[0:00] Okay, we'll bring this meeting to order of the Economic Standing Policy Committee for June 21, 2023.

[0:09] I will commence with the acknowledgment statement.

[0:13] The City of Lethbridge acknowledges that we are gathered on the lines of the Blackfoot people, of the Canadian

[0:17] Plains and Pays respect to the Blackfoot people, past, present, and future, while recognizing and respecting their cultural heritage, beliefs, and relationship to the land.

[0:26] The City of Left Bridge is also the home to the meeting nation of Alberta Region 3, Madam Clerk, please read the roll call.

[0:34] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[0:36] Councillor Campbell.

[0:37] Councillor Carlson.

[0:40] Councillor Carlson.

[0:41] Present.

[0:42] Councillor Dowdick.

[0:43] Councillor Paladino.

[0:45] Councillor Schmidt-Rempel.

[0:48] Acting Mayor Parker.

[0:49] Present.

[0:50] Deputy Mayor, Millets and Hope.

[0:52] And Mayor Hagan.

[0:54] Present.

[0:55] I see him on team.

[1:00] Thank you, Madam Clerk, and apologize to the public.

[1:04] We had a very long in-camera meeting this this morning.

[1:09] We also have a very long agenda this afternoon.

[1:12] So please bear with us.

[1:13] We'll try and get to all the matters in a timely fashion.

[1:17] So I'll call the Economic Standing Policy Committee meeting to order.

[1:22] Madam Clerk, are there any revisions to the agenda?

[1:27] No, Deputy Mayor, there are no revisions to this agenda today.

[1:30] Thank you.

[1:30] Then I have a motion before me from Acting Mayor Parker,

[1:35] adoption of the agenda, be it resolved at the June 21st, 2023.

[1:39] Agenda of the Economic Standing Policy Committee meeting be adopted as presented.

[1:44] Well, the question, question has been called, I'm favorite.

[1:48] And that passes unanimously, thank you, Madam Clerk.

[1:54] I have before me the consent agenda also from Acting Mayor Parker, be it resolved

[1:59] of the minutes of the Economic Standing Policy Committee meeting held on May 17, 2023, be

[2:05] approved and that the Deputy Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the same.

[2:09] Further be a result that the status of initiatives for June 21, 2023 be received as information.

[2:17] Acting Deputy.

[2:18] I call the question, Mayor.

[2:19] Questions been called on the favor.

[2:21] We have a consensus again.

[2:23] Thank you.

[2:28] All right, so the first of six presentations this afternoon, the first one will be from the

[2:38] Lathbridge Old Times Sports Association, known as L-O-S-A or Losa, the Henderson Project, Mr.

[2:45] Makato.

[2:46] Would you please come forward?

[2:49] Deputy Mayor.

[2:50] Mr. Swara, are you here as well? There you are.

[2:54] Deputy Mayor.

[2:56] Excellent. You have a total of 10 minutes.

[3:02] Mr. Chairman. Deputy.

[3:06] Yes, Mr. Mayor.

[3:09] Any, okay, you can hear me. I'm just going to step away for this as I am a member of the

[3:13] Lepurgil Timer Sports Association, so I'll step away.

[3:16] If the city clerk can please let me know when this presentation is done,

[3:19] and I'll be sure to attend the remaining.

[3:22] And is the conflict as an old timer, or is it as a sports figure?

[3:30] I don't believe that you need to figure that out.

[3:32] All right.

[3:33] Gentlemen, you have ten minutes.

[3:35] Great.

[3:38] Chair Depp here, Mayor Joe Midleton, hope members of economic standing policy committee.

[3:44] We're here to go over the Henderson project, which we've been working on for the last few years.

[3:51] Next slide.

[3:54] Here's the agenda, who we are, the project vision, community support, project proposal history,

[4:04] financials, loses a request for a council, and then questions after that.

[4:10] Next slide.

[4:13] So the left-for-age old timers, votes, sports association, adult, recreational hockey and social

[4:18] organization. We're approximately 200 members,

[4:25] very community involved. We do scholarships

[4:28] with any extra funds that we have. We've donated over the last few years, or the last few

[4:35] years we haven't donated as much because of the project. We've been in conception since 1975

[4:41] and contributed about $250,000 back into the community. Next slide.

[4:48] Lowes' vision is to partner with the city to construct a community room at the south end of the

[4:57] Henderson Arena.

[5:01] We put the proposal towards Lowes' membership in 2018 and were granted permission to go forward

[5:10] and the spending of 25,000 towards architectural drawings.

[5:15] The area is about 3,000 square feet, community area, board room, storage, kitchen, and washrooms,

[5:25] and an office space for Loza.

[5:28] The community room would be used for non-profits, at low or no cost rent, with audio visual equipment,

[5:37] But, next slide, indoor options that within the area are designed for community gatherings.

[5:45] It's in close proximity to, well, within the arena, the ball diamond, tennis courts,

[5:50] Henderson Lake, skate park, and swing pool.

[5:54] It could also be used for meetings, presentations, training, and social functions.

[6:02] Support from the community, we have letters of support from various other organizations, which I think you all have in your package next slide.

[6:16] So this is a rendering of where the, where the room would be located at the south end, where the small ring used to be.

[6:25] This shows also which the project roughly of the CIP that's coming up in the next few years.

[6:32] Next slide.

[6:35] Also rendering this would be on the looking towards the south end of the ring.

[6:42] Next slide.

[6:44] This is within the space.

[6:46] So this will be at top of you this shows the boardroom, office, warming kitchen,

[6:53] washroom, some storage areas.

[6:56] We expect to have glass along the whole north end of that room, so if you're in there you'd be able to look out onto the arena.

[7:06] Next slide.

[7:09] We have a community or letters of support from these community members.

[7:16] Next slide.

[7:19] So the history kind of where all this started, so we started around 2019.

[7:26] meetings with city manager, city department,

[7:29] specific services, culture, finance, legal,

[7:33] procurement, risk management.

[7:39] We request by the city.

[7:42] There was a request by the city for us to get

[7:45] architectural drawings so that we could actually get

[7:49] construction costs.

[7:51] So the membership supported our ask for about

[7:54] 25,000 for architectural drawings, which we went out and got.

[7:59] The drawings that we currently have are ready for construction.

[8:05] We bunch it up to date.

[8:08] So we do have a contractor.

[8:10] We've got all the pricing together.

[8:12] So we know what the project will cost.

[8:16] 2023 meetings with city administration and share

[8:19] proper coordination with the CIP project.

[8:22] Project D17 Henderson Ice Center upgrade.

[8:26] next slide.

[8:30] So this is financially kind of what where we're at right now

[8:35] yes. We have the CCPG grant through the city matching to a 630,000.

[8:46] Loses portion is about 415. In 2019 we received. So the CCPG grant we've had to

[8:58] we use 15,000 of it for part of our prints and such, and then we re-applied again to get

[9:07] it just because of the time frame with COVID and everything. Drawings end up costable 32,700.

[9:17] Grant covered 15,000. Low contribution for matching funds was 15.

[9:23] and in kind by architects was 7,700.

[9:29] In 2021, we applied and got the grant again for 200,000.

[9:35] Next slide.

[9:40] So this is kind of where our donations from wolves that come from.

[9:45] We have major donors right now in the amount of 25,000.

[9:52] Trading kind, we're budgeting about 100,000.

[9:54] a low-sec contribution, 10,000, and our advertising revenue from board advertising in the first year would be 35,000, which gives us about 400,000.

[10:09] Next slide.

[10:13] So this is the base fund scenario community capital project for 250,000,

[10:20] Losa for 25 major donors 255, which is about 495,000.

[10:29] Losa gift and kind, which is going to be trades that are going to work.

[10:33] Put a certain amount of money towards the work at no cost or lower costs.

[10:40] Losa advertising revenue from the boards of 35,000, which brings us to about 630,000.

[10:47] additional support that we require is about 455,000 for total budget of about a million,

[10:55] Next slide.

[10:59] So one of the scenarios we went through is to possibly get the city to front-end finance.

[11:06] We would sign up businesses about 35 for $1,000 a year for five-year commitment.

[11:14] Just we won't have the full five years, so we repaying the city back over the next five years.

[11:22] Or four years, sorry, first year we would get in the next four years we'd have to finance.

[11:27] Next slide.

[11:32] So these are two different scenarios.

[11:34] A scenario of a city support for 455,000, which would include that financing.

[11:40] And then the next one is if we got, well, if we, the pledges, the front end financing was given to

[11:50] Loza for 140,000, and then additional Loza contributions for 70,000.

[11:55] And then we'd only required 245,000 from the city.

[12:01] Next slide.

[12:04] So as Loza's request from this, for request, the city council support, the project came out in

[12:12] The provision of 140,000 front-end financing over four-year term with permission to work with the city administration to undertake the details,

[12:22] leasing GST implications on the project, required by law and budget amendments.

[12:29] Next slide.

[12:33] That's it.

[12:34] Hopefully I'm talking too fast.

[12:39] Thank you.

[12:42] There we go.

[12:43] Thank you very much for your presentation.

[12:45] I'm wondering if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter, anyone from the public, and for a third time, anyone from the public would like to speak on this matter.

[13:00] Seeing none, then, I'm wondering if any members of Council have a question for the presenters.

[13:10] I don't see Council Carlson in there. Oh, there he is. Okay.

[13:14] Carlson, go ahead.

[13:15] I think technically he was first on the buzzer, but I'll take it.

[13:21] Let's talk about your operating or planned operating model at this move's ahead.

[13:25] Would you be sublacing it to other groups?

[13:27] How would you be financing the ongoing operations of it?

[13:30] On growing operations, we are hoping to use the city's booking system for booking the space

[13:36] and whether it's rented at a lower reduced cost to other facilities.

[13:42] facilities.

[13:43] Are you are looking at to rent it out to other groups and you're hoping the city would

[13:47] somehow be involved with that but that would have to be figured out.

[13:51] Let me just ask them a very blunt question.

[13:53] Why should we support this and compete with ourselves on renting other places?

[13:58] Because we already have our own rental spaces.

[14:00] Would this be competition or is there enough need to warrant it as well?

[14:04] I think with the letters of support that we were given from other associations that the

[14:09] space is warranted in that area.

[14:14] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[14:19] Councillor Carlson.

[14:21] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[14:22] And thank you, Councillor Carlson, for beating me to the punch.

[14:25] I had very similar questions.

[14:27] And so the first one is probably toward administration, if I can, to the city manager or

[14:33] designate.

[14:34] The capacity.

[14:36] We've made several large investments over the last few years.

[14:40] I'm thinking there's something over an ethnic association.

[14:43] Nika Yuko, just a name too, that spring the mind for these types of community use spaces.

[14:53] Have we done a look to see what the capacity is because my recollection is both of those.

[15:00] Organizations are experiencing challenges renting out their space because we may have overbuilt.

[15:11] So that we have any information on capacity, and yes, there's letters of support.

[15:18] But do we already have, as Councillor Crosson said, opportunities for organizations?

[15:32] Councilor Carlson, thank you for the question.

[15:36] You're correct.

[15:37] Some of our other organizations that do have meeting spaces are having difficulty filling

[15:41] those spaces.

[15:43] This one could be considered a different type of use, more for sporting organizations to utilize.

[15:52] We don't have specific data that would indicate at this time that there is an excess of meeting

[16:00] space, but we have been hearing from our groups that they're having difficulty filling your

[16:05] spaces.

[16:08] So, to go back to Councillor Crosson's comment, we'd be adding more to the already not

[16:15] two fierce competition is what I'm hearing. Is that correct?

[16:22] That's correct, Councillor Crosson.

[16:23] Okay, thank you Mr. Harper for that second question Mr. Macador or to the Lose Group.

[16:31] You're talking about a four-year payback,

[16:35] but only of a certain percentage. Did your group ever consider

[16:40] extending that to say a 15-year her and payback the entire amount?

[16:47] And I'm just wondering why you came up with, we'll pay back a third of it over four years.

[16:52] Well, our first, the first scenario was just for the five years.

[16:58] Now, our board changes every three years, so to commit for another five years after that,

[17:06] it would be difficult for us to commit at this time.

[17:09] We had talked about the option of a five year, and then if it goes well, I can't see why

[17:15] we can't extend it for another five years, and we had thought after that, like if it worked

[17:22] that we only did the five years, anything following that, the money that was made, whether

[17:27] so it could be another $35,000, we thought half of that could go towards building maintenance

[17:32] and half of it, so it would give away to the public, we give away to organizations in the extra money we have.

[17:40] Thank you. Deputy Mayor, I do have a final question. Is there anyone else in the queue?

[17:44] There is, but no one more important.

[17:47] You're very, just a question through you to the city manager, a designate, a funding for this.

[17:55] Because if we're frontending, that tradition means we take out our loan.

[18:01] And so maybe the 455, I think it was a thousand, is actually going to be much greater than that over time.

[18:12] or is there a different way to fund this from grants, et cetera?

[18:17] Members of economic standing policy committee to councilor Carlson.

[18:23] Between the two pieces, we'd probably look at a two different funding sources

[18:27] if the council was wishing to do this.

[18:29] One, the 245,000 most likely would come from the one time funding

[18:34] the council set aside in the CIP.

[18:37] So that would be that $10 million.

[18:38] There is about 2.5 million of commitments against it so far, against that amount.

[18:46] And the other piece for the interim financing or internal loan to the organization,

[18:54] that would come from the MRSR and be a loan similar to whether or not profit groups that

[19:00] would come through.

[19:02] And what percent do we usually charge to that?

[19:06] So, the couple things over the years, Council has,

[19:11] I'm going to grab some notes here,

[19:13] but there's been a little bit different on interest rates

[19:15] over the last number of years.

[19:17] So, it is normally our internal loan policy.

[19:22] Now, it's not necessarily for not-per-profits,

[19:24] would suggest that Council gives the provincial

[19:26] province of Alberta rate plus 0.25%.

[19:30] Now, that is if you're similar to what the Council had done

[19:35] for lending for the exhibition, we're a boring external.

[19:42] When it's for other not-for-profit groups,

[19:45] it's been a mixed component inside of there,

[19:47] and with more times that it's actually

[19:49] a 0% loan and concessionary.

[19:53] Thank you.

[19:56] Thank you.

[19:58] Thank you, and of equal importance, Councillor Campbell.

[20:00] Well, thank you for that.

[20:03] But I think the important guy just asked

[20:05] question that I was going to ask, but I did want to get to what what's burned the old

[20:13] timers association to come up with the concept of why what was the genesis of saying,

[20:17] you know, we need this, we're taking take me through that. Wow, I guess we look at other

[20:25] groups within the city. They all have like minor hockey, they have their office in the city,

[20:31] on the west side, figure skating has theirs.

[20:34] Minor hockey also has, I guess, not the Logan Bule.

[20:38] So we just thought this space wasn't being used.

[20:41] That it'd be a good spot.

[20:43] And we play there more than half of our games

[20:45] are played there.

[20:46] But was there a real demand by the organization

[20:50] to have that facility?

[20:51] Because you're adding on to, this will be good for local groups,

[20:54] other sports groups.

[20:56] So how did the board come to that decision

[21:00] that this would be good, or that it's important.

[21:05] That's sure.

[21:10] What needs your help here?

[21:13] Well, as far as the genesis it, it started back in 2018,

[21:18] and that's when I first came on the board.

[21:20] And so the concept was discussed at that time

[21:22] with the membership.

[21:26] So it was, I'm not sure who started the idea

[21:31] of the concept, but it was back then that the membership

[21:35] was asked to support the or support the project and indeed they did, they came up with approval

[21:42] for going ahead with $25,000 in architectural drawings. So that's how much the membership

[21:47] did support it because at that point it was just a concept and yet most it was agreeable

[21:53] to go forward with it and provide $25,000 of our coffers to a project that may or may not go forward

[22:00] with. So it was an idea that had been fully supported by a membership. And in fact one of the

[22:06] major donors is Mike Davis, his family is one of the major donors that have gone forward

[22:14] in the past and his grandfather is one of the founders of LOSA, dating back almost 48 years.

[22:26] And so he has 1975, so that's how far back that there's been support and his family is greatly supporting this whole concept.

[22:38] And one of the other things about this concept is that we're not financing it through the rentals.

[22:44] What we're hoping to do is have nonprofits be able to, I guess, rent.

[22:49] It would either know cost or low cost and we're not wanting to profit from this at any

[22:56] way, but making it available to non-profits because there's a lot of non-profits.

[23:00] I'm a member of one where we meet in our, you know, somebody's house because we don't

[23:07] can't afford to go and meet for a dream.

[23:11] So if we had this kind of concept, we could, this organization, organization could come and

[23:17] rented out either low cost because we're only trying to recoup whatever

[23:20] janitorial cost there might be and have holding a meeting. So it's from that

[23:25] perspective if there was sort of market race that would discuss earlier that

[23:30] really wasn't what our concept was and in fact it thought was going to be a

[23:34] market race and you know we'd have to talk to the city about what would happen

[23:41] in that instance and so therefore we were thinking that we would have a least

[23:44] agreement in place and that lease agreement give losses and benefits but also a city and they

[23:49] could market out and use it for their purposes at the market rates if there was a wedding

[23:55] or a family function or something like that.

[23:58] But our emphasis was not on that side, it was just more to make it available to non-profits.

[24:04] I don't know if there's an answer to this but just a thought because you know we're always

[24:08] faced with rising costs and that mean administration would know all about this but what kind

[24:12] Do we have a looking into the future of rising costs for what they're asking for?

[24:18] If anybody wants to take that on, or is this just going to be what just take it as it comes?

[24:25] Anybody want to take that?

[24:26] We did put in a contingency.

[24:28] We did.

[24:29] Yeah, 10%.

[24:30] Okay.

[24:32] The thing is, we've just recently went out.

[24:34] So it's not like these costs are, you know, a bit put in place for three years.

[24:38] Our original budget was about 800,000, and of course through COVID, it increased five, 25 percent, approximately, and so now we're at the stage where we are.

[24:47] So we went out for a tender like Mike said just in the beginning of the year.

[24:51] So it's not like it's the cost of being completely inflate, because we want to start this project this year, hopefully.

[24:59] And so it would just be between that point in time and the few months that have transpired.

[25:04] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[25:07] Thank you. I see Councillor Crosson has jumped back into the queue. Okay.

[25:14] So, this partly will go to, you know, possible motion idea. But what I'm hearing from this

[25:19] and I'll ask the question to the city manager or Jezegnett, we've had groups that have

[25:24] wanted to look at the Bowman because they need meeting space and they need storage space

[25:28] and everything else. And we know that, you know, this group is just bringing forward a problem

[25:32] that we're hearing from a lot of groups.

[25:34] There is so much need for not-for-profits

[25:36] for the small-volunteer organizations to have space.

[25:40] Does from a city perspective,

[25:41] from an operational perspective,

[25:42] which is why I last question, city manager,

[25:45] is there a better way of doing this,

[25:47] not to do it looking at case by case,

[25:49] but to look at it more holistically,

[25:50] looking at the Bowman issue and everything as well,

[25:53] and to do this as a combined,

[25:54] so we create the best resources for the entire community.

[25:58] So, Mr. City Manager,

[25:59] should we look at, should we refer this back to operations

[26:01] to look at in a holistic manner?

[26:06] Through the Deputy Mayor, that's certainly a consideration at Council, or a committee

[26:12] could make, is to us to have administration provide a more holistic look at this.

[26:17] And of course, there are additional pieces that would need to be worked out with Losa,

[26:23] should this move forward as well.

[26:25] So I know it is Councilor Campbell's or motion though, I don't think there's anything

[26:29] So that would be my suggestion, at this point, is we refer this to administration to bring back, following the summer break.

[26:39] But that's just my suggestion. Thank you.

[26:46] Thank you, Councillor Crosson.

[26:49] So, just a quick, just a quick, is there, I mean, for the association that is, how important is a timeline here for you?

[27:02] Well, the sooner or the better, I guess, like we would like to get started, because once the

[27:07] CIP project starts, we're not going to be able to continue until the end of it, which is

[27:13] likely going to be in 2026.

[27:16] So, there's a short timeframe here.

[27:18] We've been meeting with city administration for last five years, but because of the last upgrade

[27:24] to the Henderson project, we've been given a window of this year up until March 31st or April

[27:30] the first of next year to have the project completed.

[27:33] Have it completed, so you'd have to get started right away.

[27:36] Yep, they start right away, and the issue with us

[27:38] is that this project has been going on for four or five years.

[27:42] And we've got some, we've got a lot of momentum,

[27:46] especially with our major donors that have said that we're very

[27:50] interested at this point in time.

[27:52] But if we have to wait for three years, which is the next time

[27:55] where that we can move forward with it,

[27:57] I'm not so sure that they would be still interested,

[27:59] and I'm not sure the project would go forward if we didn't have the 255,000 major donors

[28:04] and it's just interested in the project and we'd have to reapply for the major capital

[28:09] project grant or the CCPG grant. So we'd basically be starting over again and I'm just

[28:16] fearful that we would our momentum would wane. Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

[28:30] Thank you, Councillor Campbell. We'll be with you in just one moment. We're just drafting a

[28:34] I'll be half of Councilor Krosen.

[28:49] All right, we're winging this one.

[28:52] This is a motion from Councilor Krosen

[28:54] for the Lethbridge Old Times Sports Association

[28:57] Henderson Project, future timelines and presentations.

[29:02] Be it resolved that the Economic Standing Policy Committee

[29:04] refer this item to administration to review other options

[29:09] and feasibilities and return to the Economic Standing Policy Committee

[29:13] at their September the 13th, 2023 meeting.

[29:17] Else, for Rosa.

[29:19] Thank you, Chair.

[29:20] I appreciate that you are, you know,

[29:21] have momentum and you have a timeline,

[29:24] but we have to be concerned about setting any,

[29:28] setting this within the larger context

[29:30] and worrying about the concerns of other community groups

[29:32] at the same time.

[29:33] This is a short break.

[29:34] I mean, September is gonna be here before any of us are ready for it.

[29:37] It does give administration some time

[29:39] to look at some of the other things we have moving forward

[29:42] And to make sure we have this in a comprehensive manner, you know, I would suggest that we do this better and not just necessarily quick and make sure we look at it holistically, so that is why the bit of a break, I would ask the date September 13th is the next.

[30:00] Economic, is that a sufficient timeline to the city manager and his team? Would you one question I'd have before we vote on this or look at this further?

[30:13] Looking to Mr. Harper, if he is any thoughts on that, it's tight to come back for that we might need a little more time to give him the summer constraints to look at the other piece if I could speak to this with the timelines to complete at this point anyway.

[30:33] it would extend this out to the end of this year

[30:37] if we were to work through the other requirements.

[30:40] So Mr. Harper, timelines for September?

[30:46] Mr. City Manager, I would agree.

[30:48] It would be difficult to get really good information

[30:52] from groups over the summer.

[30:54] Everybody knows that groups don't meet over the summer.

[30:58] It's difficult.

[30:58] Everybody's on holidays.

[31:00] I think September might be difficult to get

[31:02] and some really good, useful information to be able to guide that discussion by September.

[31:12] The economic in October?

[31:13] October 18th.

