[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.