in regard to
this
gray through the chair, Mr. Creek, what
would that end up being then? You know,
folks are interested in the percentages.
So the municipal tax without police and
ecom, do you have a number for that?
through the chair without police and
ecom. Yeah, just
oh I think it was like two point 2.73 or
2.37
[Music]
was 2.9 I think the police was 2.9 I
think uh is it please 2.9% increase
based on the
police budget right like the overall
increase sure is 3.65%
65%. So that's with ecom, police, and
the district all wrapped up. 3.65 is the
tax increase for the district. Correct.
So it's um each one of those percentages
uh cost the average residential taxpayer
[Music]
$14.33. So take the 3.65 times by
$14.33 should come up to 569.
Thank you.
Not so sure. Can you have a comment?
Yeah. Um through you. So, Mr. Creek, um
thanks. That's a a wonderful number to
hear, but I I just want to clarify that
um I I thought we had discussed earlier
like the average residential increase
was about 5%. Am I and I think maybe
that's missing from is it that includes
Sorry, that number would include ecom.
Am I taking or three chair? Correct. So
that 5% that we were talking about
before um after doing the final review
on everything putting in the tax
calculator like we got it down to this
amount. Okay. My initial calculation
wasn't including the non-market growth
which helped out lowering that dollar
value.
Okay. So yeah went went from just over
five to down
3.65. Wow.
[Music]
Wow. Sorry. Wow. Thank you. Sounds
great.
There's lots more to talk about, but on
that
point, we council made a decision not
too long ago to say, "Let's not do ecom
this year. We better soften the blow
because the taxes be too high." Um, I
oppose that. So, I can't um I don't
think I'm permitted to ask to reconsider
that, but I wonder if council would like
to reconsider that that um decision. We
were thinking that the tax rate was much
higher at the time if it's 3.65. The
point here being that everybody knows
ecom costs are on us and
um and uh we delay it. If we delay it,
then we'll have to it's just deferring
it. It's not it's not making it go away
or anything like that. Um, and should we
be deferring it if we have a such a low
tax rate this year? A question for
others to think of, but um, you know, my
view on it would be to take it now and
and deal with
it. I'm thinking about the uncertainty
out there, how costs are going to be
rising, all the troubles we don't know
are going to be happening to us. And my
argument previously was, let's get it
done. Um, so we've got money in the bank
for what might be heady our way.
Um, thank you, Councelor Donaldson. To
to councelor Gray's point, um, yeah,
sorry, I shouldn't be too exuberant. Um,
the one thing I will say though is that
we have had sizable increases over the
last two years. And this is a delight to
hear that it's low in upon like relative
to the last two years. Uh I I think I
want to give significant credit to Mr.
Payet and Mr. Creek and um I I think we
should continue with the course ahead
using that reserve to offset E911. This
is the kind of thing that that sometimes
these reserves are used for is the
surprises that come our way. So um I'm
sort of uh supportive of maintaining
course. So I just and I yeah that's
subject to the rule of the table of
course but okay councelor do you have
any comments on this? Yeah I also agree
with uh with the plan that we have right
now continuing with that. Thank you Mel.
Yeah I concur. Thank you. Okay. Thank
you. Councelor Gray you have another
comment? Sure. I wondered we have some
pretty hefty increases um in in budgets
and I wonder it's you know we didn't um
have a good look at it but if we're down
that low that means we've made some cuts
and is there any way to summarize where
we've made all the cuts to pay for the
increases through the chair or is it
simply going through the sheets and
trying to figure it out
[Music]
through the chair
um cuts there there are some Um there's
had definitely some budget surpluses
related to public works that got trimmed
back even with the additional public
works staff being added in there. Uh and
then I would say a good chunk of this is
coming from the revenue side. So the way
that the pill was being budgeted for u
was basically based on what you're
collecting back in 2022
um rather than what you're collecting in
23 or 24. uh well certainly what we're
expecting in 2025. So that help bring
down the tax increase uh where rather
than just leaving it to a surplus at the
end of the year now we're saying okay
let's not have a not have a $100,000
surplus coming from pills we use that to
actually reduce our property taxes for
the residents here rather than just
storing it up in another surplus. So the
surplus that we saw in
2024 not going to happen unless some
some
unknown thing happens that everybody
stops working and we don't have to pay
anybody. But going forward, we're not
we're not going to see this 800,000
again because one, the interest rates
aren't going to be there. Two, the RCMP
charges are going to be increasing. Uh
three, basically gobbled up the built
surplus. So those three things combined,
it's like over $600,000 of that surplus.
So it's
by using that. So we're we didn't really
cut a whole lot. It was more massaging
the revenue to actually get to actuals
rather than low budget. Thank you. And
that's not dissimilar to last year when
it was our investments had done so well
and that's what kept our tax rate lower
than it would have been otherwise. But I
wonder then just hearing what you're
saying this will be up the other thing
will be up. The third thing will be up.
Council I hope you heard that. So when
the PILT you know kicks in we may have a
lot other costs that we'll have to face
now much higher tax rate.
Council have you had a comment?
Um yeah I think uh since Mr. Creek
arrived. This is the first time the
district has had a full-time
financial person doing it. And I think
uh you know I think it's it's made a lot
of difference and just smoothed out
things that have have been done
differently in the past. And given the
information that we've had through the
budget process, which has been been very
clear, I think that uh you know, we just
need to go with it. Have some faith that
Mr.
that knows what he's doing and um and
and allow this to proceed to the end.