[31:20] I guess why we're looking at you blankly, is that enough time?

[31:26] It got covers more reasonable as far as coming back, at least with the high level information.

[31:32] And does that give you, and you can tell your donors, it's all our fault if there's a bit of a delay.

[31:36] So, just put the blame on us, everybody else does.

[31:39] That's why I was in my plan.

[31:42] To you, Shay.

[31:43] But like I said, to look at it comprehensively, to have a better perspective to give

[31:48] it and in the chance to work with the group, I think a little bit of time is warranted.

[31:52] We're not saying yes or no, but we're just saying, let's do our due diligence moving

[31:56] board.

[31:57] And so that is my opening debate.

[31:59] Thank you.

[32:01] Councilor Donut.

[32:03] Excuse me.

[32:03] I have a question.

[32:06] I'm losing my voice again, I don't know what's happening.

[32:09] It's actually to the presenters, putting it off to mid-October.

[32:15] Is that doable for you?

[32:17] Or is it a COVID project?

[32:20] I'm not so sure the project would move forward.

[32:22] We could take back for a membership,

[32:25] but based on going back to the AGM,

[32:27] and going back to our example to Mike Davis,

[32:32] Like I said before, our timeline is by working with the Henderson Upgrade Project, their timeline that they've given to us is that we have to have ours completed by March of 2024.

[32:46] Our next time frame would be March of 2026 to start.

[32:52] So it's, and I would say, we don't fold out these things they had in the project at least.

[32:59] So, with this motion or the pass, it may actually be moved to your project in the sense of that?

[33:06] I would think so.

[33:07] We would again meet back with administration to see if they could move their timelines for us.

[33:13] But, indications are that we have this small window to complete the project by March of next year.

[33:19] And if that's not the case, it's another two years before we could start, even start it.

[33:24] And like Mike said, by that time, we will have a whole new board, our donors probably,

[33:29] or may not be interested in anymore.

[33:33] So it's a 50, 50, I don't know what you're talking about.

[33:36] I would suspect that if we go that long, we likely wouldn't go ahead.

[33:41] Like, and we're not, I guess, just kind of a, oops, argument with the whole process.

[33:47] But we're trying to do a project and have the city on the hook for the least amount of money.

[33:54] So, on the other point, I'm just curious, I saw different numbers when it was 4455.

[34:01] But are you asking for 245 plus 140, or are you asking for 240 plus the front end finance on the advertising?

[34:11] So, the 140, we expect to pay that back within the next four years.

[34:15] But you're asking for 385?

[34:19] But that would be front-end financing that 140, so that wouldn't come out of the city's

[34:26] city funding.

[34:28] That would only initially come from the MRSR and be repaid just like the other standard.

[34:34] But I mean the initial likely would be 385 of which 140 would be returned.

[34:40] Thank you.

[34:42] Sorry, 245, 140 of which we've returned.

[34:45] 235 plus 140, 140 of which we returned.

[34:47] Thank you.

[34:49] One last question to the city manager in regards to the timeline is that flexible at all.

[34:56] Actually just to bring some clarity to it.

[34:59] It's something that and not the sound like I'm debating.

[35:03] I'm just going to speak to the facts.

[35:04] So even if this was to proceed today,

[35:08] the timeline from now until the last council meeting on July 25th

[35:17] approval on the 25th of July and from there go to a first reading of a lending by law on

[35:24] September 19th. Second and third reading of lending by law on October 31st and then a 30 day

[35:33] court application period, which is a requirement to lapse would take us to November 30th, meaning

[35:38] that the earliest construction could start would be in December anyway. I would expect that I

[35:46] I would expect that would be pretty tight for you, even if this was to go today.

[35:56] I think what I'm trying to convey by the facts is I think it's kind of up against

[36:00] it anyway.

[36:03] Again, I'm just presenting the facts to Council and whatever the decision is from there.

[36:10] Okay, thank you.

[36:11] Councilor Schmidt-Rumble.

[36:12] the city manager just answered my question.

[36:15] Great, I think goes back to the mover.

[36:21] I greatly appreciate where the group is coming from.

[36:24] But my concern is setting a precedent and knowing how many community groups I have spoken to recently

[36:29] who are looking for space.

[36:32] If we approve this without doing our due diligence, we will have about 50 more groups in front of us in no time.

[36:37] Because I know there are a lot of groups that are looking for space and are having options and needs to.

[36:44] And so, it is a difficult decision, but I think we need the time and as we've heard from the same manager, some of this stuff is going to take some time behind the scenes to do anyways and giving us some time to have the conversation, we'll just fit in with that timeline.

[36:59] So I'm going to ask for my colleague support.

[37:05] All right then.

[37:06] I'll call the question.

[37:08] Question has been called.

[37:09] All in favor of the motion.

[37:11] I was, I was going to, I was sorry, I was just going to say I,

[37:16] I don't want to come away.

[37:18] I will not support that motion.

[37:21] I believe that the LOSA has come forward with, you know,

[37:25] they've been on this project for a number of years.

[37:27] They've shown, I think they've shown a lot of their own due diligence.

[37:31] And I know one way or the other,

[37:33] they're going to be up against it.

[37:35] But I think, by, if we approve their original request,

[37:38] that at least shows the definite intent of the organization

[37:41] and perhaps that will help their sponsors

[37:43] keep keep their interest with it and go forward with the project. So I'm not going to be

[37:49] supporting that particular motion. Thanks.

[37:55] All right, that's a question.

[37:56] Yeah, I'd clarity. Then the question has been called?

[38:00] Oh,

[38:03] Councillor Carlson. Are you now going to? Sorry, Mr. Chair. I was in for debate.

[38:09] Actually, I'm not on my board. Oh, I'm sorry.

[38:12] That's okay. You can jump in.

[38:14] That's all right. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I will be supporting this motion. I love the idea.

[38:21] I love the concept. However, I've been bitten before by loving projects as they come up

[38:30] one-offs without actually examining in total capacity and needs in our community.

[38:39] As I said, we've already invested heavily in community meeting space, and I think we've

[38:46] over invested due to the fact that each of those groups keeps coming to us for extra

[38:52] operating costs, because we didn't do a good enough job of figuring out, was this really

[38:59] needed and will it be utilized in our community?

[39:04] So I would rather take the time to figure out what we have, what's needed in our community and what it's going to cost us, and move forward.

[39:14] I'm just reminded of other capital projects that we invested in, and then less than a year later, we've had organizations come to us and say,

[39:22] Thank you for the building and I know we told you it was going to be cheap and free and no

[39:27] extra cost but now we need an extra million bucks operating because nobody's renting because nobody

[39:33] actually needs all that space. So I love the idea but I've got to make sure it's just on behalf of our

[39:40] community that we're not overbuilding and causing the taxpayer to pick up the tap. So I'd rather

[39:49] wait and do a thorough examination, so I appreciate Councillor Crosson's motion, and I will

[39:55] be supporting it.

[40:03] I'm just waiting a moment to make sure that somebody has a jump back into the queue again.

[40:08] Councillor Crosson.

[40:09] All the questions?

[40:09] Go call the question.

[40:11] All those in favour of the proposed motion, please raise your hands.

[40:16] All those opposed.

[40:21] The motion is lost.

[40:23] The motion is lost.

[40:24] I was going to say defeated.

[40:27] Thank you.

[40:27] Thank you, gentlemen.

[40:44] But an alternate motion can be put forward.

[40:56] So we're just investigating an alternate motion from Councillor Campbell.

[41:03] Just give us a minute.

[42:49] All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a recess for ten minutes as we

[42:53] get our wagons into circle and figure this out.

[42:56] Please bear with us.

[58:25] Councilor Campbell to come up on the screen.

[58:33] Councilor Campbell,

[58:37] motion reads, it'd be at result, that the economic standing policy committee

[58:40] refer this item to administration to work with Loza to identify the following.

[58:46] A new CIP summary, including any operational cost for the facility, required draft agreements

[58:51] and or bylaws, associated construction timelines for this project in the 2022 to 2031 CIP-D-17.

[59:00] Henderson Ice Center, Upgrade Project, and additional costs and impacts on the city's capital

[59:07] project, CIPD-17, resulting from this new proposal, Lose of Project.

[59:13] And forward the information to the July 25th, 2023 meeting of council.

[59:19] Before the council.

[59:20] Any questions from my colleagues?

[59:23] I see Councillor Crosson is in the queue.

[59:27] Thank you, Chair, I realize I'm a little out of step with where we are now, is not so much

[59:31] of debate, but there's a question, through you to the City Manager or Jezignette,

[59:35] just before we look at some of this, we're looking at operational costs, et cetera, but I

[59:39] have a question about the capital.

[59:41] We have a CCPG of $215,000, just so I am clear in my own head, that is already City Money.

[59:48] Am I correct on that?

[59:49] That that is a city grant?

[59:51] to act upon members of the committee and to council person that is correct.

[59:55] And is that a matching grant?

[59:57] Yes it is.

[1:00:00] 1, 3, 2, 3, to match. And let me ask you this way. Can money from the city be used for a matching grant in the city?

[1:00:08] No. Okay. Thank you very much. The other thing is this is essentially what I was asking for. And so now the same question to the city manager as I asked, is this doable?

[1:00:29] It's much tighter than October.

[1:00:30] I think shouting amongst ourselves, it's really, really tight.

[1:00:35] I will say that, that's about most I can say this point.

[1:00:39] It's not impossible, but I can see it from where I'm standing.

[1:00:44] We're talking turkey dinner, tight?

[1:00:46] Maybe.

[1:00:48] All right.

[1:00:49] Councillor Campbell?

[1:00:50] Thanks.

[1:00:51] There's no other question.

[1:00:52] I know that the time lines are tight, and I know that this is a difficult battle

[1:00:58] to fight here for Elosa right now just given on all of the timelines that have to happen

[1:01:03] if we approve this today and things got started but it is their hope to at least get kind of a

[1:01:11] green light and this is sort of a part of what I hope we can accomplish here and bring it to our next

[1:01:18] meeting of council with more questions. So with that I'll leave it up to the rest of my colleagues

[1:01:25] but I ask for your support.

[1:01:27] They'll have Councillor Dota in the queue for debate, okay?

[1:01:33] Excuse me, thank you.

[1:01:37] The reason I didn't support Councillor Crosson's resolution previously was

[1:01:43] because it effectively would have been moved for this organization.

[1:01:51] It had been and continues to be my intention to say no to the request for the money.

[1:01:57] Unfortunately, I have to say that because this is a one-off that needs more information,

[1:02:03] but unfortunately to get that information puts you in a place where it makes it almost mood for them.

[1:02:09] So it had been my hope that the resolution that would come forward would have said to give the money at which time I would have voted against it for the reasons that I just said.

[1:02:24] So for the different reasons, I will be voting against this resolution because I don't want this organization to be twisting in the wind thinking that money is available.

[1:02:36] when I'm getting a sense that the money is not there, so I'd rather just say no today rather

[1:02:45] than create a situation where there is a hope that the money would be available when in fact

[1:02:50] it likely would not. So for there is reasons I won't be supporting this resolution.

[1:02:56] Thank you, Councillor Carlson.

[1:03:02] Sorry, Deputy Mayor, I was trying to take my hand down because

[1:03:04] Councilor Dotic basically just gave my debate of why I won't be supporting as well as I don't just say digital.

[1:03:12] Thank you.

[1:03:13] Back to you, Councillor Campbell.

[1:03:15] I don't see you on here. There you go, acting mayor Parker. Thank you.

[1:03:24] Thank you very much.

[1:03:26] When I see the resolution, when I first saw the project, I wanted to take an opportunity to ponder it.

[1:03:34] And so where we don't use very often is I don't want to say yes, I don't want to say no, but I also

[1:03:38] felt like we weren't ready to make a decision today and I think it's unfair to the community

[1:03:42] for us to make that decision as well until we go through a process of doing our due diligence.

[1:03:47] When I see the resolution on the, as it's written and as I see it, it gives me an opportunity

[1:03:55] Ponder to hear the pros and cons we have an organization that has leveraged lots of private funds also leveraged city funds

[1:04:05] And so I don't know if I'm for against a project

[1:04:09] But I think if I have the more information for the administration to go through it

[1:04:13] I and I understand I appreciate that it is a tight tight time line

[1:04:17] I believe I have an opportunity to have an offer app come July

[1:04:22] if need be. So for that reason, I think we should at least go to the process. By passing this

[1:04:28] resolution does not endorse this project in any way, it just gives us an opportunity to

[1:04:33] ponder it and going through a process of due diligence. So for that reason, I will be supporting you.

[1:04:42] I have a question, Mr. Chair, if that would be permitted?

[1:04:48] Yes, certainly of the mover.

[1:04:52] It's a clear point question.

[1:04:54] How is this different than what Councillor Crosson put forward that we just voted on?

[1:05:02] That not also be included as part of this?

[1:05:05] I guess my concern was how much it was going to be delayed.

[1:05:09] that was my mostly my concern is it was going to be the end of October and I was hoping this

[1:05:13] gets dealt more speedily. That was my that was my thought.

[1:05:19] So I guess further to that then can we not have some of that information that Councilor

[1:05:23] Crosson also requested by July 25th?

[1:05:33] That would be a little too tight, Councilor.

[1:05:37] Thank you.

[1:05:48] Thank you very much, Mr. City Manager, then it's back to you, Mr. Campbell.

[1:05:51] Call for the vote.

[1:05:53] All right, all those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand,

[1:06:01] all those opposed.

[1:06:03] Motion is defeated.

[1:06:05] Thank you very much.

[1:06:21] Okay?

[1:06:21] Move forward to 5.2.

[1:06:29] All right, item 5.2 on the agenda, water and waste water, 22, 231, capital improvement program amendment,

[1:06:36] to present her Mr. Doug Calms.

[1:06:41] And Mr. Calp how much time do you anticipate?

[1:06:48] Great.

[1:06:49] Not much.

[1:06:53] I move quickly.

[1:07:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:07:06] What we're presenting today is amendments to the Capital Improvement Program for the water and

[1:07:16] wastewater utilities, next slide.

[1:07:18] So

[1:07:24] these are charts from the annual annual report that was presented a month or two ago to the civic works SPC and the key items here are that evidence that the capacity of the water and wastewater plants is diminishing.

[1:07:50] you can see from in the table, for example, in, you know, 2017 and in 2021, which were

[1:07:58] hot and dry summers, that we said, you know, record peak demands and approached 90% of the

[1:08:06] capacity, the treatment plant. Similarly, at the wastewater plant, 2019, was especially high

[1:08:15] And so depending on what portion of the plant is, whether it's strength or volume, you'll see that the capacity of the existing facility is in short supply.

[1:08:38] We also know that there are, you know, anticipated demands in the next five years, the

[1:08:46] McCain's, a French-Write plant has announced the doubling of their facility.

[1:08:53] We know that there's, you know, we've had expansions of industrial facilities within the

[1:09:01] city, and we anticipate more next slide.

[1:09:08] So this is just a sneak preview of the final slide of the deck to show the, to demonstrate

[1:09:19] the impact of the increase in revenue requirements from this program can keep the rates

[1:09:31] within the city competitive.

[1:09:35] So, currently we have some of the lowest water and wastewater rates in the province and we would continue to do so with the increased revenue requirements that are proposed next slide.

[1:09:53] So in the water area in particular, we have a number of projects required to achieve the expansion

[1:10:06] of the system to deliver 180 million liters a day from the current 150 million liters

[1:10:13] a day, the total phase 1 program which is all of those green bars on the chart add up to

[1:10:23] to $123 million worth of investment, some of which were included in our included in the current

[1:10:30] CIP.

[1:10:31] Next slide.

[1:10:34] So this is the process diagram for the water plant.

[1:10:37] I just want to show you what areas of the plant would be included in the expansion.

[1:10:46] Next next next next, next, next, next, good, perfect.

[1:10:51] So we can see that we have nearly every portion of the plant covered.

[1:10:59] There's E12, which is the process redundancy project, deals with the clarification area, E28 takes care of the filters, E14 is the replacement of the UV disinfection equipment.

[1:11:19] And we have the other projects are, you know, electrical upgrades which were included in the current CIP but added to that are high left pump expansions to deliver the additional water, some fill line projects and reservoir projects.

[1:11:39] So the total 1023 million, as I mentioned before, the 92.4 million would be borrowed and so the financing of that will impact the operating budget and it also included is 7 full-time equivalent employees for approximately a million dollars worth of operating budget pressure.

[1:12:06] So, this is the financing chart. You can see the yellow bars are the existing loans, the

[1:12:17] debentures that we have in place. And this is the annual payments required to manage

[1:12:27] that to service that debt. And then the green bars are what we're looking at today.

[1:12:32] phase, those phase one collection of phase one projects that was over $90 million of loans and the payments for that are the operating budget would be managed by increasing the revenue requirement for the utility by six and a half percent per year for the next four or five years.

[1:13:01] So, if there are no specific questions on water, I'll jump into the wastewater similar package.

[1:13:14] Are we okay, Mr. Chairman?

[1:13:16] Please, please go ahead.

[1:13:18] Thank you.

[1:13:20] So, on the wastewater side is the existing wastewater treatment plant has,

[1:13:26] and conveyance system has a capacity of 39 million liters a day for average day and

[1:13:35] these improvements would increase that to 45 million liters a day.

[1:13:41] This phase one projects, the green bars, add up to $88 million worth of investment.

[1:13:46] That would include projects that are in the current CIP, like the was thickening and electrical upgrades,

[1:14:02] but also additional projects that provide capacity.

[1:14:06] So just for context, in both cases of the utilities, the current CIP is driven by life cycle

[1:14:16] replace life cycle replacements in general, none of those projects added capacity, so they've been

[1:14:23] reconfigured with our objective of increasing the capacity and then there's additional projects

[1:14:32] in there as well. Outside of the approval window or the blue bars, which are projects that we would

[1:14:40] expect to deliver within the 10-year window just so you can see the sledge of the

[1:14:49] upgrades, flood mitigation and the hope for next slide.

[1:14:57] So again.

[1:15:00] We'll demonstrate with the water plant. This is the wastewater plant process diagram, and so we'll just rattle off some projects here next next next.

[1:15:12] Good. Thank you. And so we have the e19 in the center is the was thickening project.

[1:15:24] It was in the existing CIP has been expanded

[1:15:28] for to add capacity and some additional scope for those of you

[1:15:37] that may have had the pleasure of being toured

[1:15:40] or what we saw our treatment plan.

[1:15:44] You'll recall the gravity bill thickener,

[1:15:47] which is an impressive thing to watch,

[1:15:50] but is in great need of replacing

[1:15:53] with something that's lower maintenance.

[1:15:56] There's projects that cover each and every area.

[1:16:02] The E31, for example, is the ultraviolet disinfection.

[1:16:06] That equipment is at the end of its useful life.

[1:16:10] And we had a capital project to replace the existing equipment.

[1:16:16] And now, in light of the mandate to expand the system,

[1:16:20] It's replacing the one unit that's there today with a second set up to add the capacity.

[1:16:32] So we have on the wastewater side $88 million worth of capital projects,

[1:16:39] $71.4 million of it is a borrowing that would be serviced financed.

[1:16:46] the just identical to the water utility, the operating budget pressures is

[1:16:54] the result of seven FTEs and approximately a million dollars a year.

[1:16:59] Next slide.

[1:17:02] So this is the debt servicing chart for the wastewater utility and just as

[1:17:11] same as on the one I showed you for the water, the yellow bars are the existing

[1:17:17] a venture debt payments and you can see over time they fall off as those loans get paid off.

[1:17:27] And then the green bars are the phase one borrowing of that $71 and some million dollars.

[1:17:35] And the servicing of that in addition to the existing approved operating budget results in a 7.5% increase in the revenue requirement for the utility in order to service that debt.

[1:17:58] Next slide.

[1:18:00] So I showed you this one at the start, with the six and a half percent increase in water and

[1:18:10] seven and a half percent increase in wastewater over the next three years within the current operating budget.

[1:18:17] You can see that the average residential monthly bill would move from approximately $60 a month to $75 a month,

[1:18:27] which is still, compares favorably to all the other municipalities within the province that we're comparing here.

[1:18:40] So the Calgary and Red Deer are over $100 a month currently and following the rate adjustments in the, you know,

[1:18:58] next time.

[1:19:01] So that's the speed dating version of the capital amendments and I'm hoping to answer any questions you might have.

[1:19:14] Well, thank you very much for your presentation. It's regrettably as equally confusing to when I listened to it last.

[1:19:20] One of the questions that I had because I was first in the queue, you indicated Mr.

[1:19:26] Calphate that we have achieved peak capacity of 90% on how many occasions.

[1:19:35] Okay, so that that's based on the maximum day of a given year.

[1:19:42] So that chart showed average demand and peak day demand.

[1:19:48] So for one day in 2021 and one day in 2017 we hit those marks.

[1:19:59] Okay, so effectively you've hit 90% capacity twice in the last six years.

[1:20:07] You talk about graph funding and special financing. How much of each?

[1:20:13] Okay, that was graph funding.

[1:20:17] There's currently I think it's zero.

[1:20:19] So there's no grant funding, it's all, it's either accumulated surplus capital surplus and borrowing.

[1:20:36] All right, so through a series of, I'm not sure how quite to characterize this, but the number seemed to be shifting fairly substantially.

[1:20:46] We've got two major projects here.

[1:20:48] We're effectively going from, what is it,

[1:20:50] 76 million to 259 million?

[1:20:53] Yes, that's correct from the current CIP to this amendment.

[1:21:01] The difference being that the current CIP is our projects

[1:21:08] that have our life cycle replacement

[1:21:11] and maintenance-driven improvements, and the additional ones provide the capacity, the added capacity to the plants.

[1:21:25] One other question before we go over to Mr. Matthews is from the look of it, and I conferred with my colleague to my left.

[1:21:33] It looks like you're asking to add another 14 full time equivalent positions in addition to this.

[1:21:40] Is that correct?

[1:21:42] Yes, that's correct.

[1:21:45] Well, not in addition, it's built into those to the revenue requirements.

[1:21:51] So tend to your expenditures.

[1:21:53] Yeah, the six and a half and seven and a half.

[1:21:56] Yeah, have that.

[1:21:57] So it's not revenue, but your expenses.

[1:22:00] That's what we've built into your expenses.

[1:22:01] Yes, it is.

[1:22:03] So, question to the city manager,

[1:22:10] to our CFO, so help us understand the money here a little bit.

[1:22:17] There's a number of numbers that have been thrown around.

[1:22:20] What are we being asked for?

[1:22:21] Is it in characterizing it from going from $76 million, which is in maintenance effectively?

[1:22:28] That's the current CIP.

[1:22:31] to $259 million. How are we going to get there?

[1:22:37] Through to economic standpoint,

[1:22:39] Pulse Committee and Deputy Mayor,

[1:22:43] Elden Hope in regards to here,

[1:22:44] I'm just going to give you a little bit here on totals

[1:22:47] and so on the numbers side.

[1:22:50] I'm going to use basically,

[1:22:51] I'm just checking with my,

[1:22:53] over my right shoulder,

[1:22:54] make sure I'm going to go in the right place here.

[1:22:56] So I'm going to talk about phase one costs.

[1:22:58] So that's the period of which,

[1:23:00] so what's a little bit confusing inside of here,

[1:23:02] you'll see in some of the sheets and bear with me, is that the green pieces or what council will approve.

[1:23:09] So as if you remember from the 2022 to 2031 CIP, we have years 2022 to 2026 approved.

[1:23:18] The green pieces and this one's a little bit longer, they have 2027, so I'm going to give you a bit of a period in here of time frame.

[1:23:25] So that's phase one cost, so if you look at that sheet, that's inside for both water and wastewater.

[1:23:29] water, that amount for phase one, not including the blue, components is 211 million for

[1:23:36] both water and wastewater of costs.

[1:23:40] Now what was previously approved inside of the CIP within the same projects was 76 million

[1:23:46] of that.

[1:23:48] Now taking out also another 11.5 million projects that were in there that were also previously

[1:23:57] The previously approved and no longer required, the being moved into those other that

[1:24:01] 2-11, or being re-configured, if I'm just going to get Mr. Copen, make sure I said

[1:24:07] that right, yep, I'm getting not. So that comes down to a total of 123.5 million of additional

[1:24:13] money. That's both for water and wastewater and totality.

[1:24:18] That's 123 million for phase one.

[1:24:21] Right, plus 38 million for transmission storage.

[1:24:28] I'll let Mr. I see Mr. Sanchez is dying to get into that once for let him just seek there for a second.

[1:24:34] Don't see him on the board.

[1:24:36] K, Mr. Sanchez, go ahead.

[1:24:39] So, that's correct.

[1:24:40] Data additional for transmission that you mentioned before is outside of the CAP cycle.

[1:24:47] So, that will be needed as the capacity demand is in place.

[1:24:51] that's when the transmission lines and reservoirs and other type of assets will be required

[1:24:57] to be in place. So that's why it's not included as part of the request that we have today

[1:25:02] for Phase 1. But it will be requested. Once the capacity is there and the demand is there,

[1:25:07] yes, that that will be eventually maybe 10 years on the road five years. This all side of the four

[1:25:12] years windows that we are approving today. Councillor Dordek.

[1:25:21] Yes, thank you, Mr. Co.

[1:25:23] But I'm just trying to get a handle on the last CIP

[1:25:29] was approved back on June 1 of 2021.

[1:25:33] So those prior to this current council.

[1:25:38] So obviously,

[1:25:41] something dramatically

[1:25:42] has changed between the approval of the last CIP

[1:25:46] to today's day to ask for a very significant increase

[1:25:50] to that CIP dealing with the water and the wastewater system and in a nutshell, what really caused

[1:25:59] has been driving the very dramatic change to the CIP that was approved in 2021, which is

[1:26:07] now being asked to be significantly amended in 2023.

[1:26:12] to Councillor Dodick,

[1:26:19] there are a number of factors that demonstrated the need for additional

[1:26:29] capacity since the previous CIP was prepared. One of which was the setting a new peak demand

[1:26:41] that following summer in 2021,

[1:26:45] when it was, you know, it didn't rain for 100 days or so.

[1:26:52] The demands on our wastewater facility became more and more evident with increased industrial

[1:27:02] the load during that period of time.

[1:27:06] And we've been faced with additional requests from the region

[1:27:13] in particular, the county, which we had rejected

[1:27:20] because of the lack of capacity.

[1:27:23] So the, it's really, demands, regional demands, industrial demands,

[1:27:34] and climate change

[1:27:35] or the factors that have come to light in the last couple of years, the, for,

[1:27:55] I guess,

[1:27:55] that pretty much captures that we have, we do anticipate additional industrial demands with

[1:28:03] the announcements from McCain's and information from industries within our boundaries.

[1:28:15] So, as I've heard a say that the information that is being presented to us today was not

[1:28:21] available to the prior council that approved the 2022-2031 CIP.

[1:28:31] So this question is to Mr. Sanchez and the report.

[1:28:37] That's in our agenda.

[1:28:39] It sort of eludes to it, but it's not as clear in my mind.

[1:28:44] Perhaps it should be, but during the operating budget,

[1:28:50] Council had approved for the three years starting 2024 through 2026, an increase in water rates of 2% for each of those three years is that right?

[1:29:06] Yes, that's correct.

[1:29:07] And so the proposed rate increase for this, if the CIP amendments would go through would be an additional 4.5% to get you to the 6.5% per year increase.

[1:29:23] So 2% has been approved.

[1:29:25] But the 4.5% additional is being asked for 24, 320, 20, 20, 20, 26, and that's how you arrive at the total of 6.5% increase in the water rates.

[1:29:38] Yes, that's correct, and also to clarify, when the budget was approved, as you mentioned before, it was a 2% increase for water and 3% increase for wastewater.

[1:29:48] So, in what we are asking or presenting today is an additional 4.5 of what was previously approved by...

[1:30:00] All right, you did answer my question on our wastewater, so as you've noted, what is being requested today on a go forward basis as an increase of 4.5% for each of the water rates and the wastewater rates, but that's in addition to what's already been approved, which is 2% to 3% respectively.

[1:30:21] That's correct.

[1:30:30] Thank you.

[1:30:32] Council Carlson.

[1:30:36] Thank you Deputy Mayor. Thank you for that clarification.

[1:30:39] Mr. Sanchez. I believe Councilor Dota just said what you're asking for today.

[1:30:45] And this is quite a large ask, large amendment to our CIP.

[1:30:52] And I do trust Mr. Cope and Mr. Sanchez and city manager in this administration.

[1:30:58] And I have great trust in them, I trust they have done their due diligence on the needs for

[1:31:03] this, but as I said, it is quite a big ask to digest and further, traditionally the

[1:31:10] CIP is a lengthy process, many, many months and then a week of all some question and debate

[1:31:19] by council before we approve it and lots of public engagement.

[1:31:24] So, I guess my question would be, is this a today decision that is necessary or how could we move forward,

[1:31:35] allowing for some time and some pondering, but also to allow our ratepayers to be more engaged and informed about the need and the justification for this?

[1:31:48] Is this something weak Council needs to act on today or is there a way to prepare for this increase?

[1:31:58] But take some time.

[1:32:04] Well, it does an excellent question.

[1:32:06] We are presenting the ask today at a economic SPC, but we can certainly wait until later in the year,

[1:32:16] maybe Council needs a month, a couple of months to go through this and even

[1:32:20] we could come back with ideas at a later date on how this could be implemented.

[1:32:27] If I explain or Mr. Coppa's plan that before, this project is being driven by several

[1:32:32] factors, including mostly the regional and the commercial or industrial rates.

[1:32:38] So those are things that could also be evaluated who is driving the need for the project

[1:32:42] and where the total increase is six and a half and seven and a half, but that can

[1:32:46] is split it in different ways depending on what is the driver for these states again.

[1:32:51] Certainly we could evaluate if we need to come back at a little date with more details on that

[1:32:57] end.

[1:32:59] And thank you for that. I appreciate that. I just followed our previous discussion.

[1:33:04] We were asked for a couple hundred thousand dollars and I needed some time.

[1:33:09] This is a couple hundred million. So I'm wondering if I can

[1:33:14] you Mr. Chair to the city clerk. Do we have something drafted that would give us, give the

[1:33:22] community some indication of the possible amendments that we're contemplating and yet give

[1:33:30] some time for them to be brought up to speed on the justification. I would just hate to spring

[1:33:37] this on our community, our rate pairs today without some soak time or the ability to discuss

[1:33:46] with them on the needs and justification how exactly we're going to implement.

[1:33:51] Councillor Carlson, do you have a copy of the motion?

[1:33:54] I do not.

[1:33:55] I will be proposed by you.

[1:33:57] Maybe my phone was dinghy.

[1:34:00] There you go.

[1:34:01] Let's have a look at it and see if it responds favorably.

[1:34:05] And once you've done that, please jump back into the queue and allow Councilor Krosen to go ahead.

[1:34:11] Perfect.

[1:34:11] Thank you.

[1:34:14] Thank you, Chair.

[1:34:16] As you've heard every member of Council say, this is a lot of money.

[1:34:19] So we need to make and do our due diligence.

[1:34:22] Is this a worst case scenario?

[1:34:24] Are we eligible for any grant?

[1:34:26] So if we move ahead on this, can we find other ways of funding it?

[1:34:29] Because even if it does keep us the lowest in the province,

[1:34:32] I can tell you our residents won't care because they don't have more money to spend.

[1:34:35] So, or not many adults. So, is there another way of finding this or is this the only option?

[1:34:42] No.

[1:34:45] To consider person, thanks for the question. We have in the last three four months endeavored to find other opportunities.

[1:34:57] we continue to seek grants funding for the projects and through a number of different angles.

[1:35:12] And so there is a, there may be opportunity by the time that they're all the projects

[1:35:19] are being delivered to further to be relief.

[1:35:22] This is definitely the worst case scenario, what's factored in here to fund the program is cash that we have in hand and the remainder borrowed and financed over time.

[1:35:42] And so any successful application for grant would provide some relief.

[1:35:49] There are population restrictions on existing provincial grants, and we are exploring federal grants as well.

[1:36:01] So if we want with what Councilor Curals was suggesting, take some breathing time.

[1:36:05] Next time you come back, we could be seeing slightly different numbers based on if any eligible or any luck with grants, et cetera.

[1:36:12] So just to get the public an idea that this is the high level, we're going to work to try to bring it down.

[1:36:16] The other thing the public is going to be concerned about is whether we have done, again, all the work we possibly can.

[1:36:24] Is there anything else we can do in conjunction with this instead of this?

[1:36:29] Are there efficiencies? Are there plans? Are there community engagements?

[1:36:32] Are we looking at any of that as we move ahead?

[1:36:35] That would make this so that maybe we don't have as great a need for water

[1:36:39] because we're saving another place or if we get it we're extending the length of it.

[1:36:43] How else are we looking at making this so that we absolutely need this because we've done all the other work?

[1:36:52] Again, Councillor Crosson.

[1:36:58] Some of the actions that you refer to or that we could explore our efficiencies and conservation efforts

[1:37:11] with industrial customers as well as residential customers.

[1:37:18] One of the challenges for us given that we have low rates is that there's less

[1:37:29] of a financial incentive to reduce use.

[1:37:34] And so we continue to provide educational information.

[1:37:41] You can find on the on the city webpage actions that you can take in your home to reduce

[1:37:49] your consumption.

[1:37:50] We do have at the city of Lathbridge, universal metering, every customer has a water meter,

[1:37:57] every water bill is based on consumption.

[1:38:01] And so that's a, you know, that's the foundation for moving forward on those types of actions.

[1:38:11] Well, I mean, we have to look at whether we need to expand the plans, et cetera.

[1:38:14] We can also continue to work with the public, on other ways to produce their own personal consumption, as well as industrial consumption.

[1:38:22] Thank you.

[1:38:22] Thank you, Chair.

[1:38:25] Mr. City Treasurer, do you have something to add to the conversation?

[1:38:29] So thank you, Deputy Mayor, just to counsel across and just a little bit more in regards to some of the things that we are looking at as well.

[1:38:37] So just like Mr. Coburn mentioned, we are looking into grants and those could be anything from the Disassummitigation Adaptation Fund, the Low Carbon Economy Challenge or the Green Municipal Fund.

[1:38:48] So there's a different ones that we're looking into.

[1:38:51] One of the other things that will come up here to right now, we're basing it once again as worst case.

[1:38:55] at 5 point current provincial boring rates or 5.14 percent. Those could change next

[1:39:01] while. Now we could change up or down. In that regard, but we are also looking at other

[1:39:06] groups and other ways to finance that. We have normally looked at in the past as well.

[1:39:10] There are a few things we are doing behind the scenes. But what we have brought forward so far

[1:39:16] is that worst case if we have to all borrow it from existing and what we know today.

[1:39:22] Well, again, it counts for Carlson, brings forward his motion.

[1:39:25] This is to provide the information to the public, knowing we're continuing to work on it.

[1:39:30] But we want to hear from you and we want to have a community conversation.

[1:39:33] And this will move forward at some point.

[1:39:34] Thank you.

[1:39:37] That's what I meant.

[1:39:38] Thank you very much.

[1:39:39] And thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Co.

[1:39:43] A couple of questions that I have for you.

[1:39:47] We're looking at this, increasing our capacity, water waste water, particularly for the city.

[1:39:53] Is this in any way going to contribute to the growth of the region as well?

[1:40:01] Yes, Councillor Schmoud-Grample, this does provide, having additional capacity,

[1:40:16] does provide

[1:40:19] So we're currently approximately 20% of our water that we process leaves the city to the communities

[1:40:33] Cole Dale Cole here's a picture of you out into the county, to the McCain plant and

[1:40:42] agrepair cheese, for example. So there is, we have, you know, 20 to 25 year history of supporting

[1:40:57] economic development within the region, and this will provide us opportunity to continue to do that.

[1:41:05] Thank you very much. Along that line, then when we're looking at this worst case scenario,

[1:41:11] in so far, I was a six and a half or seven and a half percent increase. How do we explain that to taxpayers and repairs?

[1:41:19] How do we explain that kind of increase?

[1:41:21] Well, I think the part of the narrative is that in the last 30, 40 years are the treatment

[1:41:37] plant, the water plant, particularly as has not expanded its capacity at all.

[1:41:48] And in light of that situation, our rates have been some of the lowest in the province.

[1:42:02] And this is, you know, as the community grows,

[1:42:10] as the economic opportunities get added into the mix,

[1:42:14] We have consumed that available capacity, and this is an incremental cost that it takes us to continue to expand our community.

[1:42:33] Thank you very much.

[1:42:36] I see no one else in the queue, but I'll go back to Councillor Carlson.

[1:42:40] Councillor Carlson, if you had an opportunity to look at the motion.

[1:42:43] Thank

[1:42:47] you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I have it. It makes perfect sense to me.

[1:42:51] Perfect sense. Excellent. All right.

[1:42:54] Well, thank you very much, Mr. Count.

[1:43:03] I quick question if I may.

[1:43:06] Two, Mr. Co.

[1:43:09] Councillor Schmett, Rampel, raise the question of the money that lead or the money.

[1:43:14] The water that goes outside of the city limits into the county and beyond.

[1:43:21] Is that money sold at a preferred rate or are we paying the same as somebody in Barren's

[1:43:27] or a picture of you?

[1:43:34] So, you mean as a retail customer, yeah, the regional agreements that we have to supply water

[1:43:46] to the neighboring communities require that the retail rates are equal or greater than those within the city.

[1:43:59] So a residential or commercial customer in Coldale will pay more than in the city of Lathbridge.

[1:44:07] And likewise with Colhurst.

[1:44:09] And that's a residential customer, what about commercial?

[1:44:12] All customer classes?

[1:44:21] Okay, seeing no further questions.

[1:44:26] We'll take a pause.

[1:44:28] We have a motion.

[1:44:29] From Councilor Carlson.

[1:44:33] Water and waste water 2022 to 2023 CIP amendment 5.2.

[1:44:39] Be it resolved that the Economic Standing Policy Committee

[1:44:41] postpone the following to the September 13th, 2023 meeting of the Economic Standing Policy Committee

[1:44:47] 1.

[1:44:49] And then the 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program, CIP, Budget, from 76 million to 205.

[1:45:00] For the water and wastewater utility projects identified below. A, amend the expenditures and funding as per

[1:45:09] attachments number 4 and number 5, point 1, water capital improvements, projects e12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

[1:45:19] Point 2, waste water capital improvement projects in 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, very impressed

[1:45:28] Councillor Carlson.

[1:45:30] One point B, add new projects with the expenditures and funding as for attachments,

[1:45:36] number 4 and number 5, point 1, water capital improvement projects, E 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,

[1:45:45] B2, wastewater capital improvement projects, E-3132, 33, 34, 35, and 36, point two, direct administration to draft a borrowing by law for 2024 to 2027 and present first reading at the City Council meeting on September the 19th, 2023, and further be it resolved with the economic standing policy committee recommends City Council number three.

[1:46:13] Direct administration to draft rate by laws with annual increases of 6.5% for water,

[1:46:21] 7.5% for wastewater for 2024, 2025, 2026, and present first reading at the City Council meeting

[1:46:31] on September the 19th, 2023, and further be it resolved that the Economic Standing Policy Committee

[1:46:39] recommend that City Council direct that the closed meeting discussions, presentation, and report,

[1:46:46] with respect to the water and waste water 2022 to 231, CIP amendment remained confidential,

[1:46:53] pursuant to sections 21, harmful to an intergovernmental relations, and 24 advice from officials

[1:46:59] of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Councillor Carlson.

[1:47:05] Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and I'll open it up for questions.

[1:47:10] I trust it is self-explanatory, but just a highlight quickly.

[1:47:16] Resolution is to defer the first two items to our first meeting in September as economic policy committee.

[1:47:29] And then if that time will have allowed our administration to a little deeper dive and it will give not only council but the public time to digest what's in front of us today, however item number three, I think we can proceed forward with the drafting the rate by loss so that we're not behind the eight ball if council decides to proceed and make these changes.

[1:47:56] So I hope that is clear as a mother that we're not moving a full steam ahead.

[1:48:01] We're taking some time to do our to diligence and to refine our numbers a bit better.

[1:48:08] But I'll open up to any questions if there are any tip of your mind.

[1:48:13] I see none of the queue perhaps we could move on to debate.

[1:48:18] Excellent.

[1:48:19] I'll say most of the month we're closing but I appreciate the work that administration's done.

[1:48:24] I trust that they will appreciate that this is a fairly major amendment to our CIP and I

[1:48:32] don't think it should be done lightly. I think we do need to take our time to examine

[1:48:37] everything and move forward and so that's why I'm proposing to defer it until our meetings

[1:48:42] in September but I also don't want to slow things down and that's why I'm also saying that

[1:48:47] we could proceed with drafting the rate bylaws so should Council proceed their in place

[1:48:52] really to go.

[1:48:56] Thank you. I see no one else in debate.

[1:48:59] So that would be your opening closing. Excellent.

[1:49:04] Then perhaps we can call the question.

[1:49:06] I call for the vote. Thank you.

[1:49:08] Okay. All those in favor of the motion.

[1:49:13] And seeing none opposed to unanimous.

[1:49:16] Thank you.

[1:49:19] All right. We're going to move out of.

[1:49:22] Thank you.

[1:49:23] We're going to change the agenda.

[1:49:25] Yeah.

[1:49:25] Yeah. So I'm going to ask Council's indulgence. I'd like to move one of the items. It's a little bit later on in the in the in the program to allow for some meetings external to our meeting that require the presenter to leave

[1:49:55] of lethbridge housing authority. Do we have any problems with moving her up in the queue?

[1:50:02] Seeing none?

[1:50:04] Then I would ask Ms. James to come forward.

[1:50:25] Good afternoon. Thank you very much for

[1:50:27] moving our presentation for it. We have a board meeting at 430. So I appreciate you taking the

[1:50:32] time for this. I'd like to introduce my colleagues with me today. They will be helping me present to this.

[1:50:38] With me today is Caleb Prajowski. She's a director of homeless supports for lethbridge housing

[1:50:43] and also Tina Young, she is our grant administrator with the Westbridge Housing Authority.

[1:50:50] So Kayla is going to start the presentation and then I will close it.

[1:50:53] Thank you.

[1:50:59] Thank you so much.

[1:51:01] Our first 90 days as the CBO, we've met with our service providers both CBO funded and

[1:51:07] not.

[1:51:07] We've heard what they've had to say with their experiencing and in doing so, we designed and created

[1:51:12] our service plan and created our strategic priorities.

[1:51:15] In this initial year, we were asked by the government not to make any contract adjustments, but as we are left with some unallocated funds due to a program ending prior to our contract start, we are currently sourcing out service providers to fill that gap.

[1:51:29] We have executed our service provider contracts, we've limited changes based on what service providers had for the past year consistency was our promise.

[1:51:36] We delivered the service or we created the service delivery plan that you've received a copy of and we want these documents to be public and accessible for transparency and accountability.

[1:51:45] We have developed and implemented various policies.

[1:51:48] We've created a housing and supports handbook which provides our service providers with direction, guidance, consistency and for those who are applying to become service providers, they know what an advance what to expect.

[1:51:59] We have designed the newest support of housing complex, which Robin will speak more about later to meet some of the needs in housing for our community.

[1:52:07] We currently have an RFP out for a higher QDICM team coordinate support for some of our more difficult to house and need a dedicated group to provide that support.

[1:52:17] We've cleared the backlog of data from ETO with our service providers, so ETO is our government developer to fund a database which lost functionality in November and was not returned until mid May.

[1:52:28] Finally, we are establishing terms of reference for various working groups and round tables.

[1:52:32] We have started including a localized placement table where all of our furls for case management

[1:52:36] will become triaged.

[1:52:38] This will allow us the opportunity to see who is getting support, who is being turned away,

[1:52:42] and what new programs need to be created in order to meet those needs of the participants seeking help.

[1:52:47] We are using data as a backbone of everything that we do, so it has been imperative to get that database up and running.

[1:52:52] And we continue to collaborate with relationship building and management, including working alongside the city of Leithbridge on things like the by-name's list in the ICAP table.

[1:53:01] Next slide, please.

[1:53:03] On here, you can see our current funded programs.

[1:53:06] So we have five service providers and ten programs with two new programs coming online in the next month,

[1:53:11] which will be our Castle Apartments supported recovery housing and our Hayakuity case management team.

[1:53:17] The 183 participants is on the lower end as it only shows the data that was in ETO, we have three programs that do not report into there, so that is a lower compared to what we are doing.

[1:53:29] Next slide please. So what we found, we have spent considerable time diving into research and analysis of programs and trends over time.

[1:53:38] This will guide our strategic development in order to make sure the builds that we are building are purposeful and meet the needs of the population that we serve.

[1:53:46] Following the research and trends will allow us to be purposeful when we implement new programs

[1:53:50] and to increase funding to those programs who are successful and can grow and pivot quickly.

[1:53:56] Finally, this will allow us to create realistic and measurable outcomes for service providers that are based on the work that they are already doing.

[1:54:02] We will create these outcomes that focus on the difference we made instead of outputs or what we are doing.

[1:54:07] Next slide, please.

[1:54:08] And I will hand that back to Robin.

[1:54:12] Thank you, so what we've started to do is a fundamental shift away from the housing first philosophy and into a philosophy with appropriate housing.

[1:54:22] What we've looked at on the data is that we're not seeing the results we'd like to see from the housing first way of doing things.

[1:54:31] we're seeing higher rates of repeat clients, case management becomes more difficult, where

[1:54:37] we're seeing we're getting results is when we put the client in a housing complex that

[1:54:42] is actually appropriate to the need of that person.

[1:54:45] So the supports are in reach versus outreach.

[1:54:50] Next slide, please.

[1:54:54] As Kayla mentioned, one of our first projects that we were able to get confirmed was the

[1:55:02] We're putting that together right now with Canadian Mental Health Association and hope to have that up and running in the next 30 days.

[1:55:09] The next thing that we would like to present to Council for their information is we will be putting in an application for direct control for a property located in North Lathbridge for a purpose-built support of housing unit that's the one up there on the top.