Thank you. And yeah, thank you. And and
then I appreciate through the chair. I
appreciate Mr. Creek's um vision for the
future because I think this is a more
honest way and this is just in my non um
financial background um point of view. I
think it's a more honest way of taxing
that um taxing for what we need, not
taxing hoping that we'll have a surplus
and then we can spend on oneoffs. But
that that always seemed very odd to me
that we were we were taxing at one level
and we knew we were going to have a
surplus and then there were all these
requests for one-time um uh expenses. I
think it's better uh to do it this way.
Um, and there obviously is areas where
it's buffered so that we don't, you
know, if we go a dollar over tea bags,
it's it's uh accounted for in the
budget, but I think this is a better way
of going and and and uh Mr. Creek does
have a handle on all of the budget
items, and I trust him to to um manage
it and and um shepherd us through this.
Thank you. I have to agree it's um it's
been helpful for our residents to
understand as well and to have the
report in real time. So thanks for that
work thus
far councelor Shukin. Yeah, we'll we'll
very much echo what uh you've just said,
councelor Donaldson and you may
little councelor rap. Um one little
point I just want to raise. Um we have
had correspondence from the bills and
wershed habitat protection association
about their request for
uh
$2,100 and I don't want to lose sight of
that
um within this process. Um, and we we
talked about it before, but I forget
where where we ended up with. So, and
sorry, minor matter of bigger scheme
things, but don't want to lose sight of
it.
[Music]
Yeah, I was a bit confused because in
the past I remembered and maybe
councelor EP would remember this, we had
uh the Bilston Creek watering or uh
water monitoring as a line item um in
the past and um and uh I think that we
should it's it's our creek. It's not
just their creek. Uh I think it should
be something that we should be uh
providing every year. And so the ask
this year is is 2150, right?
Yes.
Um there's a couple different parts to
this. So in the past there was a
monitoring program and I believe that
was funds we actually paid LER to
monitor that uh several terms ago has
stopped. Um those boxes I think are
still in place but they're not working.
they're not in operation.
Um, when we had the buffer lands, we
also budgeted $20,000 for water quality
testing. We've only spent 2,000 of that.
I'm not sure where it's in the budget
right now for that. And this question
came up recently when I spoke with um
members of of the Billston uh wershed
group if um is there interest in doing
water quality if we have that built in
our budget that 18,000 from the past. So
that's a question to Mr. Creek and then
going forward. So that's water quality
pre previously it's not been it's been
water monitoring for flow two different
things. So certainly not to lose sight
of it, especially as we're getting
heavier and heavier rains and there's
more construction going on in the uh
land swap
properties, fewer trees daily.
[Music]
Yeah. So I think um just to remind
people on December 5th of 2024 we talked
about uh supporting the business habitat
protection association with
$2150 as a one-time expense with
recommendation of um Mr. Creek and that
was for water quality testing. So I
think it may be already accounted for
Mr. Creek's um numbers although we can
hear from him but I'm noticing that
today we have a different request an
additional request and we're giving it
at the table for
another here someone else can shout it
out 22 something dollars
um oh no it's not clear here it's um um
that the Bill wershed habitat protection
association would like to put up some
streamside identification signs about
sensitive habitat the riparian Of
course, um they can contribute $2,250,
but I don't know if that tells us what
they're looking for from us.
[Music]
Chair. Uh so, correct. Uh this sign is
an extra ask that they have. Uh now, we
have plenty of funding available to do
that. Uh right now, there is
$6,400 related to environmental planning
uh that we have. We have the district
hasn't used that in 2024 or 2023 uh in
actually the funding from this year um
in the reserves. We bumped that into the
environmental reserve uh which now has
over $50,000 in it. Uh so is planning on
using that 6,400 this year to help pay
for all these Bel Creek initiatives. Uh
and then the 20,000 that councelor
Donaldson mentioned. Uh yeah, we didn't
use all of it. So we rolled over those
funds for the next 5 years in order to
pay for the mon.
[Music]
Okay. Any any more comments on this part
of the So just in summary, we have
allocated money for the water testing it
sounds like.
Good. Okay. And in terms of the signs,
um, we're I it sounds like we're not we
could do it, but we're not
sure. We could do it, but we don't we're
not able to action like a a specific
proposal right now. Is it
we do that, Mr. Chair? Yeah, you you
totally could. Um, because right now
there's nothing allocated under that
6,400 has to be what it would be used
for. You can certainly say yes, we're
going to use that funding that we have
in the budget right now for building
watered.
Yeah. Can I
um Well, I'm I'm I'm supportive of the
signs and the watershed association. I I
feel like we might be better to get a
more specific proposal from them in
terms of the actual amount of money that
they're looking for.
Um and and again even even a even even a
a plan in terms of where the signs are
going to go. I I see the map here for
sure but how many and and what date um
this has come to us just just recently.
So I don't want to make I mean as again
as supportive as I am I I don't want to
make maybe a decision right at the table
today again I sounds like yeah so okay
so they have indicated that it's 15
signs um it's not necessary that all of
them need to be put up in one year uh so
those are things to think about as well
so we could take this away and have a
further discussion about it Mr.
through the chair. Thank you. Um, so I
was talking to the person that was kind
of pushing that initiative, forget her
name. Apologies. Um, but she was
wondering what the Telespars would cost.