[1:55:24] We're going to start designing builds to ensure the programming that is in place as in

[1:55:29] reach clients aren't out and about in the community food seeking and those types of things.

[1:55:35] Everything will be recovery focused in hopes that we will be able to move our clients out

[1:55:41] of homelessness and to a recovery focused care and allow them to reach their highest level

[1:55:47] of independence.

[1:55:50] Next slide please.

[1:55:50] The support of housing will be coming forward, I believe, by the time we get everything done

[1:55:56] that we need to probably won't be coming towards the Council to probably about September.

[1:56:02] We've hired an architect, we've got some consultants working with us, Alberta Health Services,

[1:56:07] and persons with developmental disabilities have been key partners in collaboration on this

[1:56:12] build.

[1:56:13] We're focusing on across ministry collaboration, so not all the money coming from the homeless

[1:56:18] support, some money coming from health, and some money coming from PDD in order for us to meet

[1:56:23] all the needs of the clients that we're going to serve in there.

[1:56:27] The bottom part of that building will be a commercial space.

[1:56:30] We're hoping to be able to have a primary care provider in that bottom space, so a family

[1:56:36] doctor of some sort that is willing to work with our participants and as well as have a family

[1:56:41] or a community practice at that building.

[1:56:45] We're also entertaining the idea of having a pharmacy on site to be able to not only provide

[1:56:54] pharmaceuticals for our community, but also pharmaceuticals for individuals who are in a recovery

[1:56:59] focused care.

[1:57:00] So it's a box and replicate that sort of thing.

[1:57:03] They don't have to go out into the community in order to get their meds, they can actually get

[1:57:08] everything they need right there.

[1:57:09] So it's just like being in your own home, you have your own food, you have your own medicine,

[1:57:13] and you can take that, all your needs are inside that building.

[1:57:19] We're also moving away from the model of permanent support of housing.

[1:57:23] We're moving to support of housing.

[1:57:25] We're going to look at opportunities to provide different types of support of housing based on the need of the client.

[1:57:32] So some clients will need support for a brief period of time while they work through the recovery and back into employment.

[1:57:38] And other individuals with developmental delays will need more of a supportive housing so they will always need food security and those types of things.

[1:57:48] So we don't want to pigeonhole people into the word permanent. We want to make sure that we are supporting them and transitioning them in order for them to reach their highest level of independence.

[1:58:01] Next slide please.

[1:58:05] So, for those who weren't involved in that in the 25 units of support of housing at Castles,

[1:58:11] so that will be a partnership with CMAJ who are our partner owners in that.

[1:58:16] It will be 25 beds of low-ocuity individuals, and we will utilize referrals from our centralized intake.

[1:58:24] We'll have on-site staff and 24 are access to crisis services at that building.

[1:58:30] Next slide, please.

[1:58:32] I think I've covered most of this.

[1:58:34] This will be our next steps on our support of housing.

[1:58:37] Those 30 units were looking to build.

[1:58:39] We're pursuing our zoning application at this point.

[1:58:43] The current zoning on that property is business industrial.

[1:58:47] We will need direct control because it's 30 units that we think we can build for our budget.

[1:58:53] We will be hosting tea parties and community engagement in July.

[1:58:58] we've slated that for July 11th last far and we will be engaging with our neighbors in our community at that point.

[1:59:07] And we will hope to continue to gather support as we move forward as a community-based organization here in

[1:59:12] Lathbridge tasked with ending homelessness. And then the last slide will be presented by Kayla.

[1:59:24] So from our service delivery plan, we selected these areas of focus based on input from service providers

[1:59:30] an understanding of what we excel at and what we would need support with. It's important

[1:59:35] that we are matching the right person to the right housing at the right time with whatever

[1:59:39] resources are available. We know that as things progress, resources are going to continue to be

[1:59:44] in high demand and it is critical that we do what we can to encourage participants to be supported

[1:59:48] through their highest level of independence within that. The community challenges were selected based

[1:59:53] community trends, with housing at the core of everything we...

[2:00:00] In fact, on the participants that our service providers are working with, next slide please.

[2:00:05] Putting everything together, it's critical that we're building programs that meet the needs of the participants we're serving and that the service continues to meet these needs as things change.

[2:00:14] This comes from studying the data, understanding the movement between programs and understanding what resources exist already and what don't.

[2:00:20] We need to transition away from being so committed to one idea or a way of thinking that the impact becomes evident on the participants we support.

[2:00:28] After listening to service providers in the public, we noted that transparency was key.

[2:00:32] We have heard over and over again that the process needs to be transparent to everyone and accessible to everyone.

[2:00:37] It was critical to put in place common definitions as a way to keep accountability in further transparency.

[2:00:42] If we're not using common definitions, how do we know that we are all in the same page for service delivery, moving the needle in their same direction?

[2:00:50] By creating a coordinated placement process, we are streamlining the referral process and creating the ability to track each person's movement across programs.

[2:00:56] And by formalizing the eligibility process, we are bringing service providers to the table to discuss the process and create a forum to share roadbox.

[2:01:04] Next slide please.

[2:01:07] With our next contract here, we will be implementing new outcome measures that are meaningful to the work that is being done.

[2:01:13] We will scale this from individual programs to similar programs to the entire system of care over time.

[2:01:18] To create a common process which will help showcase these programs who are having immense successes and provide a forum for conversation to help out any programs who are in need.

[2:01:26] by tracking the overall impact on the bigger system, we can really highlight the incredible work

[2:01:30] that is already being done locally.

[2:01:36] So that's it really fast and I'm not sure of them. Thank you

[2:01:39] and we're happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you Ms. James and your crew.

[2:01:46] Great presentation. Councillor Carlson. Thank you Deputy Mayor and I'd like to thank the presenters

[2:01:52] for the update and the look forward and all the work they do in our community and for our community.

[2:01:59] much appreciated. My question is on process, so this was approached to me the other day and I'll put my

[2:02:05] governance hat on governance committee hat. My question I guess is through you to maybe the city

[2:02:12] clerk or whoever can answer this is why is this presentation at economic last week we had

[2:02:19] community and social and we had housing providers and operators presenting there. Why was this an economic

[2:02:29] presentation. It doesn't seem to be. It's a

[2:02:32] Carlson. It's a city clerk care for it here. That was a request of

[2:02:36] Ms. James to come to this meeting. So it went to a gender

[2:02:40] review committee and it was approved there.

[2:02:45] Hey, because one of the things

[2:02:46] we're struggling with at governance is what what presentations, what

[2:02:51] organizations go to each different one and what should be the rationale for

[2:02:56] so that maybe I'll ask this question when we next convene governance, which I think is tomorrow.

[2:03:04] Because yeah, there's confusion why some groups go to certain committees and other groups go to others.

[2:03:11] So it was a bit confusing to me in the community. So thank you. Perhaps we'll ask Miss James and her crew

[2:03:16] to come back and again tomorrow and present to that committee. It's actually community and social.

[2:03:21] I think it would be more appropriate.

[2:03:24] Thank you.

[2:03:25] I think just to add to answer that question, we really wanted to make sure that we're working

[2:03:30] very closely with Andrew Milcom and his group at CST and the idea of coming together and presenting

[2:03:38] one after each other was actually kind of the initial plan, was to try to give you an update

[2:03:44] and try to get all the information together and be united with the City of Lathbridge

[2:03:49] and the last we're choosing authority on our homeless serving plan.

[2:03:54] So I apologize for the bit of confusion, but we were trying to be working together on

[2:04:01] that.

[2:04:01] Councillor Carlson.

[2:04:02] Thank you.

[2:04:04] Thank you.

[2:04:10] Thank you.

[2:04:13] Thank you.

[2:04:14] Thank you.

[2:04:16] Thank you.

[2:04:17] Thank you.

[2:04:18] Thank you.

[2:04:18] for coming and presenting today.

[2:04:20] This is some great information and a great update for our community, particularly given the

[2:04:25] shift in the OSSI funding.

[2:04:27] On page 4 of your presentation, under research and analysis,

[2:04:34] there is discussion around analyzing

[2:04:36] trends and patterns.

[2:04:37] Identifying gaps in opportunities and determining achievable goals and outcomes.

[2:04:42] I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about what gaps you've found gaps in opportunities

[2:04:48] what trends and patterns and what goals have you set out?

[2:04:53] Absolutely.

[2:04:55] So, in researching the trends and what has been going on,

[2:04:58] the one of the struggles that we were having is that the outcomes right now are not superhousing focused.

[2:05:04] I think what it happened is trying to help everyone.

[2:05:08] It kind of got a little bit too broad and too big of a picture of what we were asking people to do.

[2:05:14] So, nearing that focus back on and to housing and just making sure that people are getting the

[2:05:18] support that they need to get and stay in housing and work on building purposeful

[2:05:25] housing opportunities for the participants that are in need.

[2:05:32] Absolutely, and so we were last week at the Seven Cities Conference on Homelessness and

[2:05:38] Andy Young, who was one of the creators of this current system in Lathbridge, had come and presented.

[2:05:43] So he was talking about different outreach models and one outreach model that he discussed

[2:05:48] was, you know, the people in bright colored coats with signs on them will go out and meet

[2:05:53] with a hundred or two hundred or three hundred people in a night talking to them and

[2:05:57] providing, you know, basic level resources to them. And at the end of the day, they can say,

[2:06:02] I've helped 300 people today, but when you ask what the actual measurable outcome was,

[2:06:06] it was, well, I talked to 300 people today. He had recommended a change and a shift to that

[2:06:11] more focused approach where it was, maybe you're only talking to five people in a night,

[2:06:15] But if one of those five people has decided that they are ready to pursue a different type of support and get into housing and get to their needs met in a different way, it is going to be much more purposeful to the entire system because we can see the movement and the shift of getting people connected to resources.

[2:06:34] Thank you very much.

[2:06:35] What gaps in the city of Lepers have you specifically found in now taking over this portfolio?

[2:06:43] In analyzing the data, we have found that the people who are trying to get onto a case management program,

[2:06:48] the process is a bit tricky and complicated, even service providers were having a hard time describing

[2:06:53] how to get a person connected to resources. So we are looking at reminding that there are different ways

[2:07:02] in that people are trying to access, there are wait lists and time limits that are making it really

[2:07:08] difficult if a person's told that it's going to take them two months to get

[2:07:12] somewhere then they get defeated with the process.

[2:07:15] So we're working very closely with our service providers to find ways around that.

[2:07:20] In a way that's not going to result in an over burden on the current resources we have.

[2:07:26] And then to add to that the other gap that we saw was the type of housing that we're trying to do right now.

[2:07:32] Right now we've got teams out there trying to take an individual that has some complex needs.

[2:07:38] and put them into a market unit property and you know add some some supplements or some

[2:07:44] rent supplements or something along those lines to make it somewhat affordable and then

[2:07:49] provide those those wraparound supports while the client lives anywhere in the community

[2:07:54] in a market property. We're seeing that not be successful for many reasons so we need to make

[2:08:01] sure that we are providing housing that is built for the client instead of trying to make

[2:08:06] client built into the housing.

[2:08:12] I'll just ask one more question before I pop out.

[2:08:16] What are your top goals for this next year?

[2:08:20] So we committed to continuity of service when we took it over this year.

[2:08:26] So all the contracts have remained the same.

[2:08:28] The significant difference you will see is when the contracts go out

[2:08:32] in the late fall of this year for the next funding cycle.

[2:08:36] they will all have very measurable goals in them.

[2:08:40] They won't be a measurable process.

[2:08:41] It'll be a measurable goal.

[2:08:43] So it will be how many people we would like to see housed

[2:08:47] and actually measured to a number.

[2:08:49] How many people we'd like to see assertively engaged with

[2:08:53] by the, you know, if it's an outreach team,

[2:08:56] maybe how many are sort of engaged with.

[2:08:59] That leads to, you know, the housing piece.

[2:09:02] It'll all be based on measurable goals and then the other piece will be to ensure that we have housing that meets the needs of the clients that we're facing.

[2:09:16] So we hope to make a large fundamental shift with that next funding cycle.

[2:09:23] Very much I'll pop hope for now.

[2:09:25] Thank you just before Councillor Campbell Johnson, just for clarification when we're talking

[2:09:31] about providing housing that meets the needs of the clients.

[2:09:35] You're also including in that services that would be provided to the client that are either

[2:09:41] at the residents or that come to the residents.

[2:09:44] Is that correct?

[2:09:46] Yeah, so the services would be at the residents, Councillor Milton hopes so that that way

[2:09:50] the client isn't out seeking for them.

[2:09:53] What happens sometimes is, you know, if someone's housing market housing and maybe meals on wheels isn't in place and they still have to go to the soup kitchen in order to get meals.

[2:10:03] If they're in a recovery-focused program, maybe the soup kitchen isn't necessarily the best location for them to continue to come.

[2:10:12] If they're seeking, you know, a recovery-focused point of care. So if the food services were actually provided to them in their home,

[2:10:18] the likelihood of them continuing on a recovery focus model is significantly increased.

[2:10:24] So it would be an in-reach versus an outreach.

[2:10:27] Right. Thank you, Councillor Campbell.

[2:10:29] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the presentation and all the work you do.

[2:10:32] I just, I wonder you can take me through a little bit about the challenges that you face with

[2:10:38] rezoning. rezoning is always a thing in the city. We see it a fair bit of mean. There's a lot

[2:10:43] do with education, understanding what what rezoning means or what you know direct control means

[2:10:51] versus business zoning. So I'm sure I mean what what what are some of your goals and trying

[2:10:59] to get that rectified and making sure that we all understand when you're saying we need to

[2:11:04] rezoning to direct control in a certain area of this is what it specifically means.

[2:11:07] So we're really hoping to work with Andrew and his team in order to maybe have them be able to add that into the municipal housing strategy.

[2:11:17] I know it's there, but flush it out a little bit more for Council to actually allow some land uses for support of housing.

[2:11:25] Within without having to go control, we've heard loud and clear from a bunch of our neighbors in the downtown that direct control scares them.

[2:11:33] So we want to be a good neighbor, so we'd sure like to see some ability to have some support of housing that is in its own kind of zoning so that you know what you're going to get with that versus direct control.

[2:11:48] I could turn into a shelter, I could turn into whatever.

[2:11:52] So just clarity of purpose.

[2:11:53] so. And you're getting support from, like, say, from Mr. Malcolm and kind of going forward

[2:12:00] and making sure that when you're going for a certain part of the town that everybody knows

[2:12:04] and everybody understands what you're going for, that it's going to be a win-win.

[2:12:08] Yeah, we're working closely with Mr. Malcolm and trying to present a united kind of message to our

[2:12:15] community that we're here to support not only the clients that we serve, but also the community

[2:12:21] as a whole, and specifically are a little downtown.

[2:12:24] Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:12:28] Great. Thank you, Ms. James. I'm just pausing for a moment because they have a tendency

[2:12:33] to jump in here and ask a question. Still no questions. Great. We have a, thank you very

[2:12:39] much. All of you. We have a motion from Councillor Crosson.

[2:12:55] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you very much for the presentation. As we all know, housing is

[2:13:01] vitally important, and I'm glad to see that work is being done on support of housing,

[2:13:05] and I look forward to seeing when the second third fourth and fifth support of housing is built

[2:13:09] in this city. But since this is just for information, I won't go into that right now, and

[2:13:13] There's no debate. I'll call the question.

[2:13:16] Questions been called on favor?

[2:13:19] That passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

[2:13:23] All right. To return to our previously

[2:13:26] Programming, Mr. Library. Thank you very much for your

[2:13:28] Patience. Item 5.3 tax rate review.

[2:13:32] Mr. Library from Assessment and Taxation.

[2:13:56] Good afternoon to the chair and members of

[2:13:58] Economic SPC. I'm here to talk about the property tax

[2:14:02] class review.

[2:14:04] Next slide, please.

[2:14:06] And next slide.

[2:14:08] First off, we had to make some assumptions that things like the population estimates from

[2:14:14] the province, Alberta, or our accurate.

[2:14:18] We used assessment information that was declared into the assessment shared services

[2:14:23] environment, which asset they were audited provincially.

[2:14:28] The studies were based on using median assessed values in each municipality and tax information

[2:14:35] was based on the 2023 property tax rates in each municipality.

[2:14:40] Next slide, please.

[2:14:44] The MGA breaks out property into four classes.

[2:14:48] Class 1 and class 2 can have subclasses.

[2:14:50] Class 3 and 4 cannot have subclasses.

[2:14:54] Next slide.

[2:14:56] in our resolution.

[2:15:00] I wish a multi-family subclass in Lothbridge. That's been in place since at least 1975. The historic

[2:15:08] ratios are listed below in the chart. Next page, please.

[2:15:19] Under class 2, council has not created

[2:15:23] subclasses for non-residential. The subclasses in the regulation that are allowed are small,

[2:15:29] business vacant non-residential and other non-residential.

[2:15:34] The problem is that small business subclass is not implementable.

[2:15:40] And below are the historic ratios for non-residential.

[2:15:44] Next slide, please.

[2:15:47] As you can see, a large percentage of our taxable assessment basis is residential at 76%.

[2:15:54] Non-residential is 20% and multifamily is 4%.

[2:16:00] When it comes to paying the taxes,

[2:16:03] residential pays 57% of the tax, non-residential 38%

[2:16:09] and multifamily 5% next slide, please.

[2:16:15] So what we did is take each municipalities' median assessment

[2:16:19] and apply their tax rate from their tax rate by law

[2:16:23] to come up with a median tax.

[2:16:28] It came a little difficult to compare municipalities

[2:16:30] because some tax amenities, some don't.

[2:16:35] And the city of Lathbridge offers more services

[2:16:38] than some municipalities in higher service levels as well.

[2:16:42] But as you can see from the chart,

[2:16:45] we're relatively close to the middle of the range

[2:16:47] when we look at the median tax.

[2:16:49] Next slide, please.

[2:16:50] We looked at the multi-family median tax as well and that's again the multi-family rate times the tax rate.

[2:17:03] You could see that we're definitely in the middle of the range when it comes to taxes on multi-family.

[2:17:10] Next slide please.

[2:17:14] This is just a comparison of the non-residential ratio to other municipalities.

[2:17:18] these. Again, we're towards middle of the range. Next slide.

[2:17:28] This slide represents the distribution

[2:17:30] of tax that non-residential contributes to the municipality. So in a bottom part of the graph,

[2:17:41] you can see that 20% of the assessment base is non-residential, but on the top graph, you can

[2:17:47] say they pay 38% of the taxes.

[2:17:50] Now, that's actually relatively low compared

[2:17:52] to a lot of the comparables.

[2:17:55] Next slide, please.

[2:17:58] The other thing we did is look at a tax per capita.

[2:18:02] And again, we're in the middle of the range.

[2:18:06] Next slide, please.

[2:18:09] Next we looked at exempt property,

[2:18:12] which includes the machinery equipment.

[2:18:15] The MGA allows machinery equipment

[2:18:17] to be exempted from tax of council so wishes in the 1960s

[2:18:23] Lathbridge Council did exempt machinery equipment from paying tax.

[2:18:28] And they created a business tax instead, which is now also gone.

[2:18:35] One thing about machinery equipment, they don't pay education requisite,

[2:18:40] whether it's tax or exempt, they don't pay for school and they don't pay for seniors.

[2:18:47] The other problem is that they are actually used in calculating your equalized assessment,

[2:18:52] though.

[2:18:53] So, it does impact the tax rates for resident or for school and for seniors.

[2:19:01] Next slide, please.

[2:19:04] We have 70 properties in less bridge with M&E.

[2:19:07] 42 of these are less than a million dollars in M&E.

[2:19:12] 20-8 or greater than a million with 13 of those being greater than 5 million.

[2:19:18] The chart below is a comparison of other municipalities who exempt

[2:19:24] amony, we're a little bit towards the rate in that graph and surprisingly close to

[2:19:32] calligraphy as well.

[2:19:33] Next slide, please.

[2:19:36] The other thing that amony has is a distinct advantage in assessment because it's heavily

[2:19:43] regulated, and there's a lot of depreciation of construction costs new.

[2:19:47] It's almost about 47% of the assessment is removed from taxation right off the bat.

[2:19:56] So looking in the last bridge, if we were to tax emany, it would drop the non-residential

[2:20:03] ratio from 2.58 to 2.33, and it would drop the tax rate by over 2 points.

[2:20:11] The problem also then is that some of the businesses may not be attracted to

[2:20:18] the leverage if we were to do that and they may not want to reinvest in

[2:20:22] the leverage.

[2:20:24] And also businesses that have M&E right now would probably be impacted

[2:20:29] significantly by it's change.

[2:20:32] So we're not recommending any change in policy at this time.

[2:20:36] Next slide.

[2:20:36] This is just illustrate how much of our assessment base is exempt from taxation.

[2:20:44] You can see that we're one of the highest in the province and that's mainly due to a lot

[2:20:50] of institutional properties and universities and things like that.

[2:20:56] Next slide please.

[2:20:59] We looked at the tax ratios and what we could possibly do in looking at a tax ratio.

[2:21:06] Non-residential is 2.58 to multi-family is 1.53 and Council can adjust either of both of those ratios if it's so wishes.

[2:21:18] What does happen is it shifts burden on to other property owners when it's kind of known as tax shifting. Next slide please.

[2:21:29] So we actually put some numbers on paper here. If we adjusted the multifamily ratio down by a quarter point,

[2:21:36] What would happen is the average home would pay $32 more in taxes per year.

[2:21:43] Multifamily would have a decrease in taxation of $1,912 dollars per every million dollars of assessment.

[2:21:52] Now, below is if we went to a one-to-one ratio, residential would see a $68 per year increase,

[2:22:00] and multifamily would see 4,118 dollars per every million dollars of assessment as a reduction.

[2:22:08] Next slide, please.

[2:22:10] Then we looked at the non-residential and looking at moving that a quarter point.

[2:22:16] What happens is the average home would see an increase of $96 per year.

[2:22:22] multi-family would see an increase of $476 per every million dollars, but non-residential

[2:22:30] would see a decrease of $1297 per million in assessment.

[2:22:38] And as a final step, we looked at adjusting both the non-resident and multi-family down by

[2:22:43] a quarter point.

[2:22:45] As you can see that average home would have to pay $117 per year more multifamily would

[2:22:52] a decrease of a $1558 per every million dollars of assessment and non-res would see a decrease

[2:23:02] of 1140 per every million dollars.

[2:23:06] Next slide, please.

[2:23:10] The presentation has really looked at the median assessments and compared in the last

[2:23:16] rich compared to other communities.

[2:23:17] You can see in the graph below that we're relatively low as far as meeting assessment goes.

[2:23:26] There are some of the advantages of having the lower values, of course, relate to potentially financing your property.

[2:23:35] You could get a mortgage potentially for a lower valued mortgage on your property.

[2:23:41] or you can buy a similar property, well, a property in

[2:23:46] Lethbridge, similar to something in another community.

[2:23:51] Again, looking at it, we're not recommending any change

[2:23:56] in policy because we are generally towards the average part

[2:24:00] of the range and all studies conducted.

[2:24:04] And next slide.