Um, they they were quoted a number. Um,
but she knew that as a municipal
government, we probably get a better
deal on the Telespars to put the signs
on. Uh, and so when I looked at our last
invoice, which was in November, for
Telespar posts, uh, we were paying 197
for the post in the base that goes into
it. Um, so we're looking at about $3,000
for the posts and then another $800 for
the sign. So it' be 3,800. So basically
covering 65 70% of the cost with their
contribution. The um they're looking at
another
1,300,500 bucks on the district's part
to contribute to that. The post might
have gone up. Not too sure if they're
part of the tariff deal because they're
steel or but
yeah,
um I think I'd like to move that we
allocate the
$6400 to the Billston watershed habitat
association for to be used for creek
cleanups, water quality testing, and
roadside stream identification
signs. Do we have a seconder?
Second by Mayor Little and
discussion councelor Sh. Yeah and
thanks. You know what Mr. Creek has
reminded me of the um the partnerships
that would be in place between the
district and Billston wershed. So um
yeah I'm willing to support this as
well. Okay councelor Gray. Yeah, just to
on the math.
Um, so we we've got 21 uh
2150 that we talked about for water
monitoring and $1,500 for um the signs.
So that adds up to
$3,650. And now we're talking about
committing
$6,400.
Um, and I'm just not clear why we would
do do that.
uh councelor.
Um well I just feel since we don't have
the absolute specifics uh for everything
I thought if that money is just
allocated for that and then we can as
the prices come in then it can be used
and if it isn't all used then it'll just
be rolled over to the next year or the
next
time. So we work with excuse me we work
within the funds that we have allocated
in the more so work within a budget
council shin and the other thing we're
working with too should be the plan that
has been put forward here today with the
science and uh stick within that. So,
okay. Any other
discussion? Councilor Gray,
just so we're clear, the motion wasn't
up to $6,400. It was $6,400. So, that's
what the votes about.
[Music]
Mayor Little, um, Councelor F, would you
mind amending that to up to $6,400? I
think that's was your intent. Sure. Yep.
And so that would be okay. Uh seconded
by me.
Okay. Any further
discussion? Okay. So the motion has been
amended by councelor EP and seconded by
Mayor
Little. Call the question. All in
favor? Post by uh councelor Gray.
Yeah. Is there there's no other motion?
Yeah. Actually, so so we just voted on
the amendment of the up to and then now
vote on the main motion as amended.
Point of order. Council,
I wonder if you could explain that
again. I think the motion was made and
amendment was agreed across the table.
We weren't voting on
it. Or are we voting on an amendment?
Then that should be clear.
[Music]
Sorry, I just I thought there was a
friendly discussion between the mover
and seconder. Okay, so we have an
amendment which was to uh the motion was
spent up to
6,400 seconded by correct seconded by
coun u mayor
little called the question. There was
one opposition. Now I go back to the
original motion which is can you help me
out with this um co Hansen?
[Music]
If the intent was to um amend the
motion, then the amendment is voted on
first and then you move to the um main
motion. However,
um yeah, you have to decide whether that
was an agreed upon amendment or just if
you were just voting on voting on the
amend amendment to the motion and then
the main motion.
Right. So, can you repeat what the main
motion is then, please? So, the main
motion the main motion was um that
council allocate funding to recommend
that council allocate funding in the
amount of $6,400 to the Bilston
watershed habitat protection association
for the um water quality monitoring and
signage. And the amendment was
um to add the words up to
$6,400. Okay. Thank you, Council. Maybe
we should do the whole thing again. Vote
on the amendments.
[Music]
Okay. So So the amendment was to uh
um to budget up to
$6,400. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And and we
and I think it was moved by it was moved
by councelor F and it was second by
Mayor Little. We called the question and
everyone's in favor with one opposition
which was council. I was voting on a
different
motion the amendment. No, I was voting
on I thought there was an agreement.
Okay. So that the motion call the
question then on the amendment. Thank
you. So call the question. All in
favor? Okay. That's all in favor. Now,
we'll go back to the original. And the
original motion by councelor F is that
we will um budget
for
$6,400 up up to
$6,400. Second by Mayor
Little. Call the question. All in favor?
Opposed? Councelor Gray closes the
motion. Thank you.
Okay. Next. Where are
we? Okay.
So, okay. So, we've now addressed, have
we addressed fully um the correspondence
we have in the package from Miss
Neielson?
Um
yes. Co Hansen.
Sorry, through the chair. Um, was
there there was you were having
discussions on the five-year financial
plan and and so were you
going to um sorry make that motion um
the recommend recommended motion
or were you still having discussions?
You kind of balanced. Okay.
[Music]
committee. Is there any more discussion
for or questions for um CFO Creek on the
five-year
[Music]
plan? Councelor. Um, uh, I'll move the
finance committee approve the 2025 to
2029 5-year financial plan as presented
and direct staff to draft the 2025 to
2029 5-year financial plan and 2025
property tax rate bylaws for
consideration of the April 7th, 2025
council meeting. Thank you, council.
Seconded by Mayor Little.
Questions? Council Gray, I had a
question through the chair to Mr. Creek.
I wondered if the
um line item to do
with it's called
trail couple if that involves completing
the We's Beach stairs. There's $40,000
there
through the sorry through the chair.
Can you tell me which one you're looking
at
there? A bearing
[Music]
straight through the chair. It's in the
capital um expenditures. It's called
it's under the other about mint page. Um
trails capital improvement.
[Music]
Um, that's $10,000 there. And then
there's another $40,000 in a different
location. Or you can Yeah, that is under
the recreation budget. Recreation where
came in at Well, there it is. 50,000
bucks for trail development. So that
$50,000 includes the 40,000 that for the
parks trails master plan and the Duke
road study. Uh so then we'd have 10,000
there and 10,000 regular capital to be
used towards the speech stairs prepare.
So dro is 20 and the master plan is 20.
Correct. And the we speech stairs then
would be the remaining not that we would
use it but yeah who
and then there's another $10,000 then in
capital expenditures. What would that be
for
under?
Oh, whatever might be um like what
whatever might come up and a type of
repairs. Um any
expansion I know public works keeps
asking for using money to resurface. Uh
there's a lot of trails that have been
kind of overgrown that type of thing and
it's now just a pile of mud. So they
need money for gravel etc.
Be sure that we don't lose touch of the
we stairs. It may be that the solution
at Wei's Beach is to naturalize it and
remove some of the things that are there
that might be at least expensive and
most fruitful way to go, but having so
many available so we could at least
complete the one trail we've been
working on might be a good idea.
Councelor Shuken. Um, thank you
councelor Gray. As I understand it,
there has long been a trails capital
amount in there also and I think this is
just what it is. um maybe put in a
different place than in the years past,
but there's also um a
$5,000 trails and maintenance amount,
which I notice has been knocked down by
$2,000. Um my my my friends on PAS may
be going to be a little bit annoyed by
that, but the reality is is we have not
been using it all that often. Uh mainly
because it's it's more uh volunteer
muscle than anything. So I I just just
again to the question of the 10,000 I
think is the regular amount that we
have. So you're you're quite correct and
it's been 10,000 for many many years.
Yeah. And it would go into things like
right now we have identified that Helman
Trail is got ruts because of all the
water and stuff. So things like that
maintenance of the trails.
Very good. My my question was mostly
about the we will we do we have the
funds to complete the we beach trail and
it looks like it's there. I was anxious
that seeing it's picked off with other
purposes we might not have the money
which would be an unfortunate
circumstance.
Yes, good question. Thank you.
Go ahead. Maybe I can um move along to a
different question which is I suppose
also a capital one. the um or it's in
the discussion here about the
U Flesh Road Bridge. We've got
$142,000 in the budget for that, but
council's all seen the numbers. It's
quite possibly a lot more expensive than
that. The CEO was anxious this happened
this year. What do we do if the money is
not there? Is it pulled from a reserve
somewhere?
Chair. Uh correct. it would if uh if the
quotes on that kind of end up coming
back significantly higher, but we were
going to come back to council anyway
because we got the quotes on it to find
out what the final number was actually
going to cost. Uh so then we'd actually
get approval from everybody here. Uh
anything over 142 would end up coming
out of the general capital or the roads
maintenance reserve or the gas tax
reserve.
any any of those would fit the bill for
using the funds. Thank you,
Mar. Yeah, thank you through the chair.
I just had a question about the
municipal hall roof replacement. Uh so
that's subdivided over two years,
115,000 and 120,000 per year. Oh, I see.
I just saw it. So one was 2024 and the
2025 is the 120,000
third year. Correct. Yeah. So, it it um
unfortunately we couldn't find anybody
last year do it, but we had uh somebody
out here yesterday or the day before
actually come in to take a look and see
what it's going to cost and what they
can do for it. Uh so, we should be able
to actually get that completed this
year. Uh hoping for that budget of 120.
We just added a little bit up just
because of the extra year. So, add cost.
So, I have a question with that, Mr.
Creek. Are we also getting quotes on a
tin roof as that's what most of our
buildings are? because I understand that
tim actually come down although I don't
know if the tariff is going to affect
any of it right now because we have
stock on you know in Canada so who knows
but are we looking at that as an option
as well good question I would have to
check with public works supervisor and
chief on that one I don't know exactly
what they were looking at and what
options they were taking to consider
certainly find out and get back to it it
would be great for us to actually have a
comparison that especially as we're
doing fire smarting and stuff although I
do understand that gerroid is also fire
smart material. Thank you. Any other
questions committee on
this counc uh gray? Yeah, I wondered I
saw in the budget an amount of $6,000
for garbage bins in the village core but
I went back to our minutes and we um
never had a motion about that. So I
wonder if that could be taken out of the
budget through the chair.
We may not have had a motion about that,
but we do have sufficient funds within
the uh uh building reserves. Actually,
it's well over the the um I think even
the maximum and the business community
has been asking what's going to happen
with the funds that they have been
paying into. So, do we do we know if
that's where maybe that money is coming
from or is
this like councelor Grace says, is it
going to be in in the budget for the
taxpayers to pay? So, through the chair,
correct? So, that was that was by
mistake. Uh I thought when we were
discussing that originally uh when we
were talking about all the other capital
projects that was approved uh
unfortunately there was there was no
action taken on it. uh the money would
come from the business development
reserve which has over $50,000 in it. So
if we remove it, it's not going to save
us any money on the taxes or lower
anything in that regard. But um if you
want to move forward with it, we can. If
we
don't, no harm, no bail on that one.