[2:24:06] So without I'm open to questions.

[2:24:10] Thank you, Mr. Leverty.

[2:24:11] I have just one question, because I'm first in the queue.

[2:24:16] The MGA talks about machinery and equipment, which is to the degree in that equated,

[2:24:21] is that equated terminology, unless it includes technology.

[2:24:25] So, is there any movement to include technology as part of the language in terms of taxation

[2:24:33] and thinking in terms of server rooms and so forth?

[2:24:37] I'm just through the chair.

[2:24:39] I'm not aware of that at this point.

[2:24:42] The other thing that we're looking to try and inform ourselves of,

[2:24:46] or, I mean, there's some things within property assessment

[2:24:53] or exempt from taxation on a new construction machine

[2:24:57] equipment.

[2:24:59] A lot of times, does have technology involved in it,

[2:25:03] which doesn't form part of the assessment.

[2:25:07] OK.

[2:25:08] Councillor Carlson.

[2:25:12] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lavity. I'll just follow up on Deputy Mayor's question.

[2:25:19] M&E is traditionally exempt. I'm assuming, because it's not fixed. It's kind of akin to

[2:25:30] in my house and my neighbor's house. They're identical assessment, but I have a million dollars worth of computers.

[2:25:38] And, et cetera, that doesn't affect my assessment.

[2:25:42] Is that the rationale?

[2:25:45] The rationale for exempting machinery equipment really lies in the advantages of billing in Alberta.

[2:25:59] There's been,

[2:26:03] well, over the years, it's one of the things that has been an advantage.

[2:26:08] in Alberta that we first don't tax it at the highest rates in the first place, and if you know a lot of places exempt it as well.

[2:26:20] Okay, thank you for that.

[2:26:22] And can you explain, I think it's slide, I'm going to just, I think it's slide nine, comparison with other municipalities,

[2:26:32] talks with the median multifamily tax comparison.

[2:26:36] Right.

[2:26:37] Can you just explain, is that just the amount of taxes collected on that type of property

[2:26:43] are how much they tax?

[2:26:46] Because if we only have five multifamily, but say, Sandelbert has 1,000 high rises, that

[2:26:54] I could see the difference, or is it one to one that we tax very low and say in Albert

[2:26:59] taxes very high?

[2:27:01] Through the chair, this represents the median assessment of all of their, all of ours and all of their multifamily assessments times the tax rate of the municipality, whatever municipality that is.

[2:27:20] So, St. Albert would have a higher median assessment than we had and when you apply that against

[2:27:28] St. Albert's tax rates, they're higher than Lathbridge.

[2:27:33] Okay, thank you. Can you help me then? And I hope I didn't miss this in your report of

[2:27:38] presentation. Do most Alberta municipalities have a differential between single family residential

[2:27:46] and multi-family residential?

[2:27:50] Through the chair, not all municipalities have a differential.

[2:27:54] Some have a one-to-one ratio.

[2:27:57] Some have subclass created for multi-family.

[2:28:02] Is that information that could be provided?

[2:28:06] Because I'll be honest, where I was most keen to dive into,

[2:28:11] was the differential we have with multi-family.

[2:28:14] It seems counterintuitive to me that we are struggling to build housing, we are struggling to provide housing.

[2:28:24] We should be in my mind incentivizing multi-family structures because they are reduced sprawl.

[2:28:35] easier to provide services, et cetera, but under a current plan, and I'm

[2:28:43] rendering back to then Alderman Sean Ward, and I think he was a big

[2:28:47] proponent of saying, why are we charging them more? We should actually be

[2:28:52] incentivizing these types of housing. So that's what I'm trying to figure out.

[2:28:58] Are we working against our best, our own self-interest by saying, we really want

[2:29:04] to build this, and we're going to tax you a 50% more.

[2:29:09] Yeah, through the chair, I'm not sure I'm the person to answer that question.

[2:29:14] What I could have refused back to page 18, and what the impact would be on the residential

[2:29:20] rate pair if we were to do that.

[2:29:23] Again, if we kind of by quarter point, we would see $32 increase for the average rate

[2:29:34] to one ratio, that would be an extra $60 for the average host.

[2:29:40] And you're right, Mr. Laverty. I'd probably post an unfair question to you because it's

[2:29:46] really a governance question of how we want to proceed. But more of a statement that I think

[2:29:51] we're working against our own self-interest when we're trying to provide more housing and

[2:29:56] more densification.

[2:30:00] Mr. Matthews, did you want to jump in before we move on?

[2:30:04] Yes. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm just going to go back to Councillor Carlson's question. I think

[2:30:09] it's Councillor Carlson's question. I have many here. It might have been Councillor Carlson. I can't remember

[2:30:12] now. So just one point on M&E. So that is regulated by the province. I'm looking at Mr.

[2:30:20] Laverty who makes me, you know, if I say something wrong, you know, correctly on the journey here.

[2:30:23] So, we don't get to termination of what goes into M&E,

[2:30:28] they set the M&E standards, and we follow those.

[2:30:31] Is that correct Mr. Laverty?

[2:30:32] Through the chair of the MGA, does establish

[2:30:35] what qualifies for a machinery equipment and what does not.

[2:30:38] It has to be involved in manufacturing and processing.

[2:30:43] Yeah, that my question was in regards to moving

[2:30:46] that into the 21st century to accommodate things like technology.

[2:30:50] So, in that regard, that would be some pieces

[2:30:52] of almost advocacy work that we would need to do with the province, the province, the ones

[2:30:57] that set those pieces. And so that would be direction. I think what Mr. Lavity is referring

[2:31:01] to is that we haven't heard anything that they're doing that. That piece, but that is something

[2:31:05] that Council could look at is another piece of updating that tax law and so forth. What

[2:31:12] classifications are in there?

[2:31:15] Thank you. Councillor Schmidt-Rubble.

[2:31:18] Thank you very much. And thank you Councillor Carlson for those comments. Because I had sort

[2:31:22] this same question with regards to incentivizing this and just along that lines I'm going to

[2:31:28] throw out a question since we conveniently have Mr. Lewington from EDL in the audience right

[2:31:33] now. When we're looking at tax rates and I'm wondering if Mr. Lewington can come up and answer

[2:31:38] this question for us?

[2:31:42] You're conveniently here.

[2:31:55] Does anyone have an objection to bringing our

[2:31:58] subject matter expert forward.

[2:32:01] Let's see.

[2:32:02] I got Mr. Lowington might.

[2:32:05] Thank you.

[2:32:07] Go ahead.

[2:32:11] So we're talking about talking about looking at tax rates here.

[2:32:15] Tax rate review.

[2:32:17] And we're looking at all the different ones.

[2:32:20] Residential, non-residential, M&E tax rates.

[2:32:23] All of these affect our economic development.

[2:32:28] How will these changing them looking at them affect our ability to attract businesses to our city?

[2:32:36] So I guess one of the things to start with, what are we doing right now in Lathbridge with regards to our tax rates?

[2:32:42] And then maybe what could we be improving particularly with an economic development lens?

[2:32:49] Thanks for the question and being called out being here for something else really appreciate the opportunity.

[2:32:54] I do feel this is a better question for Mr. Lavity.

[2:32:58] So, I mean, holistically, I would say, you know,

[2:33:00] Council should remember that taxes are one lever that you have

[2:33:03] to use from an economic development perspective.

[2:33:05] Any business that's looking to either relocate to the city

[2:33:08] or is considering that's here already and is looking to expand

[2:33:11] is looking at the total value proposition.

[2:33:15] So, for some, depending on their configuration,

[2:33:17] their footprint property taxes are a more significant consideration.

[2:33:21] for others, it may be, for example, the descending rate block structure we have on water.

[2:33:26] Right, so Mr. Coup talked about the capacity and requirements there.

[2:33:30] Water is significantly cheaper in-lathbridge for large industrial users.

[2:33:33] And if you were a large industrial water user of water, you want to locate in-lathbridge rather than say,

[2:33:40] Calgary even if the taxes were higher, because your long-term operating costs are actually lower in-lathbridge.

[2:33:46] So anytime you're doing these kinds of benchmarking exercises,

[2:33:49] I would caution the committee and council to look at all of the considerations.

[2:33:54] So, for example, there are a number of communities around us who perhaps might not be on the chart,

[2:34:00] but are effectively local competition who have significantly lower tax rates from an industrial perspective.

[2:34:07] If you go to the town of cold-ale's website, for example, they tout the fact that there are ten minutes from a major center.

[2:34:13] They have some of the cheapest industrial land prices in the province,

[2:34:15] one by the way, it's half the tax of the neighboring jurisdiction.

[2:34:19] So they make a point of calling us out specifically for that.

[2:34:21] Now, the town of Coldale also has limitations in terms of what they can offer, right?

[2:34:26] So they don't have the larger, heavy industrial parcels.

[2:34:29] They don't have access to rail, for example, the city of Lathbridge has made investments in rail

[2:34:33] that benefit industrial development.

[2:34:35] So that access to that infrastructure is baked into a slightly higher tax rate here

[2:34:40] because you're paying for, you're getting services and access to infrastructure

[2:34:43] that doesn't exist in those places.

[2:34:46] So, I mean, again, I would encourage Council to be very mindful of any change to taxes that

[2:34:52] put us at a disadvantage to neighboring jurisdictions, but also look holistically at utility

[2:34:58] rates, which, again, you've already heard presentations for on the necessity, just as, you

[2:35:03] know, you've previously approved 20% over four years plus for property taxes.

[2:35:07] Now we're placing an additional burden on larger uses of our utilities with a similar range

[2:35:12] of increase potentially should those projects move forward

[2:35:16] over the next couple of years.

[2:35:17] So taxes in and of itself may be not a big deal,

[2:35:20] but as you start stacking all of those fees and charges

[2:35:22] and costs, we become less attractive.

[2:35:26] The other variable for you to consider is the province,

[2:35:30] preparing for my own council meeting later tonight.

[2:35:31] It was just reading a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs

[2:35:34] actually, and at the very bottom that his advice

[2:35:37] to elected officials and to administrative officers is to quote,

[2:35:41] So, together we continue to reduce unnecessary government oversight with regulatory approaches

[2:35:47] and program delivery that emphasizes outcomes in order to want to track investment to support

[2:35:54] innovation and three grow Alberta's businesses.

[2:35:56] That's the Minister of Municipal Affairs's top three priorities, according to correspondence

[2:36:01] he sent yesterday.

[2:36:02] So the question we often get is, you know, when invest Alberta's here, invest in Canada's

[2:36:07] there are provincial and federal incentives,

[2:36:09] but we offer two investors.

[2:36:11] One of the questions that inevitably comes up

[2:36:13] is what's the municipality's quote skin in the game.

[2:36:16] And so that usually comes down to what are you prepared

[2:36:18] to do from a cost of land, from a cost of utilities,

[2:36:21] from a cost of taxation, all of those kinds of things.

[2:36:24] Does that make sense?

[2:36:25] No, that makes some fleet sense.

[2:36:27] What are some of the things we can improve on here?

[2:36:31] Well, again, I think comes down to council's priorities

[2:36:34] in terms of what do you hope to attract?

[2:36:35] will be talking about another industry sector here shortly, that could be part of that mix.

[2:36:41] If, you know, again, you have tasked as a council, you have provided funding to my organization

[2:36:46] for N39 and N40.

[2:36:48] So we're very focused on the agrofood corridor, kind of a spring or food corridor, as well as

[2:36:53] Canada's Western Gateway, which is logistics and warehousing.

[2:36:56] So again, anything, if you were contemplating, for example, a change, and that's not a recommendation

[2:37:01] from administration, which I'm pleased to hear.

[2:37:02] But if you were contemplating, for example, a change to M&E, and including that as a taxable

[2:37:07] class, that has massive considerations for the existing aggregate businesses that are here,

[2:37:13] and would certainly be a discussion with new prospects.

[2:37:17] And so again, I think my advice would be what you can do better is to carefully look at all

[2:37:22] of those things that make us more competitive and less competitive and make sure we're always

[2:37:27] airing on the side of how do we become more competitive.

[2:37:29] Because, you know, Lathbridge does not exist in isolation, of course, we are competing with the rest of the world, frankly.

[2:37:36] We have a number of projects in the pipeline who are simultaneously looking at the cost to operate across multiple jurisdictions.

[2:37:44] And ultimately, even the companies that are here, most of them are branch locations of large multinationals.

[2:37:50] Having worked in that function in one of those chairs before, I can tell you that investment came to Lathbridge

[2:37:56] because it had the lowest landed cost to produce versus a plant in Ontario and Quebec.

[2:38:01] And that included freight, so a company expanded in Lathbridge because it was cheaper to

[2:38:04] make it here and actually ship it to Ontario than it was to make it in the Ontario plant.

[2:38:09] We want to make sure we re-reouteen those advantages, and then we can drive expansion and

[2:38:13] growth in our community.

[2:38:15] Thank you very much, and thank you for letting me put you on the spot for that one.

[2:38:19] I'll figure out a way to pay you back later.

[2:38:21] Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

[2:38:23] Councillor Crosson.

[2:38:26] Thank you, Chair.

[2:38:27] Thank you Mr. Lavretty for your work and for bringing this all forward.

[2:38:31] Talk to me more about the pros and cons of a subclass for vacant land, whether residential

[2:38:35] or industrial.

[2:38:36] Because you sort of just briefly mentioned in the report, but don't bring any recommendation

[2:38:39] forward on it.

[2:38:42] Through the chair, we wouldn't recommend doing that at this time.

[2:38:49] It is something we could do, but it would be different tax rates for property.

[2:38:59] And like I said, we just wouldn't recommend doing that.

[2:39:03] What are the reasons some communities do it or don't like do it?

[2:39:06] What's the advantage that I'm just trying to wrap my head around it?

[2:39:09] Some municipalities actually tax it higher than,

[2:39:15] or sorry, then improved non-residential,

[2:39:18] because they're trying to incent development.

[2:39:22] So increase the holding costs so that they develop it sooner.

[2:39:25] And some are the opposite.

[2:39:29] There isn't very many that actually have that classification in their bylaws.

[2:39:36] This one of those things sort of in the back pocket for some communities, but rarely used.

[2:39:40] Rarely used, yes.

[2:39:42] Thank you very much.

[2:39:47] Great.

[2:39:48] Thank you very much, Mr. Loverty.

[2:39:50] Thank you.

[2:39:52] I have a motion from Councillor Crosson.

[2:39:54] tax rate review 5.3, be it resolved that the economic standing policy committee accept the

[2:40:00] tax rate review as information, Councillor Crosson.

[2:40:04] Thank you.

[2:40:04] I brought this forward down to do a review of this a couple of months ago because it's been quite

[2:40:08] a while since we've done it.

[2:40:10] And we really didn't know if what we were doing was providing the best service to our community

[2:40:15] if we were actually hitting the right thing for the tax.

[2:40:18] We asked for comprehensive review of left or just tax position.

[2:40:21] the equity ability of it as it balances it's serving the community well.

[2:40:25] As I think most of my colleagues know,

[2:40:28] property taxes were set up as the primary way of financing

[2:40:31] municipalities under the Baldwin Act of 1849,

[2:40:34] which I'm sure you've all read cohesibly.

[2:40:37] That was back when the only people who could vote were men who were

[2:40:40] property owners of a certain amount.

[2:40:42] And even though we've changed so much about cities,

[2:40:45] we're still stuck as property taxes as the primary way

[2:40:48] to finance municipalities.

[2:40:49] And I won't go into a rant about how that's the stupidest way of financing municipalities,

[2:40:53] but it really is.

[2:40:54] So something that needs to be changed, but not today.

[2:40:57] And so this tax class review was to investigate and compare us to other municipalities.

[2:41:01] Review the meeting of assessment values from a provincial comparators.

[2:41:05] Give us a sense of if we're doing the right thing.

[2:41:07] And I'm very pleased to see that the recommendation is to stay with the status quo.

[2:41:12] That, you know, without a formal review, we have found the sweet spot.

[2:41:15] We've found the balance that is finding the best way between residential and non-residential

[2:41:21] taxes.

[2:41:22] We are finding a way that balances so that it keeps us sort of in that middle.

[2:41:26] So it keeps us with enough money to run the municipality, but to also then balance with the needs

[2:41:30] of businesses and a residential are.

[2:41:33] And so today this is just to be accepted for information, but it does give ourselves and

[2:41:38] our community an understanding and a sense of security that we have a tax class review in place

[2:41:44] That shows that we're moving in the right direction so unless there's any questions or debates. I will call the question

[2:41:51] Thank you. The question has been called on favor

[2:41:54] That motion passes unanimously. Thank you

[2:42:03] and next is item five point four

[2:42:07] Let's bridge destination management organization update Mr. Elliott your back on deck.

[2:42:14] All right. Thank you chair Hamilton hope

[2:42:16] Good afternoon, Economic SPC. I promise I will take five minutes or less

[2:42:23] to your questions on this update here today. So the last update on tourism and the

[2:42:30] Lethbridgeology Association was provided back in December of 2022 and I'm here today to

[2:42:37] just give a brief overview of what has happened in the last six months since then.

[2:42:42] So we've had three official mediation sessions with the City of Lethbridge represented

[2:42:48] the Tourism Lathbridge represented and the Lathbridge Lodging Association represented.

[2:42:55] The first mediation session was also with representatives from each board,

[2:42:59] each of the LLA board and the Tourism Lathbridge board. Various conversations and activities

[2:43:07] have taken place in between and after those mediation sessions, and the work of both organizations

[2:43:14] has continued on and some great work has has occurred during this time as well.

[2:43:22] At this point I would like to commend both organizations then their boards for taking time

[2:43:27] to participate and take the mediation process seriously. There was genuine effort made to seek

[2:43:35] to understand interests on both sides and I think that put us on a path that allowed us to begin

[2:43:42] recreating a foundation of trust in our collective relationships.

[2:43:49] As a result of the mediation sessions, I wrote a letter after the third mediation session that identified four action steps that we could agree to take to move forward.

[2:44:01] And that letter is attached as part of your package.

[2:44:04] I won't go through each of those, but I will just say that words are one thing, actions certainly speak louder, and as a result of those commitments made in that letter, I'm happy to say that actions have begun in most of those cases.

[2:44:21] So, for example, the city has actions, the fee per service work, with tourism

[2:44:27] leverage.

[2:44:28] And I'm a screen in myself, I've met a couple of times to work through that.

[2:44:32] We're confident we can have a finished product back before you,

[2:44:37] sometime in September, October at the latest.

[2:44:41] I would also say that tourism leverage took the opportunity to initiate

[2:44:48] on one of the other points there, a face-to-face meeting here recently with the City of

[2:44:54] Lathbridge, with myself and the Lathbridge Lathbridge.

[2:45:00] In attendance, and it was a positive discussion where lots of information was shared both ways, and opportunities identified for some mutual collaboration.

[2:45:11] Subsequent to that, the Leftridge Allogging Association issued a formal invitation to, toers and leftridge in addition to other organizations, to partner with an initiative that they had launched here in the last couple of months.

[2:45:28] there, visit Lethbridge.com, XR initiative, and then that better tourism

[2:45:33] Lethbridge was invited to be a partner in providing content and

[2:45:38] supporting that initiative to ensure that the work that has been done by the

[2:45:42] lodging association to date is maximized and that the tool that was developed

[2:45:49] is utilized to its fullest. So I'm happy to say that while there's a lot of work ahead

[2:45:55] all of us that we feel that we're on the right path here. I think it's important to recognize

[2:46:01] that the mediation was successful. The mediation process, it's full of success,

[2:46:07] it's not necessarily over. That remains an option. Should we need it to go back and access

[2:46:15] some additional help? At this time, I think it's fair to say that all would agree that while we're

[2:46:21] perhaps a fragile state right now. We are actively working on building that solid foundation

[2:46:28] of trust upon which we can all move forward. And with that, I'll pause for any questions

[2:46:34] or comments.

[2:46:38] Thank you, Mr. Elliott. I want you to appreciate it. No questions in the queue.

[2:46:48] Still no

[2:46:48] questions were done.

[2:46:51] I have a motion before me. I have a motion before me from Councillor

[2:46:56] Let's bridge destination management organization update 5.4 be it resolves of the economic

[2:47:02] standing policy committee except the let's bridge destination management organization update as

[2:47:07] information counselor. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for all the work that's been done

[2:47:13] and it sounds very optimistic as well so I thank you for that and I'm not sure there's any other

[2:47:17] further questions. I'll call for the vote. Well it's been called all in favor. Thank you. Thank you Mr.

[2:47:24] Thank you.

[2:47:27] All right.

[2:47:29] Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt.

[2:47:30] I do have to sneak out some of my apologies to you and my colleagues.

[2:47:35] But I do have another appointment that I must get to.

[2:47:39] Thank you.

[2:47:40] Thank you, Councillor Carlson.

[2:47:42] We don't lose quorum by losing Councillor Carlson.

[2:47:45] We need a break for a couple of moments.

[2:47:48] Okay, I wonder if we could take,

[2:47:49] It's 415 now if we can take to 420, that gives you five minutes to go do what you need to do.

[2:47:57] Thank you.

[2:47:58] We are back at 420.

[2:56:49] Next presentation.

[2:56:50] 5.5 Mr. Malcolm in regards to CWSS funding allocation requests.

[2:56:55] Mr. Malcolm, the floor's yours.

[2:56:58] Thank you very much.

[2:56:59] Members of economic SPC and the original order of the agenda.

[2:57:03] This preamble would have made a little bit more sense and answered Councillor Carlson's question.

[2:57:07] We don't typically present these to the economic SPC, but due to our timelines on procurement,

[2:57:15] as well as understanding that the cultural and social SPC are not meeting in July or August.

[2:57:21] We wanted to get this moving and not wait until September.

[2:57:24] So that is why we're here with this item.

[2:57:27] Next slide, please.

[2:57:30] At a high level overview, the CSD departments mandate and grant management is to oversee

[2:57:36] the administration of municipal provincial and federal funds, in this particular instance we're

[2:57:41] talking about federal reaching home funds. Next slide, please.

[2:57:47] Next slide.

[2:57:49] So again,

[2:57:50] the reason why we are coming to the SPC and ultimately to Council is in relation to an existing

[2:57:56] resolution that indicates that City Council is ultimately in term decision-maker for these

[2:58:02] different funding recommendations. And those funding recommendations that we were bringing

[2:58:06] forward today have already been vetted and are part of a recommendation from the CWSS advisory committee.

[2:58:12] Next slide, please.

[2:58:15] Again, this is just to re-emphasize the timeline that we're working with and why we're here

[2:58:19] with a special request to this SPC. Next slide, please.

[2:58:24] So we have four individual funding requests to get today for SPC's consideration. The first is

[2:58:29] the CWSS and MHS or municipal housing strategy needs assessment and strategic updates. The second

[2:58:35] is the shelter population support navigator.

[2:58:38] The third is new vans for the diversion outreach team,

[2:58:42] and the fourth is an integrated coordinated access

[2:58:44] engagement service fair.

[2:58:45] Next slide, please.