Okay. Thank you, Council Gray. Many of
our discussions aren't about tax rates,
but they're about the spending of the
money that we have. Um this one, I think
we talked about it. There's very little
garbage in the in the village court.
Anybody can walk over there and take a
look. The businesses take care of their
end of the deal. I would just suggest
it's a spend that we don't it's not a
necessary spend at the moment and we
hashed it out and didn't make a motion
the other day on that one. So, I was
just saying it could come out of the
budget and change the numbers a little
bit for us. Mayor Little. Yeah, we had
um uh significant correspondence last
year and correspondence this year that
there was garbage but that the business
community was uh picking up the garbage
themselves. Um and so it is claimed
probably because of the the the
stakeholders within the the village are
are removing it. Um I I would like to
see uh garbage cans there. I think that
would be prudent.
Did you want to make a motion to that
effect so that it's affirmative? Sure.
You have to remind me. Was it the 6,000?
It was uh was two 6,000.
Yeah. I I believe at the time it was it
was done. It was some research that our
CO had. I'll make a motion to spend up
to $6,000 on the uh garbage cans for the
village poor
and to come out of the business reserve.
to come out the business for reserve.
Okay, I have a second for that motion
for discussion. Okay, thank you.
Discussion,
council. Yeah. Uh, well, my concern with
this is is not just getting the garbage
cans, it's who's going to look after
them. it's picking up the garbage
because we know that if there are going
to be garbage cans right out there where
everybody can see considering the amount
of junk that's piled up by the metal
bin. Um I think the garbage that could
just become a receptacle for the for the
whole community to just start dumping
their garbage. I mean they even put it
beside the the lion's um box um by the
by the former preschool. So it's uh you
know it would be a concern to me. I
think it's a good idea. I think if
people if people were responsible that
it would be a great thing to have there,
but but I really hesitate to um you know
to kind of go the route of the of the
dog poop receptacles
um to do that. I I just uh really don't
know whether it's worth spending the
money. Um it is in the business
development fund if that's what they
want, whether it's worth, you know,
spending that money out of that fund um
to as an experiment uh to see if it
works or not. you know, maybe that's the
best way to do
it. And I, as I recall when we were
discussing this, um, we had also talked
about whether or not we contract a
service to actually empty those those
garbage bins. Um, and I'm not sure what
the opening size is, how much garbage
can be put in, but as council says, we
do know people will leave garbage at the
base of it. Uh, some of the problems
that we had, it's not so much the
ongoing garbage, it is when there's
events. So, I'm wondering if maybe we
invest then in garbage receptacles that
when we have events, the district pulls
the events out or not the events, the uh
receptacles out um for the events so
that uh perhaps the business district
isn't having to clean up all those
things that people leave behind when we
have functions going on in the core.
Similarly to what we do with Machos Day,
we set up lots of garbage cans all over
the property because we have mass
amounts of people that are coming. So
maybe this is um I'm not sure because I
don't
recall the letters that had come in if
it was just for events or if it's an
ongoing concern with with garbage, but
that's another uh consideration that
we're still providing a service when we
have large amounts of people that that
come. But again, we we need that
community calendar to know what events
are happening when, too.
So, many different balls in the
air. Council
Gray, I guess I'm just concerned that
this is a solution looking for a
problem. Um, you don't see garbage
around. Talk to the business owners.
They're taking care of it. So, the
country store takes care of it. The
restaurant takes care of it. I'm not
sure um the correspondence that we've
got asking for garbage containers, but
maybe it would be good for those that to
come forward or us to ask the various
business owners who haven't jumped at
this. But I'm like you, Council
Donaldson, Council EP, um household
garbage will be headed that way and
we'll have lots of issues to clean, but
we'll have garbage downtown now. We
don't have it now. I don't think we're a
big city. I don't think we need some of
these things at the moment.
[Music]
Mayor Little. Yeah. Thank you. Um the
correspondence last year was the the
owner of the the Machosen Business
Center and she said that it wasn't
special events. It was you know at the
end of the weekend uh she was cleaning
up garbage that wasn't related to her
businesses that were renting in in her
space. Um and I applaud all the business
owners uh from the school to the cafe
and the business center for for picking
up other garbage that is not um their
own. Uh but I think it would be a good
service that we could provide as a
municipality uh to the commercial
businesses which are small in in
Machosen.
Yes. Well, we've we also know that
people have um deposited their domestic
um garbage even in the dumpsters behind
the fire hall from time to time as well.
I've seen it with my own eyes. So um
Councelor Schukan,
thank you. Thank you, Councelor Donson.
I I have to confess to being nervous
about moving ahead with this on two
fronts. Um the first being what we may
be ex what the potential is for garbage
coming our way that isn't there now.
Case in point is the metal bin. Um but
also the um you know the
cost. Great to have this pulled from
reserve, but it's the ongoing
operational maintenance costs as well
that I that I'm nervous about. And I
know this isn't dog poop per se, but the
forecast for dealing with those two
receptacles was um something in the
order of $25,000 annually. So yeah, I'm
I'm quite nervous about I I don't think
household garbage is going to be the
same thing, but it's another cost that
we're going to incur that just right
now. I don't know if we need to. Um
yeah, so I I I I'm not in favor of this
right now. Okay. Any further discussion?
Okay, seeing none, I'll call the
question. All in favor and
oppos.
Okay.
Um,
next, council gray. I wasn't expecting
such a long discussion about that. Um
the the other uh one that I see in the
budget I wasn't certain of was a school
leasing agent an increase from $5,000 to
$11,500. And I seem to recall that
we had otherwise discussed. We hadn't
had a motion, but we were um doing away
with the school leasing agent. So I
wondered if I could ask Mr. Creek what
the $1,500 is for
to the chair. Thank you. Um, so I I
actually removed the leasing agent in
the first iteration of the budget. Uh,
and then there is some push back
regarding, well, we we're going to need
somebody in there, so let's leave the
budget amount in so we don't have to
come back in four or five years and add
some something in. Um, so that's why I
put it in there in in this case it going
from five to 16 what it was. Um the
leasing agent was actually recorded in
two lines in in the school there. Uh
there was one
under one
[Music]
second. You have a leasing agent under
the school contracted services plus the
line for leasing agent. Um so I just
chopped off the leasing agent out of the
school contracted services, moved it
down into one line. So it's contracted
services, you know, uh like rod and
disposal, that type of thing. And then
the leasing agents, that's their own
separate line. It was it was a little
cute confusing when I first found it.
Thanks for the explanation. And I might
have been part of the push back. I was
just anxious that we get the place
rented and commercial leases. So, thank
you very much for that explanation.
Another one I was curious about was the
new or the additional $2,100 to the
Peninsula Agricultural um um commission.
I didn't recall a request for more money
from them. And I think the current
budget is about $1,500. So it's it's a
big lift and I didn't know what that was
about. Wondered if you might explain
through the
chair through the chair. Uh there's a
bit of a change in that. I'm going to
pass that over to the corporate officer.
she's got a little bit more detail and
knowledge on how that whole thing worked
out
through through the chair. Um so each
year um the members of the pack which
are central Sanich North Sanage
um Sanich and Machosen pay an annual fee
to pack. I think it might be around
$1,000 or $1,200 per municipality. Um
but Sanage has now stepped down from um
providing support for pack and it's
going to be rotating between the four
member municipalities. North Sanich has
now taken it on and they will also be
invoicing the other three municipalities
for the the costs incurred for the
administrative support provided to um to
the commission.
Thank you.
Thank you very much the deputy corporate
officer through the chair. I'm wondering
if today is not the day to talk about
that but I would appreciate hearing back
at some point from our own agriculture
advisory subcommittee which is a
volunteer group um to find out whether
or not we're double paying by having a
group in the peninsula working on the
same topics. Um maybe when we if we are
going to look at terms of reference of
the committees, we can compare the two
and see what the difference is between
committees. I recognize one involves
more people and more places but it's
providing the same service here and it
just brought to my attention I
appreciate all the work that various
people are doing but just the brought to
my attention because of the cost
increases
2.1 two $2100.
M excuse me little yeah thank you. So
the Peninsula Area Agricultural
Commission is um um focused on advancing
agricultural issues with in a regional
context. So um they they provided uh for
the workshop that you attended um and
councelor Schukan and councelor EP and
councelor Donaldson on the the um
landfilling um dumping of of fill and
lands. Um that is beyond the capacity of
our our our our agriculture advisory
select committee. Um, so they they look
at more regional um um issues in
supporting agriculture. I guess it is a
little bit redundant because they're
both talking about um about advancing
agriculture and supporting agriculture,
but one is regional and and ours is
Mosen. Um the chair of the pack right
now is Robin Toddcliffe from Mosen. Um,
but I'm sure she'd be very happy to uh
come back and report on specifically
what PAC does. And actually um we
actually as a a council even though we
pay the fees of about 1,500 a year um we
don't use them very much. So for
instance, our agricultural plan could
have gone to them uh for review and for
comment but any other um issues uh we
can always refer to um the pack because
they have considerable expertise in all
areas of of agriculture and in planning.
Yeah. Yeah. I had the the privilege of
attending one of the meetings this past
fall and uh uh there's a lot of
expertise at the table. some of the
other things that they have done
regionally which may be a little bit of
overlap but actually it's
all-encompassing as they've been
supportive of the newly formed South
Island
um farmers institute which puts on a
week long uh conference uh full day
in-house conference but one where you
get to tour farms and you can sign up
for these different things. So, um an
educational component that is um open to
um anyone that's interested in
agriculture. Uh in speaking with the the
chair um earlier today um and having
been um at a workshop on Tuesday where
minister uh Lana PPA and our new um uh
Emily uh Dana Dana Lejun Yeah. um out in
Souk, there's a a large contingent of
farmers in that area. So, I propose that
perhaps PAC actually consider taking on
um some
uh maybe some membership out of uh going
um west of us as well with Souk and the
Wanuka Electoral District. So, I'll be
talking to um our um uh government local
government partners in that area as
well. And certainly PAC is is interested
in broadening the horizon. So it's
unfortunate one we've lost one of our
partners on the peninsula but there you
know as we realize and more and more
food security is is critical on the
island. So there is an interest and
there's a lot of passionate people out
there.
support and education and certainly um
PAC could uh lease or we could lease as
a a council with PAC more and certainly
our um agriculture committee could too.