[2:58:48] So the needs assessment and strategic updates

[2:58:50] is a project with a goal of hiring a qualified consultant

[2:58:54] and working through a needs assessment

[2:58:56] to inform the data behind what we do

[2:58:59] with our funding allocations.

[2:59:01] This has previously been identified

[2:59:02] that council has been needed as we are coming up on five years

[2:59:06] since the initial needs assessment was completed and the COVID pandemic has drastically changed

[2:59:12] the needs and environment in our community.

[2:59:15] The funding request is up to $200,000 of federal reaching home funding and there's more

[2:59:21] details in the package.

[2:59:22] Next slide, please.

[2:59:25] Again, the request for decision reflects that information.

[2:59:29] Next slide.

[2:59:31] The second item is the shelter population support navigator.

[2:59:34] This would be sub to contract the blood tribe department of health to imply

[2:59:37] one position as a population service navigator operating out of the

[2:59:41] Lathbridge Wellness Shelter Stabilization Unit connecting individuals into the

[2:59:45] continuum of care at the point at which they are at which is at the shelter.

[2:59:51] This procurement was a direct award to blood tribe based on being the current

[2:59:55] operator and this was vetted both.

[3:00:00] The federal reaching home program. The funding would be up to 90,000 annually over a four-year term,

[3:00:06] dependent on the provision of that funding. Next slide, please. And again, the request of this

[3:00:12] decision reflects this information. Next slide. The third item is the support of the diversion

[3:00:19] outreach team, our dot, which is run by the Canadian Mental Health Association with two new vans.

[3:00:26] this would be a capital purchase. The amount being requested includes a value for trade

[3:00:32] in of the two existing vans. And this is to ensure consistency of their service. The vehicles

[3:00:37] are aging and are increasingly out of service due to mechanical issues. And as it happens to

[3:00:44] fall into place this week, one van is out of commission for a period of time getting mechanical work done.

[3:00:49] This request would be up to $1070,000, again, of federal regime home.

[3:00:55] Next slide, please.

[3:00:57] And next slide.

[3:00:59] And the final item is the integrated coordinated access engagement service fair.

[3:01:03] So CSD would host an integrated service fair.

[3:01:06] And this is to provide education to both connected and non-connected community agencies.

[3:01:11] The integrated coordinated access is a contractual obligation of the region home.

[3:01:15] And this will allow us to connect with a number of organizations that have change or change and roll over the course of COVID and over the course of the last four or five years.

[3:01:25] The request here is for up to $20,000 for this and I would emphasize on this one that it's an up to, we don't anticipate it being this cost, but it certainly gives us the room to properly plan this type of event. Next slide please.

[3:01:40] And for the last time, the request for decision reflects that information, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[3:01:54] Thank you, Mr. Malcolm.

[3:01:55] I hope Councillor Crosson has jumped in, but I had questions in advance.

[3:02:02] $200,000 for a consultant.

[3:02:06] How can we justify $200,000 for a consultant?

[3:02:10] Well, this is a big project in terms of the amount of data and analysis that goes into it as well as community engagement.

[3:02:18] We don't envision doing the same level of engagement that we completed in the first

[3:02:23] Go-round of the CWSS which is completed four years ago. This is an update

[3:02:27] But it does require us touching base with all the different service providers in our community

[3:02:32] Of which there are many and then taking their feedback and integrated into the project.

[3:02:37] So the scope of the project is quite large even though it is an update

[3:02:43] And then the other piece is around the timeframe on which we're delivering it to by March of 2024 to align with the funding parameters and any time you put a little bit of urgency on a project that costs reflects that in terms of the resources that the consultant is putting into it.

[3:03:00] This project was competitively procured and the cost is competitive. I believe we had over five submissions into it.

[3:03:09] I think second question, $170,000 for two new DOT events, why not buy used?

[3:03:17] Again, it's the type of vehicle that dot uses.

[3:03:21] It's a fairly specialty vehicle.

[3:03:23] And then it comes down to just again the mechanical wear and tear that the vehicles have.

[3:03:31] These current vehicles, I believe, are only about five years old.

[3:03:34] And the amount of kilometers and the, again, wear and tear that they put on is substantial.

[3:03:38] And so, buying new has been the preferred approach.

[3:03:43] Did we buy new before?

[3:03:45] Yes, we did.

[3:03:46] They've lasted five years.

[3:03:49] That is my understanding.

[3:03:50] I can confirm the years with the team.

[3:03:52] Just leave me one moment.

[3:03:53] That's okay.

[3:03:55] That's an estimate.

[3:03:56] It's probably about right in terms of actual use as both five years.

[3:04:00] Okay, thank you.

[3:04:02] Councillor Schmitt Rumble.

[3:04:05] Thank you very much.

[3:04:06] And thank you for bringing these four projects forward to us, Mr. Malcolm.

[3:04:10] question I have with regards to the vans, and this is not in the dollars supporting, but

[3:04:18] just what happens with hard assets, such as these if we stop supporting the operations

[3:04:24] or that particular nonprofit stops offering the services, what happens to those hard assets?

[3:04:33] We do have an agreement in place for the assets themselves in previous contracts or situations

[3:04:40] where we have purchased a vehicle, they are tied to the program, and so then would be a process

[3:04:45] of handing it over with the program funding. If the program was to go away in its entirety, the assets would

[3:04:52] be sold and similar to what we're doing to the trade and value, and then the amount of money would be retained.

[3:04:58] And in terms of its connection to the reaching home contract, I can't speak to that further

[3:05:04] and I'll look to our city treasure to if he has specifics around our obligations.

[3:05:10] And in the meantime, I'll just see if anyone from our team chimes in on teens here.

[3:05:14] No, I really don't have anything further to add there in regards to whether or not from what Mr. Malcolm

[3:05:19] has said.

[3:05:26] All right, then.

[3:05:28] And Mr. Malcolm, if you get any further information on that, if you could afford that onto us,

[3:05:31] I'm just curious as to what happens with those hard assets if something goes off the rails with the program, that's all.

[3:05:39] The next question I have with regards to the community-wide integrated coordination coordinated access engagement service fair,

[3:05:47] is this something that CSD would be coordinating?

[3:05:51] That is correct. The CSD department would be coordinated under RICA mandate.

[3:05:56] and so we have an ICA technician as part of our staff, and we work directly with CMAJ in the delivery of integrated

[3:06:01] coordinate access. So the actual cost would be something that the city oversees and delivers,

[3:06:07] but we would be doing it hand in hand with CMAJ. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm one final question I have,

[3:06:13] just with regards to how CWSS works. Are there any representatives from the above organizations

[3:06:20] receiving money out of these four projects that sit on CWSS and is there a process that

[3:06:28] removes them from discussing and voting on the above projects to come through to approval

[3:06:32] to us?

[3:06:34] Just so that I want to be sure that there's no way anyone can say we were biased in approving

[3:06:39] funds or CWSS was making sure those people were accused from any participation in those conversations.

[3:06:47] So, that is an approach that is outlined in the terms of reference, and we do follow a process.

[3:06:52] On that, specific to these funded agencies, there is representation.

[3:06:59] I guess if you looked at CMHA in the city, the service fair.

[3:07:04] And I will wait and pause to see if there are team ads anybody else.

[3:07:08] But as far as I know, this is fully outlined in our terms of reference, and we follow all those procedures and processes.

[3:07:14] And just as I see the dots on my MS teams and there's information coming, I can answer the last two questions.

[3:07:20] The age of the vehicles, the current two vehicles were purchased in 2017 and 2019.

[3:07:27] And the government of Canada has a sustainability plan that they would have to approve first before we actually purchase the vehicles that covers off what would happen if the program was to see such change.

[3:07:37] Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

[3:07:41] Thank you.

[3:07:41] Thank you, I wasn't going to ask about the $200,000 needs assessment that Council

[3:07:48] Middleson hope asked about because that is the one that the community most raised with

[3:07:51] me because we get that contract.

[3:07:54] So thank you for the answer on that, but then let's just more look at process overall.

[3:07:59] So when you are looking at this, does the group look at the entire needs in the community

[3:08:04] and narrow it down?

[3:08:05] Is there a process to choose the ones that are seen to be of the highest need that fit the criteria?

[3:08:11] is that how it is done by this group? And are they then bringing forward to us in your estimate,

[3:08:17] the highest needs that fit this criteria that you have for funding?

[3:08:22] Yes, so at a high level, the process is that we use the needs assessment and our interactions

[3:08:28] with the community to understand where gaps or needs are in the community. Our team then brings that

[3:08:33] to the CWSS Advisory Committee for discussion. And then the follow-up meeting is we formulate a

[3:08:40] recommendation and a proposal to them and they discuss and ultimately vote.

[3:08:45] Once that vote is in place, we then move forward with bringing it forward to City Council.

[3:08:51] Again, that aspect is because of the resolution of City Council for your involvement.

[3:08:56] As it relates to our contractual obligations with reaching home, it is entirely with the CWSS as our community entity.

[3:09:04] But, basically, a thorough review process based on needs assessment and funding has come up with these four suggestions.

[3:09:12] That's correct. And again, I think if we go back to the beginning, we completely completed the initial needs assessment,

[3:09:19] and then a large RFSQ process was initiated, asking for proposals from the community to identify programs to meet the needs.

[3:09:29] Since that point in time, we've been doing it more as one-offs, utilizing any additional or left over funding after each fiscal year is over.

[3:09:40] What we would be doing after this next needs assessment is, and hopefully a new reaching home agreement would be following a similar process to that RFSQ, where we identify all the needs identified in the needs assessment,

[3:09:51] and putting out a large call to the community to like an RFSQ to facilitate new programs that fill or address gaps in our community.

[3:10:01] Perfect. Thank you. Thank you chair.

[3:10:06] Thank you. Just one second.

[3:10:13] Good.

[3:10:14] I see no further questions in the queue, Mr. Malcolm, so thank you very much for your presentation.

[3:10:19] I have a motion by Councillor Schmitt Rempel, which I have asked to have split into four component pieces.

[3:10:26] there are four requests here, and I've asked to have the number one, two, three, four, which

[3:10:31] should be up on the board.

[3:10:37] We will be voting on each one individually, and debating

[3:10:40] them individually. Be it resolved that the Economic Standing Policy Committee meeting recommend

[3:10:46] City Council adopt the following recommendations of the community well being in safety

[3:10:50] strategy, CWSS, advisory committee regarding $480,000 in funding from the federal reaching

[3:10:57] home are H funding portfolio. One, approve up to $200,000 of federal reaching home funding

[3:11:04] as a one-time cost to be allocated for the procurement of a consultant to complete a needs

[3:11:10] assessment and strategic updates to the community well-being and safety strategy and

[3:11:15] municipal housing strategy as detailed in attachment one or two.

[3:11:21] Point two, approve up to $90,000 annually to be allocated from the federal reaching home

[3:11:26] funding portfolio over a four-year term to be allocated to the blood tribe department of health,

[3:11:32] to deliver the leverage wellness shelter and stabilization unit population support navigator

[3:11:37] PSN project as detailed in attachment 3.3 approved up to $170,000 of federal reaching home funding

[3:11:46] as a one-time cost to be allocated to the Canadian Mental Health Association for the purchase

[3:11:51] of two vehicles in support of the DOT program operations as detailed in attachment 4.

[3:11:58] Point 4, approve up to $20,000 of federal reaching home funding as a one-time cost to be

[3:12:04] allocated for the facilitation of a community wide integrated coordinated access engagement

[3:12:10] service fair as detailed in attachment 5.

[3:12:15] And further than the city manager and city clerk be authorized to sign the appropriate

[3:12:18] funding agreements, and such agreements shall be subject to continuous administrative review

[3:12:24] and optional renewal at the discretion of the city of Lethbridge, pending available funding

[3:12:29] from the Government of Canada.

[3:12:32] Councillor Schmidt-Rumpel.

[3:12:36] So, you're wanting to split this out into four separate motions?

[3:12:40] I think that the as a result of the discussions with Mr. Malcolm, it would appear that for

[3:12:47] my perspective I have more difficulty supporting some of the initiatives rather than all of

[3:12:53] the initiatives and therefore I ask that the motion be divided into the four components

[3:12:59] to allow us to vote separately on.

[3:13:03] Madam City Clerk, do we not need four separate motions for this?

[3:13:09] So I think that's what Deputy Mayor is saying that each one would be a separate motion and

[3:13:15] voted on separately.

[3:13:18] So we'll start with number one, approving $200,000 of federal reaching home funding as a one-time cost to be allocated for the procurement of the consultants to complete a needs assessment.

[3:13:30] In 2019, CST, our community social development department at the City of Leatherbridge published a five year strategic plan to inform and improve community well-being and safety and leverage.

[3:13:40] we haven't had an update since then, and we have utilized the strategy in guiding document.

[3:13:47] We have utilized the strategy as a guiding document for strategic decisions related to systems level planning in the community social service sector.

[3:13:56] We know a number of things have changed since 2019, so it's time to certainly look at updating this and

[3:14:06] retaining a consultant to look, update, and complete a new needs assessment and strategic

[3:14:12] updates for our CWSS and municipal housing strategy.

[3:14:16] As Mr. Malcolm outlined, we are looking at getting this done quickly, so costs have

[3:14:22] gone up to our $200,000 range on this.

[3:14:27] I can certainly entertain any questions.

[3:14:31] Or if we have questions from Councillor Crosse?

[3:14:33] You're beat from Councilor Croson.

[3:14:36] All right, debate.

[3:14:37] Okay. Any other questions?

[3:14:39] Okay, so we're in for debate.

[3:14:40] Councilor Croson.

[3:14:42] I can definitely appreciate people's concerns about the amount of money on this.

[3:14:45] It was one of the ones that made me kind of gasp when I first read it

[3:14:48] because $200,000 for a needs assessment and an update on these plans

[3:14:53] does seem like a large amount of money.

[3:14:55] But I've also sat here in noon.

[3:15:00] First time, as my colleagues have been so frustrated when somebody comes before us and says, we need to do this. And you're like, is part of what plan? Why are we doing it? What preparation have you done? And then we get very upset that it's not part of something actually strategic.

[3:15:14] So now we have staff coming forward with us going with an incredibly strategic. We have these plans. We need to update them, keep them relevant, and ensure we're offering the best possible services to our community. We have money here from the federal government to do it well.

[3:15:27] We need to do it at a higher price than normal because we are in a time crunch, but this will then serve our

[3:15:33] Carey for the next five years or so, but as the last ones did, and so I will be supporting this because this is what we need to see.

[3:15:41] We need to see smart strategies coming forward that are relevant to today because everything has changed since the pandemic that will actually give us those guiding ideas from moving ahead.

[3:15:51] And I hope my colleagues will support this.

[3:15:55] Thank you. Councillor Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This might be my debate for all of the

[3:16:03] for suggestions here or for proposals. I have all the faith in the world of the CWSS

[3:16:09] Advisory Committee and they properly vetted all of these proposals, so I will say yes to all of them.

[3:16:17] Thank you.

[3:16:21] Thank you. So I guess I'm next in the queue. I will not be supporting this initiative.

[3:16:26] So I am quite familiar with consulting fees and the process of acquiring consulting firms

[3:16:35] to do very specific work.

[3:16:38] Quite candidly, I am, as my colleague, indicated Councillor Crosson, somewhat taken

[3:16:45] a back by the funds that we're being asked to allocate.

[3:16:49] I'm not disputing the need to conduct a secondary review since 2019, but if we're not prepared to, or if we can't, for whatever reason, look at a cost that is going to be substantially less than this.

[3:17:04] I can't support it, so that's my position on it. Acting Mayor Parker.

[3:17:08] I think very much, and the 200,000 dollars is a lot of money, but I understand the logic

[3:17:14] and the explanation that Mr. Malcolm has given us.

[3:17:17] I think we have three minor selfs.

[3:17:18] I know we're all say there's one taxpayer in all of that.

[3:17:21] But certain grants qualify for certain things, and an item like this is a federal grant, and

[3:17:27] it's qualifies for studies such as this to a consultant in that.

[3:17:31] I know 200,000 dollars sounds a lot of money.

[3:17:33] But I believe that it's money well served, and it's also money that it has a exact purpose

[3:17:40] when the federal government and for that reason alone, I will be supporting it.

[3:17:47] All right.

[3:17:47] Seeing no further members in the queue for debate, then I leave it to the mover.

[3:17:55] Thank you very much.

[3:17:56] As we've heard, several years have passed since the assessments and strategies.

[3:18:00] We do have the funds in place to do this.

[3:18:02] It is part of reaching home funding and RCWSS team.

[3:18:06] has reviewed and approved this.

[3:18:09] So with that, I will call for the vote.

[3:18:11] All in favor?

[3:18:14] Opposed?

[3:18:17] Thank you.

[3:18:20] Thank you.

[3:18:21] And we're looking at motion number two,

[3:18:24] the shelter population supports navigator.

[3:18:27] With this one, the left bridge

[3:18:28] wellness shelter and stabilization unit

[3:18:30] recently acquired a new operational service provider.

[3:18:33] Identified as an opportunity to station a population

[3:18:35] support navigator to operate as part

[3:18:38] of the integrated coordinated access system

[3:18:40] out of the shelter facility.

[3:18:43] They will not operate a shelter staff or complete any shelter-related operational duties, but

[3:18:48] they will be connecting people to different kinds of services and it is advantageous for the

[3:18:57] blood type department of health to have this in their wellness shelter and stabilization unit.

[3:19:03] I'll take any questions or we can go into debate.

[3:19:07] No questions and I don't see anybody sitting in the queue period so anyone in for debate,

[3:19:16] still none.

[3:19:19] All right.

[3:19:19] Last call for debate.

[3:19:22] Closing then, Councillor.

[3:19:24] I'll take that as my opening and closing and I'll call for the vote on that one.

[3:19:28] Call in favor.

[3:19:30] Any opposed?

[3:19:32] Seeing none.

[3:19:35] Thank you.

[3:19:35] 0.3?

[3:19:36] version outreach team vans we're looking at getting new vans for the dot, the diversion outreach team that CMAJ delivers, if anybody has any questions or debate about this.

[3:19:53] Now it's for Crosse and it's for debate as a lie.

[3:19:58] That's for Crosse.

[3:19:59] Once again, I realize $177,000 for two vehicle sounds like a lot of money.

[3:20:04] But these are larger and bigger vehicles than the average person would drive.

[3:20:09] And they are used consistently throughout the community.

[3:20:13] They are out there every day, no matter what the weather doing the work.

[3:20:16] And we cannot have these vehicles breaking down.

[3:20:19] The driver is responsible for ensuring that they have people who are under the influence.

[3:20:25] there are safe back there to also have the vehicle break down. We'll just add another part

[3:20:29] of the chaos of the day. I hope we can't support this because not only is an essential service,

[3:20:34] but they need to have vehicles in order to do this job.

[3:20:43] Thank you, Carl, and Councillor Crosson. I believe that there are other options that are available.

[3:20:47] I'm not sure that Mr. Malcolm, I would provide you with the opportunity to explain how we

[3:20:55] have researched and determined that this is the only option. I think that there are other

[3:20:59] options out there, and I'm not sure that we've explored them fully.

[3:21:04] I'm not sure that $85,000 vans to pick up people off of the street and take them from

[3:21:10] point A to point point B is a good use of expenses.

[3:21:17] If you want to respond to that, you can't come in to debate, but that was my point anyway.

[3:21:26] All right, we have acting mayor Parker in the queue.

[3:21:31] Thank you very much.

[3:21:32] And as well, 85,000 dollars a lot of money on any vehicle, but if you see the price of goods

[3:21:36] for years, if you're even fortunate enough to even build a get one, you're pretty lucky.

[3:21:42] I know firsthand the importance of these vehicles in our community.

[3:21:45] I remember when we approved those through a recommendation, probably almost 10 years ago,

[3:21:49] and I know how well utilized they're not only for the downtown, but I do believe those

[3:21:53] are used throughout the city, so if we have issues of people in southeast

[3:21:58] sub-bridge or in west sub-bridge, those vans are there, they're a great value for

[3:22:02] the dollar, and I can tell you firsthand people really, really appreciate the

[3:22:05] surface they do, and they do run a really, not so much, not so much, not so much

[3:22:08] much, not so much, not so much, not so much, not so much, not so much, not so much, not so much, it's very professional when they deal with the people at risk, and so I will be supporting this one hundred percent.

[3:22:18] Last call, no one further inferred debate, Councillor.

[3:22:24] Thank you very much, so reliability of these vehicles, as we've heard, is paramount to the success of the program in order to divert calls to emergency services, the purchase of the two new vehicles will be resourced by presently unallocated federal reaching home funds, this will allow the job program to operate without the additional constraints of mechanical bills and operational downtime.

[3:22:44] With that, I will call for the vote on favor.

[3:22:49] Opposed.

[3:22:52] Thank you very much.

[3:22:55] And last one, up the integrated coordinated access engagement service fair, the City of

[3:23:03] Leftridge is planning to organize the integrated service fair, and it will be used to facilitate

[3:23:10] a service fair for current and or a new coordinated access partners for the City of

[3:23:15] Leftridge.

[3:23:15] It's a highly effective approach to engaging the community and enhancing the coordination and

[3:23:19] accessibility of available social services and resources, any questions or debates.

[3:23:28] Seeing none in the queue.

[3:23:31] I'll call for the vote.

[3:23:32] All in favor?

[3:23:35] Any opposed?

[3:23:38] Thank you very much.

[3:23:39] Yes.

[3:23:39] Thank you for separating those.

[3:23:57] There we go.

[3:23:58] We're coming to the tail end of our program this evening.

[3:24:03] And it is this evening.

[3:24:05] We have submissions.

[3:24:08] Are there any questions from members of council?

[3:24:10] I see council.

[3:24:10] crossings in the queue in regards to the first submission, which is on growing creative industries

[3:24:17] exploring city of leverage involvement in the film and TV industry.

[3:24:23] Take it away.

[3:24:27] I'll speak to my microphone.

[3:24:28] So Ms. Brack and his question would be, I believe, to you on this one.

[3:24:32] So you've brought forward in our long document two options, option one going more with the

[3:24:43] an option to moving some of that money over to the city, changing N41, reducing the amount

[3:24:49] to EDL, and then having the two groups work together.

[3:24:53] So both would in the N perhaps accomplish the same thing, but two different ways, two different

[3:24:57] approaches of doing it.

[3:24:59] From my reading of the submission, the reason that council, sorry, administration is suggesting

[3:25:06] option 2, is because if we go with option 1 and go all through EDL, then the city won't

[3:25:12] the resources to get themselves in the right position to be able to manage anything that

[3:25:16] might come to us and we be behind the eight ball. Is that an accurate reading about why this

[3:25:20] is the recommendation that it provides the proper resources to make sure the city is set up

[3:25:26] as well as the EDL are set up for success?

[3:25:29] You're the chair and a Councillor Crosson. Yes, we're working within the approved N41 budget

[3:25:35] at Council's direction. The consultants that we work with again at Council's direction

[3:25:40] recommended that we establish an implement a film permit process and that is a process that

[3:25:47] we would need city staff to administer. That's why we've gone with option two.