So we have a longstanding relationship
and yearly membership with
[Music]
them. So they're valuable.
I'll ask and see if um if we can have
chair come and give us a presentation on
that on their history and all that they
do. You have comment. Yeah. And so PAC
has been around for 27 years and we have
not hosted or or paid for any of the
administrative costs uh over and above
the the $1,500. So um I think probably
uh they said, "Well, you know, we've
hosted it for so long. How about some of
you?" um uh step up to the plate and I
think that's where the modest increase
is.
Okay. Any other comments on on the
budget?
I'd raised a question previously about
the $5,000 for voting machines and I see
the response from staff is related to
the notion that we can get some um
benefit in terms of staff time or it's
difficult to find people to do that kind
of work. Um, I just wanted to report I
did hear from one member of the
community, Neil West, who's um quite
opposed to these machines from the
thinking that they uh we do a good job
of hand counting the accuracies there
and some worries about um how well these
machines work.
Yeah, I believe the concern was the
overtime that was required for staff to
stay late and u making sure that
counting was accurate and it wasn't just
one person um counting ballots. There
was quite a group of people and as I
recall it was 2 a.m. when they finally
finished.
Council Shook. Yeah, thank you councelor
Donaldson. I don't think it was that
late but it was late and um I'm I'm in
support of voting machines. I talked to
a number of people who are part of that
process and they describe it as
exhausting and tedious and we have to
keep an eye on the the number of people
who are involved and again the quality
of the people involved as well. We had a
great team at the last the last vote.
Um, but the one thing that's going to
happen is if we don't
have good system in place, whether it's
the people or the machines, there's a
potential of us paying even more if we
don't get things right in terms of um
time lags or legal challenges. So, yeah,
I I'm supportive of maintaining the uh
the budget for the for the vocations.
And as I recall, Mr. Creek, you were
going to check to see if we could do
lease as opposed to purchase considering
it's every four years. Correct. Uh
through correct. Uh so it will be lease
rather than purchase. Uh and the overall
cost increase to the district was is
going to be about
$1,300 because the overtime that we had
to pay to our staff along with all the
accounting staff. Um and I don't know.
So when well I worked in election coalks
and that thing was you're trapped inside
a building for 14 hours. So like trying
to find was gets a little more difficult
when you are paying them like not the
greatest amount of money in the world
but still it is still costly because the
ex
Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I've just been
reminded we do have a server update at
six o'clock tonight. So we need to um
wrap up our discussion. Um do you have
some questions? Yeah, I had some
questions about the fire department. Um,
kind of like the trails, which I love
and and want to meet and so much
appreciate the people working on it. I'd
appreciate the people fire department as
well, the staff and the volunteers. But
I had some money questions.
Um, we got a look at a summary of of um
u pay um expenses from the fire chief
and I noticed that
um her expectation is that we'll spend
$16,000 more than we have in our budget
um for um fire allowances in honor area
and I wondered how we might manage that.
So that's a question through to to
our CFO. I I guess it's really a
question for the CEO, but he's not here
today. So, Mr. K, if you're not able to
answer, that's okay. It just we got a
few questions that are maybe um for the
CEO, but let's proceed anyway.
Thank you. Through the chair. Uh so, the
the way that ends up being covered, it's
because of the financial plan and what
uh council approves breaks down into
general administration, protective
services, uh that type of thing. We've
the fire department's in protective
services uh and the the extra 16 $17,000
uh we just reduce the surplus coming
from the protective services for the
2025
year that that's how we end up being
covered in the
end. Thank you. So keep it within the
departmental budget. Great. And um on
the firefighter allowances, we we had um
I think there's
66,300 proposed for firefighter
allowance that was over spent in
2023. Again, it was overspent last year
by
$10,000. Um so I wondered if we can
confirm that this resulted from an
increase in calls and a change in the
weekend stipen during the 2024 year from
$50 to $100 a shift.
And the reason I'm asking is I got one
note from one staff saying, "Oh, yeah,
that's um not in place yet." And another
staff saying, "No, no, those are the
current rates." Just get get it clear.
Are we have did that change during the
2024 year?
[Music]
Sure. Uh so the the $100 for the weekend
shifts, u what from what I gather is in
the budget it was all $50 per shift. uh
seemed like that did occur during 2024
where it increased to $100 uh per shift
for the weekend and still remain at $50
for the majority of the time of the
regular week. Thank you. Followup
question then. Who other than council
presumably during the budget process has
the authority to authorize increases to
stipen rates through the chair
through chair. Uh so that basically
comes down to the CEO uh going to
approve what people end up getting paid
uh and whether or not that will fit
inside the budget for protective
services or general administration or
that type of thing. Um the hourly rates
and that type of thing generally does
not come back to council uh for
approval.
[Music]
Thank you. And so that we made it
through because that department um made
it in
um within their budget. So this was all
a legal and undertaking that it sounds
like. But this year we can't reverse
that because we have people who are
expecting that money. So the decision
was made last year but it you can't can
the budget happen without those the
increase in that budget line this year I
guess is my question.