[3:25:53] And so that would provide the appropriate resources to get the part that the city has to

[3:25:56] do, but it'll provide some funding for EDL to support them at what they would do and then

[3:26:01] the two would work collaboratively together. Would be my understanding? It would reduce the

[3:26:07] of services that EDL could provide based on what they outlined in the original N41, allocating

[3:26:16] some of the money that they would have put to certain initiatives to a city position. So you

[3:26:21] would get a city staff person to administer, implement an administer, a film permit process,

[3:26:27] and all the coordination that comes with that, and then you would get some of the services and

[3:26:32] supports that EDL identified in the original N41. Okay. I think everybody can guess my

[3:26:37] follow-up conversation and Mr. Looting.

[3:26:41] If this is reduced and EDL only gets the certain amount, can you still do work in this field?

[3:26:47] Is it something that's still feasible to move ahead if we do the two split?

[3:26:55] Councillor Crosson, the original budget for N41 was actually 1.063 million over four years.

[3:27:03] And this committee, during the budget time, reduced that to potentially 910,000 over three

[3:27:09] years, counseling the first year of funding, with 780,000 of that coming from the city.

[3:27:14] And so option two, as it's proposed, we take that original budget of just over a million

[3:27:19] dollars and reduce it to $376,000, so basically a third.

[3:27:24] And so when N41 was built, it was structured around the same model as both N39 and N40 with

[3:27:31] an external facing investment attraction, type role, and then an internal facing to the community,

[3:27:37] industry development kind of role.

[3:27:39] I would suggest that at that level of funding,

[3:27:42] so 3,76 over 3 and a half years,

[3:27:45] that's barely enough to cover one head count with benefits

[3:27:47] from a cost of employment.

[3:27:49] And it would leave them basically with no operating money

[3:27:52] for travel, conferences,

[3:27:54] marketing, promotions, all of those kinds of things.

[3:27:57] So candidly, I'm not sure the project would be worth doing.

[3:28:00] We would probably withdraw our request for N41

[3:28:02] and just say to the city, you know,

[3:28:04] fare the well, do your own thing.

[3:28:06] That ultimately would be a conversation I would have to have with the board, depending on the feedback we get from today, and that the board would have to make that determination.

[3:28:15] Your honesty on that. Thank you, Chair.

[3:28:18] Thank you, Councillor Crosson. Councillor Schmidt-Rubble.

[3:28:22] Thank you very much.

[3:28:25] I guess I'll just start with the questions, and I'll start with directing these two, Ms. Backhand.

[3:28:32] has any, have we had any queries on this today that requires somebody to issue a permit?

[3:28:41] Through the chair to Councillor Schmitt-Rempel, at present, any requests for coordinated

[3:28:47] city services to support a film or TV production goes to our special event permit process,

[3:28:55] which is a process more designed for things like festivals and other gatherings in public spaces.

[3:29:00] It works to a certain extent as it allows for that coordination of services, but it's not a tailored

[3:29:08] system, a tailored process designed to support film and television productions.

[3:29:13] So, yes, we have received requests in the past, speaking with the administrator who

[3:29:19] administers that permit process about 20, maybe over the past 10 years, but again, we've just done the best to put it through,

[3:29:30] you know, whatever process we have that that's seem to address most of the of the needs.

[3:29:35] Okay, so with this position then that we're looking at the the film liaison and taking into account what Mr.

[3:29:43] Lewington just said.

[3:29:45] Will this position then take on some of the attraction components of what economic development

[3:29:51] left bridge would have been doing in their previous proposal? Will this also be part of that position now?

[3:29:56] So, this position more-

[3:30:00] Any deal with permitting nothing else? And at this point we don't have anybody out doing recruitment of this industry to the city.

[3:30:10] So this position is just going to be permitting and right now we have nobody else doing anything else.

[3:30:15] That's correct. I'll jump out of the queue for now.

[3:30:19] Thank you. I'm next in the queue. Question two, Ms. Bracken as well, probably to Mr.

[3:30:26] Loinkden. So we don't have the expertise to do this currently, but we have expertise in terms of permitting generally.

[3:30:37] Is that, do I characterize that correctly?

[3:30:40] Yes, that's correct.

[3:30:41] And Mr. Loington, are you acquiring expertise or do you currently have expertise that will be able to...

[3:30:52] I guess move this in a direction that I think we're all hoping for, which is greater development in the city.

[3:31:00] Thank you for the question. So N41, as proposed, was to add two headcount.

[3:31:04] So the film, TV industry, as part of it, you will, you may recall from our budget presentation

[3:31:10] that end 41, the scope of which is creative industries, which includes things like gaming and

[3:31:15] eSports as well. All of those areas are somewhat niche. So while we have investment attraction

[3:31:21] and industry development expertise on our team, certainly some great staff members, these industries

[3:31:26] are very, require very specific skillsets, very specific experiences, and networks in order to deliver

[3:31:32] on those results. So it would be incremental resources. That's why the new initiative request

[3:31:36] rather than doing it in-house with our existing staff level.

[3:31:40] Thank you, then. I guess my last question through the city manager to Miss Bracken again.

[3:31:44] So why would we get into trying to get into the business of doing this?

[3:31:49] Are there asset, are there advantages here for us to do it or

[3:31:54] this project is in response to a presentation brought forward last year by EDL.

[3:31:59] identifying the city council opportunities, building on a tax credit that the province had announced

[3:32:06] just freshly announced at that time and a lot of excitement around and increasing

[3:32:11] productions around the province. The last of us probably the most notable and celebrated.

[3:32:17] The question at the time that EDL posts to City Council was, how do you want to play in this game?

[3:32:22] There's an opportunity here. City Council then provided administration with funding to

[3:32:28] access some expertise through consulting services, which we did, and we brought back these

[3:32:34] as options. So it's an opportunity that City Council can respond to.

[3:32:39] Thank you very much. Councillor Dota?

[3:32:44] Yeah, I got it, Madam. I'm somewhat puzzled by the recommendation. I don't know who would

[3:32:50] sit in the administration to answer this. We have EDL going out to attract investment, and I'm assuming

[3:32:58] part of in for everyone is to get the film business, things like that.

[3:33:01] EDL goes out at tracks, a business, they do what's needed to get that business to come

[3:33:08] to the left bridge, then all of a sudden they want to build something they come to the city,

[3:33:13] they apply for development, permit, and away we go.

[3:33:17] So I've heard from Mr. Lewington that if all of a sudden we were to take out the sniffle

[3:33:23] portion of N41 that they would not be able to do the work, and I've heard from an administration

[3:33:30] saying that, and then the report says in the city will not be able to adequately manage

[3:33:35] the increased business, which at the present doesn't exist.

[3:33:42] So could we not allow EDL the funding, and then from that, because they are now able to do

[3:33:54] the work see what happens in terms of the attraction of the film industry that they get.

[3:34:02] And then deal with the permitting process, then rather than all of us are dedicated, rather

[3:34:08] than what's recommended here, dedicated person, to be available, to do permitting and

[3:34:13] liais with the film industry that we don't presently have.

[3:34:19] So I'm not sure who would like to try to answer that question.

[3:34:22] other than saying to me the ex or the consultants have recommended it?

[3:34:30] Through the chair to Councillor Dotic, I'll try to answer that.

[3:34:36] Administration has worked within the approved budget to provide council with options.

[3:34:42] I think if you'd like to put forward another option that you think and 41 restored funding

[3:34:50] and no city position that of course is at Council's discretion.

[3:34:55] I'm not sure if either of my colleagues want to jump in and provide a bit more context

[3:35:02] kind of at how we landed where we did, maybe to the city treasure.

[3:35:09] Through day, Councillor.

[3:35:11] Do I want to hear in regards to this?

[3:35:13] So as Miss Bracken mentioned, one of the things that we're trying to do

[3:35:18] coming back with this is remain within the existing approved conditional budget that was the

[3:35:24] direction. So the information that came back through the study in the report is suggesting

[3:35:29] that we would need these kind of resources internally and I think that's what administration

[3:35:32] is suggesting. And set it for obviously and that, you know, not trying to add more money into the

[3:35:39] one-time cost. But that was just based on what the direction was back in January, I believe it was.

[3:35:48] It was also an option one noted in the report, which is the EDL's preferred option, and

[3:35:54] although it didn't sort of comport with all the recommendations made by the consultant,

[3:36:01] it didn't affect the report with some of them, so you agree with me with that?

[3:36:06] I agree.

[3:36:07] Okay, thank you.

[3:36:10] Thank you, Councillor Dota.

[3:36:11] Councillor Campbell.

[3:36:13] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:36:14] Ms. Bracken.

[3:36:15] Just can you take us through the discussion with the consultants if you can. I mean, I know the recommendation was to go the way that's written here, but can can you just kind of give me elaborate a little bit more about why you went that way or why they recommended that you go that way?

[3:36:33] be the chair to Councilor Campbell. The consultants are here with us as well, representatives from

[3:36:38] Wingwell Media, so I can we can also direct questions to them if you'd like.

[3:36:42] I would love to hear their response if they wish.

[3:36:45] Sure. We did provide a discovery summary of kind of the scope of their work, just to assess

[3:36:51] how comparative municipalities handle the film permitting process to provide us with some recommendations

[3:36:58] from we initially started with a policy conversation and their recommendation was first to

[3:37:05] look at process and then if we feel they need for a policy develop that down the line.

[3:37:11] Yeah, I don't know, Sharon, if you want to come up to the mic and provide a bit of background

[3:37:15] kind of on the work that was completed as part of your contract.

[3:37:19] I'd appreciate just, just, yeah, like the, sorry, it's been a long day.

[3:37:25] Just like to hear what made you come up to your decision over to what's before us.

[3:37:31] And I know it's, we've been given somewhat, but I just like a little bit more detail.

[3:37:35] Thank you.

[3:37:36] Sure.

[3:37:38] So our recommendation was not exactly what has come forward options one and two for you today.

[3:37:43] Our recommendation was strictly that the City of Lethbridge higher someone, full time in place to manage a film program, and to develop and build a film program.

[3:37:58] And that person should ideally be of a managerial type level, someone who has the background and experience who could build a basic program.

[3:38:07] The program should contain a film permit process.

[3:38:13] We've written for you production guidelines, very detailed

[3:38:18] for the City of Lathbridge.

[3:38:20] We've drafted a film permit application form as well

[3:38:26] and providing that whole process for you.

[3:38:31] So that person would implement the process work with municipal

[3:38:36] staff to build the program, the procedures, builds the film permit application and then get

[3:38:45] all the messaging out there to the industry that this is the process that's in place

[3:38:50] at the city of Lathbridge. So that's what we base that's in the nutshell what we

[3:38:57] And then, as to that person, what ideally as well, do marketing and promotion and attends

[3:39:06] trade shows, industry shows, to promote, to lethbridge as a film location, get to

[3:39:13] know and work with location managers, location scouts, work closely with the city of Calgary

[3:39:20] as well, to help bring the industry out to lethbridge.

[3:39:23] So, if you work with other communities across Canada and develop your own model as to how things work and what works and what does well,

[3:39:32] and can you give me examples of some cities like, like, like, like,

[3:39:36] like, let's purchase that might have attached to the report that we've provided to you.

[3:39:40] You will see our comparative analysis.

[3:39:42] We did a municipal comparative analysis and we analyzed, we did three cities in Alberta and two in Ontario as well.

[3:39:51] And we did a comparative analysis and we gave you information in that report, detailed information on what they do, how they proceed with their film program.

[3:40:02] Ontario's Head of Alberta, Ontario's Head, a tax credit program in place for much longer.

[3:40:09] But since Alberta implemented the tax credit program, the industry is coming here fast, because it's a bottom line money is important for production.

[3:40:18] So there's a lot coming to Alberta now, and I think now's the time for the city of

[3:40:24] Lethbridge to really get things put in place because the industry is coming regardless

[3:40:31] of whether you're promoted, but as soon as you start putting film locations out there, for

[3:40:36] instance, the province of Alberta has a database you can submit locations to and we've made

[3:40:42] a list of locations and we will submit them for the city of Lethbridge to that database once

[3:40:48] that's put in place and those locations are submitted, you will find the scouts and location

[3:40:53] managers that look at that database, we'll see what Lethbridge has to offer and want to come

[3:40:58] out here a lot more than has come in the past.

[3:41:01] Thank you.

[3:41:02] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:41:05] Thank you, Councillor Campbell.

[3:41:07] Councillor Schmett-Rubble.

[3:41:09] Thank you very much.

[3:41:11] Mr. Lovington, if I could have you come back up.

[3:41:22] So now you had indicated at one point, refreshed my memory that there are granting

[3:41:26] opportunities that you would be able to access under the initial original proposal correct?

[3:41:32] Yeah, so in the original proposal for N41 there's $130,000 noted there as other funds.

[3:41:40] We've seen other communities in Alberta successfully access what's called the CAN export grant.

[3:41:45] That's a federal program that's specific to promoting investment from outside of Canada into Canada.

[3:41:51] So a number of other jurisdictions have used

[3:41:53] can export to promote film industry.

[3:41:56] It is, of course, matching related.

[3:41:59] So as N41 is reduced, the ability to access those dollars

[3:42:03] is decreased or disappears depending on the scope of work

[3:42:06] and should the committee choose to change the scope of the project.

[3:42:10] Again, that revised scope, if we move forward with it,

[3:42:13] would have to still fit the grant.

[3:42:14] So the grant was identified based on the original scope

[3:42:18] and the original proposal, but that's the structure

[3:42:20] of the program.

[3:42:22] So there is possibility then with the reduction to 376,000 approximately, we may not be able

[3:42:30] to access the full 130,000 then that's listed there, that would be significantly reduced.

[3:42:35] That's correct, and again, depending on the scope and the final decision of what work

[3:42:39] you would like us to go do and how that moves forward, that work may or may not qualify under

[3:42:43] the grant.

[3:42:43] Okay, which would also lead the Board of EDL to say they're just not interested in pursuing

[3:42:47] this any longer.

[3:42:48] Potentially.

[3:42:49] Thank you very much, Mr. Lewington.

[3:42:52] Ms. Bracken, I have a question for you.

[3:42:55] We do have an option one as as Councillor Dowdick referred to, which was a sign resources

[3:43:02] to evaluate and begin implementing some of the consultants recommendations.

[3:43:06] I'm ending the 2023 operating budget initiative and 41 to reallocate the original budget

[3:43:12] of $70, approximately $70,80,000 over September 1, 2023 to December 30, 2021, 26.

[3:43:23] That option is EDL's preferred option, but it does not allow for the city's special event

[3:43:31] permit process and higher that you were looking for.

[3:43:36] What do we need to do?

[3:43:38] What are your concerns with option one?

[3:43:40] and what do we need to do to overcome those concerns for you?

[3:43:47] Through the Chair to Councilor Schmidt-Rempel,

[3:43:50] the concern is that we would have EDL

[3:43:52] out marketing, left-bridge,

[3:43:54] promoting it as a film destination,

[3:43:57] and the city would not have any processes

[3:43:59] or permits established to respond to

[3:44:04] the work that EDL is doing.

[3:44:07] So a lot of the recommendations that have come from

[3:44:09] will media, we would not be able to implement on the city side of things, leaving us in a

[3:44:15] position where we are continuing to put these film productions and processes through the

[3:44:20] special event permit process, which is not the kind of concierge tailored experience that

[3:44:26] the consultants are recommending that the film industry needs.

[3:44:30] In addition to if we looked at this option one, in addition to that, the city would need one

[3:44:35] The FTE is what I'm gathering.

[3:44:40] That is an option before Council.

[3:44:43] And that's what you would look at.

[3:44:46] Now, in looking at going back to the original N41 economic development

[3:44:53] and leverage had the first two years

[3:44:55] as their development time.

[3:44:58] with

[3:45:00] We passed that first year, let's say. So we're not going to be able to start anything until 2024. So that would be their development time. So we actually wouldn't need this person in place for permitting until 2025. Ideally, or would we like to see them in place for 2024 in order to build the permitting process in conjunction with economic development leverage.

[3:45:27] Just to be clear too, just consulting here with Carly, the idea with the permitting process

[3:45:36] is that it's part of a larger development of a program, right?

[3:45:41] So I may have oversimplified by saying that it's just, you know, they're not just writing

[3:45:46] permits.

[3:45:47] It's part of a larger process that would involve addressing a lot of the recommendations

[3:45:52] in partnership with EDL that were recommended by a winged oil media, things like establishing

[3:45:58] with EDL, a dedicated website, and things like that.

[3:46:01] So there would be a lot of groundwork that could potentially happen as soon as Council

[3:46:05] directed.

[3:46:06] I don't think it would be something if you activated EDL's funding that you would want

[3:46:11] to wait on this city position.

[3:46:13] But again, it's at Council's discretion.

[3:46:17] But what we're still looking at is if we restore EDL's funding to what it was, you would

[3:46:21] need a full time individual to look at that.

[3:46:25] And I'm looking at the numbers here.

[3:46:28] We're looking at approving 404,000 for three years.

[3:46:34] So we're looking at approximately 13435,000 dollars per year for a person.

[3:46:41] Yes, that's correct.

[3:46:43] Thank you very much.

[3:46:45] Mr. City Manager.

[3:46:48] Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

[3:46:48] Yeah, unfortunately, I'll be open.

[3:46:52] I spent zero time on this one.

[3:46:54] And so I was speaking to staff about it.

[3:46:59] And this is a little bit of a reverse field of dreams.

[3:47:02] As I see it, as opposed to if you build it, they will come.

[3:47:04] In this case, if they come, we'll build it.

[3:47:06] And the time to build it and have the processes.

[3:47:09] To ensure it's successful, if something is there,

[3:47:13] I think it would be problematic.

[3:47:14] and I'm looking at Mr. Lewington and the consultants to see if they might agree with my thoughts.

[3:47:20] So I think working through this to ensure it's structured for success is the piece that's key.

[3:47:27] So the first part is absolutely critical is doing the work, but then the second piece, not having that good cause of fail, even if the initial.

[3:47:37] The front end was great.

[3:47:38] Are we expecting a run on this?

[3:47:41] I, to keep one person busy and bang all of a sudden we go from zero to 60 and we need

[3:47:49] somebody hired PDQ so that we can get them up to speed on permitting these all these movies

[3:47:55] and television shows that are coming to the city.

[3:47:58] I think there's some concern about kind of momentum and reputation, right?

[3:48:02] Like if we have a body like EDL out there promoting the city as a film friendly city and

[3:48:07] And then they come and we squeeze them into the best permitting process that we have.

[3:48:12] It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't drive with what the messaging is about who we are.

[3:48:17] So I think the city managers comments are right.

[3:48:19] Like we're trying to build something that then when people come, they have an excellent experience

[3:48:24] and then they want to come back and they tell their friends and then all of a sudden

[3:48:28] the city of Lathbridge has a reputation as a film friendly city because we set it up properly

[3:48:33] and then welcome them in.

[3:48:36] But it makes sense to make this position perhaps more multipurpose in terms of being able to

[3:48:42] provide that level of concierge service because there are many businesses in the city that

[3:48:48] voice very similar kinds of concerns in terms of being able to move through the process

[3:48:53] seamlessly.

[3:48:57] That's a yes.

[3:48:58] And like I said, this is an opportunity for council administration was directed to investigate

[3:49:04] we've done our best to bring back options.

[3:49:08] Council can respond to those.

[3:49:10] Thank you. Councillor Crosson.

[3:49:15] Thank you. I'd like to speak with the consultants. I'm sorry I didn't catch your name.

[3:49:22] As you can well hear from our questioning, this is a new concept to us.

[3:49:25] We know other communities are doing it.

[3:49:27] When I look at your report and you look at what locations you're hoping to promote,

[3:49:33] 95% of them are city locations, right?

[3:49:35] Well, that's because we, sorry, we were told to list city locations because of those locations

[3:49:42] we have control of.

[3:49:44] No, I get that.

[3:49:45] But we did recommend many other private locations that should be approached and ideally by this

[3:49:51] person who is in this new position as Philly is on within approach businesses in the community

[3:49:57] that have our great potential for locations.

[3:50:02] There is an old mine, for instance,

[3:50:05] that I could be doing much much.

[3:50:08] There's lots of opportunities that, yeah.

[3:50:11] No, that's fine.

[3:50:13] But my question is, if they do choose to use our facilities,

[3:50:16] what is the time requirement?

[3:50:18] Because we're looking at whether we have appropriate staffing

[3:50:20] to go into this industry.

[3:50:22] I know it depends on its specific commercial or a movie and all that.

[3:50:25] But essentially, what is the requirement of a place if they are chosen and how much does

[3:50:31] how much does that put on to the staff of that location, you know, the sort of, what's

[3:50:35] the workload for a place if they're chosen?

[3:50:38] That's hard to answer because you're right.

[3:50:40] There is commercials, there's television and then there's film.

[3:50:45] And film, they will scout two months ahead.

[3:50:49] TV will so scout two weeks ahead and commercials will be two to three days ahead and it will be a last minute request and a scramble.

[3:50:59] So it totally depends on who's coming in.

[3:51:02] They generally film for one or two days and they're in their out but they'll have a day of prep and the day of tear down.

[3:51:11] So they might be on site for two to four days minimum.

[3:51:16] Is it the same permitting process for all of those?

[3:51:19] Yes.

[3:51:20] It would be the same process permitting process.

[3:51:23] But there is a detailed permitting process.

[3:51:26] We talked about how the difference between film permitting process and event permitting process.

[3:51:30] It's night and day different because you're dealing with drone usage.

[3:51:35] You're dealing with sound requirements, power requirements.

[3:51:38] I mean the list is comprehensive.

[3:51:41] So within that is it something somebody can do up the corner of their desk or somebody who has

[3:51:45] and know how to permit these type of projects.

[3:51:47] It is something they would do at the corner of their desk

[3:51:50] and also off their desk, because they would,

[3:51:54] the person needs to, so I'm speaking from experience, sorry.

[3:51:58] I'm a former film commissioner in myself.

[3:52:02] And so, yes, a lot is done at your desk

[3:52:05] for the process, phone calls, questions, cell calls

[3:52:09] to the location managers and stuff.

[3:52:12] But then there's a lot of meetings that have to happen.

[3:52:14] You have to set up meetings with internal staff and the location manager to coordinate things

[3:52:20] to make sure everybody's on the same page.

[3:52:23] There is marketing and promotion.

[3:52:25] You have to get to know the location managers and scouts in the industry.

[3:52:29] There is, you've got to get to know the businesses in the community and the potential film

[3:52:34] locations as well so that if they're approached directly, then they will call you and

[3:52:40] say, hey, I got approached by a location manager.

[3:52:42] So that you can track all this, one of the most important things as an former economic

[3:52:49] development officer is having that data and information.

[3:52:53] What is the true economic impact of this industry on your community and at present, I'm sorry

[3:53:00] to say, you don't know.

[3:53:02] So you think that there's only been that last of us and a couple of film productions, but

[3:53:08] really you don't know.

[3:53:09] You don't know what's been happening in your community because they could go directly to the private owners and

[3:53:15] film on location and if they don't need street parking or they don't need anything from the municipality then you don't know it happened.

[3:53:22] They come and they go.

[3:53:24] And so a film permit process is really, really important because then it really tracks everything that's happening.