[Music]
Chair could you repeat that? Didn't
quite understand. Last year we spent
$73,000 on this budget item. Um that's
right. Sorry, maybe I may have jumped.
Yes.
Um yeah, I think so. Well, let me just
find it here. Well, we're we're short of
time, but just to say an increase was
made last year, um mid year without
council's review, and that was okay
because it didn't exceed budget. No,
it's coming to us this year because it
will exceed the budget or can we manage
with the same numbers this year as we
did last year? Okay. Uh thank you chair.
Yeah,
we based on the number that we had uh
and is projected uh it'll still fit
within what we end up with a little bit
of a surplus under protective services.
Um that that
number for those officers is still just
an estimate based on calls. uh if
there's fewer calls, won't end up
spending that much. If they're if they
end up having even more calls, uh that
number will be even higher. So, we'll
see where we're at kind mid year and
then possibly come back to say, hey,
we're we're on track to go way over
budget. Then we could come back and say
we need a financial plan just depending
on how every other account is looking.
Thank you. That sounds like a good idea.
I think last year, Mr. Payet our CEO
said that we would be getting was it
quarterly reports and how the finances
were going because of these ups and
downs and we weren't able to pull it off
this year but that would be a great idea
through the chair to Mr. Creek if we did
have sort of a regular look to see that
we don't
overshoot. Um I had a kind of a similar
question about the fire prevention
officer. It was mentioned by someone in
the audience. What who has the authority
to authorize a pay rate higher than that
rate approved by council?
[Music]
through the chair.
So through the chair, I believe that
would have to come from the
CEO, but I could be mistaken on that.
I'll have to confirm. Thank you. When
they're
back and then I just had the question of
um the fire
honorariums again. I so much appreciate
all the work people are doing, but these
financial questions need to be sorted in
terms of clarity for to know. Last year,
I understood we'd authorized a change in
payments for duty officer hours and we
bought a
package. This year, we see a
7070% increase in that budget line. And
I wondered if what the explanation was.
I think it has to do with hiring
additional people to do the job that we
thought last year was covered by the
compensation scheme that we had
approved.
through the chair. through the chair.
Uh, correct. So, it was they're adding
additional officers or aiming to have
additional officers. U recent
conversation with the chief showed that
like we're going to have an extra one
for a little bit and then we're going to
end up losing a few through the year.
So, that budget amount is unlikely to be
met in 2025.
[Music]
Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Greek
while we have them here? Mayor Little.
Yeah. Um, thank you. I'd like to move
that the finance committee approved the
2025 2029 FIN 5-year financial plan as
presented and direct staff to draft the
2025 2029 fin-year financial plan and
2025 property tax rate bylaws for
consideration at the April 7th, 2025
council meeting.
I already moved that. Oh, sorry. Did
you seconded it? Okay. And we're having
discussion. That's a long time ago.
Okay. So perhaps
the Oh, no. Sorry, that almost exceeded
my memory too discussion. So far, yeah,
counc. Yeah. I guess the other question
I had which I posed earlier was this
idea of um adding 1% to the budget to
start building up our reserves as
recommended by our CFO. There were two
choices in future. We go on jet debt or
we um we put a little bit of money in
this year. We can do that additional to
the money we have already on the table
uh in terms of taxes and or we could
decrease some items in our budget to
make way for that. And I rather than
making a motion, I'm just interested if
people have any appetite for that. I'm
certainly keen on doing it because now
I'm seeing the tax rate is much lower
than we'd anticipated. But is that okay
if we could just ask the group what
they're thinking?
Sure. So we're in discussion right now.
Council, your thoughts on that? Um
Councelor Donaldson, I would just call
Prius question. I think we should vote
on the motion.
Yeah. What I'm asking about is not so
much um voting on the motion, but this
will be amendment to the motion. Um I
can make maybe I'll just make the
amendment or move the amendment if you'd
like. I just was So, I'll make a motion
that we um add an additional 1% to the
tax
um rate in order to build up our asset
replacements reserves. Motion by
councelor um Gray. Uh do I have a second
for that amendment?
There's no second. So, that doesn't
pass. Um, so I'll call the question if
there's any other discussion on on this
uh
motion. I'll call the question then. All
in favor and opposed. Uh opposed by
councelor
[Music]
Gray.
Okay. All right. So, um we are out of
time. So, unfortunately, we don't have
time for public input.
Um, so I would like
[Music]
to ask for agreement. Sorry, go ahead.
Um, we have correspondence maybe just to
receive that and there's nothing about
another public participation session. So
we're we are sticking to the agenda. So
oh, sorry. Okay. Sorry.
Yeah, we we're out of time because our
servers are going to stop in a minute.
I move receipt of the be correspondence
from the Wilson wershed association.
Yes. And also uh Miss Shuken with her
letter as well um commenting on our
budget today. Okay. So um so uh call we
have we have a mover to adjurnn and a
seconder. Mayor little um you should do
the receipt of correspondence first. Of
course we should. Yeah.
Okay. So,
uh, motion to receive the
correspondence.
Moved by councelor Jukin. Uh, second by
Mayor Little. All in favor? Carried.
And, uh, move for adjournment. Moved by
councelor
Zukan. Seconded by Mayor Little. All in
favor? Carrie. Thank you very much for
your patience.
[Music]
Okay.