[3:53:31] And the municipality cannot only find out and know what's going on in the community but you can also get some income from it because

[3:53:38] your locations will then be out there and they will pay you for the use of your location

[3:53:44] and there's an income from that as well and eventually as those increase that will pay for

[3:53:50] your staffer and that will help a lot in that regard. From my personal experience I built our film program

[3:54:00] at the city of Brampton, and I've increased by 248% in a year and a half.

[3:54:10] So somebody who is doing permitting for this when I meet off the corner of their desk can

[3:54:13] maybe somebody who does sports programming, and would they know would that be relevant knowledge

[3:54:18] to doing this?

[3:54:19] Or is it somebody who does need to be a dedicated person in this field from a city's perspective,

[3:54:24] not from the EDL perspective, but from the city's perspective, or is there enough overlap

[3:54:28] that they could do like a variety of work.

[3:54:31] I think that they at the very beginning could probably do a variety of work, but it would

[3:54:37] be tough because they need to start promoting as well and they need to get to note businesses

[3:54:44] a community and get to know the location managers and that takes a lot of time.

[3:54:49] So I think that the program wouldn't be as successful if they were split.

[3:54:57] And there's the same person just programming, do they also then work with, because again, if they use a city facility, do they also oversee the location, or is that the staff of that location?

[3:55:09] Should be the staff of that location, because they know the location, but they will work with the staff person to make sure that everything is met.

[3:55:15] Okay, and so that increases the staff's work at the location as well, they're a popular location.

[3:55:20] It does. Yep, it does.

[3:55:22] Thank you.

[3:55:22] Thank you, Chair, I'm sure he's listening really hard to me.

[3:55:28] Thank you, Councillor Crosson.

[3:55:30] We were having a very heated discussion over here.

[3:55:33] Thank you.

[3:55:34] I'm not.

[3:55:35] Not at this point, but it might.

[3:55:37] There might be a friendly amendment.

[3:55:39] Acting Mayor Parker.

[3:55:41] Thank you.

[3:55:41] And let's take a big deep breath here.

[3:55:45] I think we got really excited when the last of us was being filmed in former cloud.

[3:55:51] there was a lot of buzz in the surrounding area, there was, so my question first and foremost and I think this later here we answered

[3:55:58] When they went to Fort McCloud and we've done Ghostbusters, they did, there was another movie that was done in picture viewed

[3:56:05] Interstellar, thank you very much, the old film movies like 5 or 10 but anyway, and then they also did the last of us

[3:56:12] There's a lot of buzz, do they have someone in Fort McCloud or do they like can you explain how Fort McCloud got that

[3:56:21] So likely there was a location scout, a manager that knew about Fort McLeod and then approached them.

[3:56:27] But yeah, Fort McLeod would have had someone working dedicated and working with the production to make sure that things are being met from their perspective.

[3:56:38] And that insurance is covered in all things are put in place.

[3:56:43] And you know what's going on. Yeah.

[3:56:45] Thank you very much and so I'm trying to think I don't want to hire a full-time employee

[3:56:51] To be doing this and I think this really goes under the economic development just economic fringe business draws business

[3:56:58] They talk to a lot of folks and all that it just makes a lot of sense

[3:57:02] But also I don't want to put funding there on an ongoing basis, partly because I

[3:57:08] Don't think you well how many movies have you drawn in like I don't think there's a lot of measurables there like

[3:57:13] There's I don't want to put that kind of pressure on economic development as well as like I don't want to say Mr. Lewington how many movies or how many shots have been shot here and all that

[3:57:20] Because I think a lot of the experts the industry know the world they know what are the best places

[3:57:26] They know if we need a shot of the coolies or something like that leverage on there

[3:57:30] But I want them to be able to call someone and I don't and I think we have awesome staff in the city

[3:57:35] But do you think it's more appropriate that it be under the umbrella of the economic development that they have I don't want

[3:57:41] and I can't tell myself what to do with this team,

[3:57:43] but to have someone who does numerous jobs,

[3:57:46] but they have some expertise that could be trained

[3:57:48] in that that he could leverage them within this team.

[3:57:51] Would that make more sense?

[3:57:52] I think that whoever does this should be dedicated to it.

[3:57:57] Because I think, for speaking from experience,

[3:58:01] when you're split, doing two jobs,

[3:58:05] because I did at one point tourism in film,

[3:58:07] And then I had to film took over and I had to push tourism and hire somebody else to do the tourism site and focus on the film.

[3:58:20] Because it's a lot of work.

[3:58:23] Film is a lot.

[3:58:24] When you look at the report of what has to be put in place, there is a lot to be put in place.

[3:58:31] And the sooner it's put in place, the better because then when film comes to you, it's an easy and quick process.

[3:58:37] and if it's easy and quick process, then they'll have a great experience and then word

[3:58:43] of mouth is unbelievable and then they will come easily and more frequently.

[3:58:50] Where that person resides, whether it's an economic development or tourism or another culture

[3:58:57] or wherever, it's totally up to you, it can reside in any one of those three be successful.

[3:59:04] Okay, so my question to you and, and obviously Formic Cloud has a niche, has that look,

[3:59:09] has that kind of like, just seems like a, you know, historic downtown, so it has that

[3:59:13] Empress theater feeling all that.

[3:59:15] So right now, let's say there's a big movie, like a, wow, Loppbridge looks awesome.

[3:59:21] My question, I don't know if Mr. Lewington can answer, let me see, I want to do a movie in

[3:59:26] Loppbridge.

[3:59:27] They call 3-1-1.

[3:59:28] Where do they call?

[3:59:29] So, that's the thing we know that-

[3:59:31] Like, that's the question, that's the question.

[3:59:32] From, generally, film location managers know to approach the municipality, and they know that it's likely going to reside in economic development tourism or culture.

[3:59:48] They know it's going to be one of the three, but every city is different in our report.

[3:59:53] Some of the municipalities we spoke to, it was in tourism, some of it was in economic development.

[4:00:00] Some of us in culture. But they will approach the municipality. And I know I think with this is us, that was a class of us, I think, last of us approached tourism.

[4:00:16] And then they spoke to them and then tourism spoke to the municipality to try and coordinate things.

[4:00:23] You ever had a phone call or your department saying, hey, we're looking at doing a movie, not that it ever happened to

[4:00:28] the key to fruition, but did you have a lot of inquiries?

[4:00:31] Through the chair to Councillor Parker, so the special event permit process right now is housed within

[4:00:35] recreation culture, so yes, we have had some calls, but like I said, maybe 20 over the past 10 years, so one or two a year.

[4:00:43] And when it does come to you, you would send that to the people that you know that you can trust with this, you have people that you can...

[4:00:53] We would just take it through the special event process, right?

[4:00:56] Like the special event permitting process, which is to coordinate city services, essentially.

[4:01:02] But it's interesting, through this process, to learn about the productions that came to the city

[4:01:08] that we had no knowledge of and vice versa, that there were groups going to EDL, groups going to tourism,

[4:01:14] that had no idea what was happening at the city.

[4:01:17] So, the question is a very valid one, who do you call and at the moment it's anybody and you'll get some type of help from the city we can get your fire services

[4:01:28] We can close some roads from ideal they can help promote and you know with those kinds of marketing economic development relationships tourism you know same kind of thing

[4:01:37] But right now there's no coordinated approach

[4:01:40] But what it sounds like to me is we just need something,

[4:01:43] some kind of template in place that when something does it happen,

[4:01:47] you can check off the boxes and you can, you know,

[4:01:50] all the things, so it makes it easier for the movie producer,

[4:01:54] the movie studio, whatever to say.

[4:01:56] You know what, Lopper just got a great template in place.

[4:01:59] Does that mean you need to have a person or you just need to have a good template?

[4:02:02] So thanks to our consultants,

[4:02:04] we have great templates.

[4:02:06] The question is who's name and number is going on them and that's what that's what we're trying to figure out right now

[4:02:13] Thank you. Thank you appreciate the answers. Yeah, we did build that procedure for you. It's all right. Thank you. I appreciate it

[4:02:19] Just to we have my question and then councilor dodex

[4:02:26] It I don't mean to mischaracterize this, but I would like to try and characterize this. It sounds like the process that you're

[4:02:34] advocating for is passive

[4:02:35] Mr. Lewington's process is aggressive.

[4:02:39] They are going out there looking for business when business comes, you manage it.

[4:02:43] Is that a fair characteristic characterization or not?

[4:02:49] I think that there we have identified the need for both parties to play roles in this process.

[4:02:56] And we're just trying to figure out how to resource that and how to best divide the responsibilities

[4:03:02] between the two parties.

[4:03:03] If all of the money goes to EDL, there will be a lot of targets met.

[4:03:09] There will be great work done from outreach, marketing, recruitment, promotion.

[4:03:13] You will not get a permit process to manage the coordination of services unless city council

[4:03:19] is comfortable having an external entity coordinate a city permit process.

[4:03:25] And there are some real risks and obstacles to that.

[4:03:28] If you only give a funding to a city position, it would be more passive definitely because

[4:03:36] the city person would not have the capacity, nor really the positioning unless direction

[4:03:41] was given to do that kind of active industry recruitment.

[4:03:45] Thank you.

[4:03:45] Thank you for being very candid about that.

[4:03:49] I'm sorry.

[4:03:50] I didn't.

[4:03:51] I haven't noted.

[4:03:52] Is this an FTE that you're looking for or could this be a contract position for three years?

[4:03:56] It is a term position.

[4:03:59] Okay, thank you.

[4:04:00] Councillor Dornick.

[4:04:03] Thank you.

[4:04:04] My question is to Mr. Brake.

[4:04:06] When I was listening to the consultant, she indicated that the option to didn't completely sort

[4:04:16] of capture the options that were provided.

[4:04:20] And what really struck me was that the person that they were suggesting that might be

[4:04:25] retained by the city would do marketing and promotion and include

[4:04:30] such things as attend conferences and the like and it seems to me that's

[4:04:37] exactly what EDL would be doing and then when I go to the report it says

[4:04:45] the special event permit process is not designed to coordinate services and

[4:04:49] supports for film and productions nor does it currently have the capacity to manage

[4:04:53] significant increases in the volume of requests.

[4:04:59] So the question would be, bearing in mind that the job of marketing and promotion really

[4:05:05] is with EDL, and bearing in mind Mr. Lewington has said that taking away $444,147 would

[4:05:15] certainly impact their ability to do that.

[4:05:17] In fact, they might not be able to do it at all, based on the lower amount, and bearing

[4:05:23] in mind that the special event permit process can accommodate some interest in the permitting

[4:05:34] process would it not be fair to say that if we allow EDL to do their work with the full

[4:05:45] budget requested, and if it turns out that a flood comes in, at least for the time being, it

[4:05:52] might be just a trickle that's special, a permanent process might be able to handle, and

[4:05:58] thereafter we could deal with it.

[4:06:00] If, in fact, there is more than a trickle coming in, would you agree with that very long

[4:06:05] statement?

[4:06:17] I would say that if there were two coming in a year like they do today, then our special event

[4:06:22] person would be okay to manage them, but based on the report that we have, we would say

[4:06:28] that if there were any more than that, we probably wouldn't do a good job.

[4:06:32] But we at least have a little bit of an advance warning at that time. We could hire the person to do the permitting.

[4:06:40] Yeah, if we were to know that that was the direction of council to keep that in mind and come back

[4:06:44] if that were to change, we could certainly do that.

[4:06:47] Thank you.

[4:06:50] Thank you both a city manager and the city at the CFO are in the queue who wants to go first.

[4:07:00] Yes, my mic was on for the city solicitor because his council wasn't working.

[4:07:04] Okay.

[4:07:07] I just wanted to add some legal context to the comment about putting a permitting process outside

[4:07:13] of the city. We really can't delegate some of those kinds of powers outside of city employees.

[4:07:19] And what I've been informed about about the kind of changes of this process might require

[4:07:24] is rapid road closures, road bylaws, and an extreme coordination because my staff that was in

[4:07:32] the meeting was saying, you know, when these companies come, they need quick action from the

[4:07:36] municipality to coordinate those things and what you've heard today is that the special events

[4:07:40] You know, might work for when you have two months out, but we all heard some other timelines from other kinds of productions.

[4:07:47] And we're just, you know, we're going to have to even to design the process.

[4:07:51] I would expect that there are some not insignificant bylaw amendments to our business licensing bylaws and some other bylaws that might need to be done.

[4:07:58] Just to do this. And so it's not as, at least as I've understood the process from what I've heard today and from our staff being involved.

[4:08:06] It's not quite as simple as perhaps, maybe even the community services and realize some of the legal implications of a new process,

[4:08:15] and I just wanted to make sure that we took the time to ensure that Council appreciated that as well.

[4:08:21] That will be your weekends, taking up, putting that together?

[4:08:27] Maybe even some evenings.

[4:08:29] Councillor Schmett-Ruffett.

[4:08:32] Thank you very much.

[4:08:33] Thank you very much, Mr. Loan, for that certainly appreciating that we do need to keep that permit.

[4:08:38] process in-house. But also taking into account what Councillor Dodick said not having a person

[4:08:45] in place until we maybe hit two permits per year. I would actually like to put forward the motion

[4:08:51] up option one, assigning resources to evaluate and begin implementing some of the consultants recommendations.

[4:08:57] And then the 2023-2026 operating budget initiative N41 to reallocate the original budget of 780

[4:09:05] $507,000 over September 1st, 2023 to December 31st, 2020 sixth grade as provided in the table

[4:09:12] below that we have in the package, but also include in there that we have a trigger point

[4:09:17] of looking at hiring city staff, additional city staff, once we hit two permits per year,

[4:09:25] and then we can take a look at what resources the city may actually need.

[4:09:28] It may be more than two people.

[4:09:30] It may be something different that you're looking for when we come to hitting those two permits

[4:09:34] for you.

[4:09:36] So I would like to put that motion forward.

[4:09:40] Thank you.

[4:09:42] Just before we put that motion forward,

[4:09:44] the city treasurer has something to add.

[4:09:47] Thank you, members of economic standing policy committee,

[4:09:51] just on that.

[4:09:52] If that, if council is that serious wish to go forward,

[4:09:55] remember to do that.

[4:09:57] Just be aware that we don't actually have a funding source

[4:09:59] for the next piece when it comes back and triggering.

[4:10:02] So that would be something at that time,

[4:10:03] when it comes forward, we have to try to find a funding source, because it's using the whole amount of the allocation.

[4:10:09] And understanding that, and we may not be looking at this for another couple years,

[4:10:13] and this may be something that comes forward even in the next budget process that could come forward as a pressure or additional FTEs at that time.

[4:10:29] Now, for the questions, comments, concerns, debate.

[4:10:32] All right, we have a motion for us.

[4:10:36] Move by Councillor Schmidt-Rempel, growing creative industries exploring city of

[4:10:40] Lathbridge involvement in the film and TV industry.

[4:10:44] Be it resolved that the Economic Standing Policy Committee recommends that Council

[4:10:48] approve option 1, which is to assign resources to evaluate and begin implementing some

[4:10:55] of the consultants' recommendations.

[4:10:56] And then the 2023 to 2026 operating budget initiative N41 to reallocate the original budget of

[4:11:05] 780,570 dollars over the September 1, 2023 to December 31, 2026 period has provided in the table

[4:11:15] below which is on your screen.

[4:11:20] Thank you very much, I think we've heard, we've certainly heard both sides of this, but

[4:11:25] also understanding that if we do move the 400, the amount of $444,000 out, EBL would likely

[4:11:34] not pursue this as an initiative through their board, so I certainly take that into account.

[4:11:39] When we first looked at N41 during the budget process, the proposed implementation strategy,

[4:11:49] your one focused on research, industry, engagement, and development of required promotional

[4:11:53] materials and resources, your two will be focused on target qualification, lead generation

[4:11:58] and target acquisition, your three will be focused on client care, inquiry, follow-up, and

[4:12:02] sustainability of effort to take and your four will be focused on measurement of efforts

[4:12:06] and key actions required in the subsequent business plan.

[4:12:10] At this point, we don't even have anybody working on actively attracting this industry

[4:12:17] to our area, knowing that this industry moves fast and other digital and entertainment

[4:12:22] industries also need to be considered now, so we have animation and visual effects, eSports

[4:12:27] gaming, immersive of technology, and digital media all working in this space in our city.

[4:12:34] And this is something that EDL can certainly, has a background in, has already been working

[4:12:39] with these groups, and can certainly look at attracting more to our city.

[4:12:44] Once we get some movie interest and some actual interest in our city, then I think we can

[4:12:49] move on to seeing what city supports we may need.

[4:12:53] It may be more than one full-time staff member.

[4:12:56] It may actually be of their city supports looking at permitting, but also looking at some

[4:13:00] other coordination efforts.

[4:13:02] With that, I will ask for Council's support.

[4:13:07] Thank you. Councilor Dodick, are you in for question or debate?

[4:13:10] The debate.

[4:13:11] Thank you. Please debate.

[4:13:14] Yes, first off, I want to thank Ms. Brack and Mr. Lewington and the consultant, all who answered

[4:13:21] questions fully and candidly, and I really really do appreciate that.

[4:13:28] I will be supporting this resolution.

[4:13:30] I'm not going to go into great detail by the questions I asked the answers given.

[4:13:35] The reason should be apparent.

[4:13:37] But basically, it's what Congressman Schmidt Rampals said.

[4:13:42] And that is that we have EDL to do the marketing and promotion of

[4:13:48] Lathbridge, which will include attracting film and industry.

[4:13:52] And they've made it clear that without the full funds,

[4:13:57] which are actually reduced funds, that they would likely not be able to do it, and certainly

[4:14:03] would not be able to do it to the same effect.

[4:14:06] We've also heard from an administration that for the short term they can handle a few requests

[4:14:14] for any films or TV requirements that may arise, and we've also learned that there hasn't

[4:14:21] been that many over the years, although we're certainly hoping that if this resolution passes

[4:14:26] and the funding is provided to economic development leverage that changes and that we get

[4:14:32] some interest in that area and that we will be able to fill a position for the permitting

[4:14:38] process as needed once that interest is expressed.

[4:14:42] Again, I will support this resolution.

[4:14:44] Thank you.

[4:14:47] Thank you, Councillor Dota.

[4:14:48] Councillor Campbell.

[4:14:49] Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[4:14:50] I won't add much to what already has been said other than I really truly believe that this

[4:14:55] is an opportunity right now for this.

[4:15:00] For the city to get in the game. And I think it will, we have the right people on board to do it, and I look forward to it to its success while we support the resolution.

[4:15:13] Thank you. Seeing no one else in the queue, going once, going twice, back to council management.

[4:15:21] Thank you very much. I will call for the vote. All in favor?

[4:15:25] Well,

[4:15:29] he-

[4:15:34] A passage unanimously, thank you.

[4:15:40] All right.

[4:15:40] We have two last items on the agenda.

[4:15:43] Submission 6.2.

[4:15:47] Targeted redevelopment incentive policy,

[4:15:49] municipal tax cancellation,

[4:15:52] for 60167 use south.

[4:15:55] Does any member of council have questions of administration

[4:15:58] in regards to this particular item?

[4:16:04] I will make the motion.

[4:16:07] Okay, so Section 347 of the Municipal Government Act provides that Council may cancel reduce or defer taxes when it considers equitable to do so.

[4:16:19] The targeted redevelopment incentive policy or trip was approved by Council for the purpose of promoting new construction or major renovation of medium to large scale projects that generate expansion to the assessment base in the downtown core.

[4:16:33] The renovation project proposed for six to one, six months,

[4:16:43] meets all of the eligibility criteria for the trip policy.

[4:16:47] With a construction value of over $1.8 million, the project qualifies for cancellation of $15,000 annually for a six-year period.

[4:16:56] Note this is not a full tax cancellation but calculated only on the increased assessment value.

[4:17:02] It is recommended that the trip policy be applied on this project.

[4:17:08] If there are any debate, there are questions?

[4:17:12] Who does not appear to be?

[4:17:14] I will call a question.

[4:17:16] Question has been called?

[4:17:17] All in favor?

[4:17:20] Motion passes.

[4:17:22] The next one is very much like the previous application.

[4:17:26] This $1.3 million project at $4.11.

[4:17:29] Third avenue self.

[4:17:31] Qualifies for $18,900 annually for a six year

[4:17:34] cancellation period. Again, this is not a tax cancellation, but only on the increased assessment

[4:17:41] value. It is also recommended that the trip policy be applied on this project. And

[4:17:48] call the question if there are no debate or call it for the vote.

[4:17:53] Thank you. Both have been called, all in favour?

[4:17:57] Motion passes. Thank you.

[4:18:03] At three in camera motions, one from Councilor Schmidt-Rempel, closed meeting,

[4:18:07] park place lease agreement negotiations.

[4:18:10] Seven point two, be it resolved that the economic standing policy committee

[4:18:13] direct that the closed meeting discussions with respect to park place lease agreement

[4:18:17] negotiations remain confidential.

[4:18:19] Pursue to section 24 advice from officials and the Freedom of Information

[4:18:22] of Protection of Privacy Act.

[4:18:24] Councilor Schmidt-Rempel.

[4:18:26] I'll call the vote.

[4:18:27] The vote has been called all in favor.

[4:18:30] That motion passes.

[4:18:31] Thank you.

[4:18:33] From Acting Mayor Parker closed meeting airport operations update flare, be it resolved that the economic standing policy committee directed the closed meetings discussions with respect to the airport operations update flare remain confidential pursuant to section 24.

[4:18:47] Advice from officials of the Freedom of Information Protection and Privacy Act, Acting Mayor Parker.

[4:18:52] Questions been called on a favor.

[4:18:56] Any opposed?

[4:18:58] I see two opposed.

[4:19:01] Two members are opposed.

[4:19:02] Thank you.

[4:19:04] Move by Mayor Higgin, who is not here.

[4:19:07] So I guess it would be moved by me.

[4:19:09] Close meeting tax cancellation requests under compassionate

[4:19:12] grounds 7.4.

[4:19:13] Be it resolved that the Economic Standing Policy Committee

[4:19:16] directed the closed meeting discussions, reports,

[4:19:20] and attachments with respect to the tax cancellation request

[4:19:23] under compassionate grounds,

[4:19:25] remain confidential pursuant to section 17, harmful

[4:19:28] to personal privacy of the Freedom of Information Protection

[4:19:31] in the Privacy Act. Further, be it resolved that the economic extent?

[4:19:38] I know, thank you. Further, be it resolved that the economic standing policy committee

[4:19:45] meeting recommend that the council approves the tax cancellation request of 222 penalties

[4:19:50] and 23, a rear penalties in the amount of $189.65. For property located at 43 Cootney

[4:19:58] placed west, roll number 2, 0, 2, 9, 0, 0, 4, 3, 0, 0, 0, 1, under Section 347 of the Municipal

[4:20:06] Government Act RSA 2000, Chapter M26 of the MGA and direct this report remains confidential

[4:20:14] as per sections of 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[4:20:20] I'll call the question, all in favor.

[4:20:23] That motion passes unanimously.

[4:20:28] Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are adjourned.

[4:20:30] .

Economic And Finance Standing Policy Committee

Transcript