[2:25] Person right here.
[4:25] Hello, and good evening, Everybody welcome tonight. The clerk informs
[4:34] me that it's 07:00 p.m.. And we will begin with
[4:37] the meeting. We will start with a moment of silent
[4:40] reflection. The singing of Old Canada and the traditional land
[4:43] acknowledgment please rise.
[6:48] We acknowledge that the land we gather on is part
[6:51] of the Treaty lands and territory of the mississaugas of
[6:53] the Credit First nation. We recognize the traditional territory of
[7:02] the huron, vendette and the hodin ashone people. We also
[7:06] acknowledge the First Nation, métis and the inuit people who
[7:10] live on these lands. Today, we commit to working towards
[7:13] reconciliation. Please be seated. Hello, everyone. Welcome to tonight's meeting.
[7:23] I'm councilor samira Ali, and I'll be your budget chair
[7:26] for tonight's meeting. At this point I will look to
[7:31] the clerk to see if she has any advice for
[7:33] us. Thank you. In terms of announcements, I wanted to
[7:38] note that a revised agenda was posted on Friday, December
[7:41] 1, which included the addition of Marshall horner as a
[7:45] delegate for this evening's meeting with regard to Staff Report
[7:48] Course 57 23 related to the 2024 Capital and Operating
[7:52] budget. I wanted to advise that Doug Watson. Has withdrawn
[7:57] his registered delegation for this evening's meeting. I also wanted
[8:01] to note that the written submission from Hunter, colhane. Regarding
[8:05] Staff Report Course 57, 23 2024 Capital and Operating Budget
[8:10] was circulated to members of Council in advance of this
[8:12] meetings. Thank you, madam clerk, for that update. Are there
[8:18] any disclosures of pecuniary interest? Councilor Best? Yes, madam Chair.
[8:23] As I discussed with staff earlier, I have declared a
[8:26] conflict on the milton Seniors Activity Center part time salaries,
[8:31] as my wife is employed there as an instructor. Thank
[8:33] you for letting us know. And just for our Council
[8:36] members and the audience reference, that will be the. Clause
[8:39] for B of the clauses that will be discussed on
[8:42] later. Thank you for that declaration councilor. Best at this
[8:46] point I've been looking at our cfo to see if
[8:49] he has any comments to add. Thank you, Chair. Just
[8:53] a couple of minor things just to confirm for Council
[8:56] that all of the remaining. Feedback from the let's Talk
[8:59] milton page has been received, has been circulated to Council
[9:02] this morning along with all of the remaining questions and
[9:04] responses from staff. I'd also just like to note that
[9:09] similar to prior years, we will be updating Council through
[9:11] this meeting with the update as to where the operating
[9:14] budget and tax impacts reside along the way. When doing
[9:18] so, Council will recall and I'll speak to this a
[9:20] little more. In my presentation, there is an updated figure
[9:23] from the regional level. That process is not complete yet,
[9:26] but there is an updated figure that's been requested. By
[9:28] the police board. So for the sake of tonight's discussion,
[9:31] we'll refer to the higher number and I'll walk you
[9:33] through that in the presentation later on. Thank you. Thank
[9:37] you to our cfo for that update. We will now
[9:41] move on to the delegate section. Delegation section. Offer agenda
[9:46] and I would like to at this point welcome those
[9:49] members of the public that have registered as delegates for
[9:52] the 2024 budget. I'd also like to remind our delegates
[9:55] that they will each have five minutes to provide their
[9:58] comments, after which Council may have some questions regarding their
[10:01] present. Presentation. And as the clerk has just confirmed that
[10:05] one of our delegates has dropped off. So we have
[10:09] only one tonight. And that is Mr. Marshall. Please comfort
[10:13] Mr. Horner.
[10:27] It works. Get myself organized here for a moment.
[10:47] My name is Marshall horner. I reside at 524 sunnyvale
[10:52] crescent in Milk, in Ontario. Madam Chair, Members of Council
[10:59] and staff. On November 20 of this year, I left
[11:04] a letter for the Mayor and each member of Council
[11:07] expressing my concern of counsel not continuing a program started
[11:11] at the 2023 budget meeting of finally ensuring all four
[11:16] urban fire stations in milton being completely staffed 24/7 with
[11:22] full. Time professional career firefighters. With my calculations, the difference
[11:28] between the 9.50% an increase was no specific or transparent
[11:34] detail and the 13.6% discussion level recommended by staff. Is
[11:42] on our home at 524 sunnyvale Creshen. $60.12. Of that
[11:48] amount. $14.0.66 is my cost to provide 24/7 coverage from
[11:55] Station three. It may not be sufficient to fully fund
[12:00] the staffing, but will it allow me to sleep with
[12:04] a clear conscience. Here is my payment. Number of
[12:14] years ago, a group of residents seen the need to
[12:17] growth in our community. Was going through. Place on the
[12:23] current hospital facility. Set about making that need known to
[12:26] the provincial government. A campaign of growth was introduced to
[12:31] ensure the required services for our new young neighbors would
[12:36] need would be here before they arrived. As stated in
[12:41] my written presentation, I do not believe that growth pays
[12:45] for growth. However. The intent of Bill Three is to
[12:50] aggressively increase the number of homes made available in our
[12:54] community. A level which will create in the future. A
[12:59] unique burden on the residents to support reasonable new infrastructure
[13:04] services. As such. The province must accept the responsibility to
[13:09] provide the seed money to support that insistent demand for
[13:13] housing. They should provide the monies required to ensure safety
[13:19] and other services. Are in place as the new communities
[13:24] mature to a level to support these amenities. If Council
[13:28] stands together to meet our current obligation to fund the
[13:32] staffing of Station Three, I believe it becomes incumbent upon
[13:36] people such as myself to ensure the higher levels of
[13:40] government are made aware of what we feel are their
[13:43] oblig. Obligations in helping our communities grow. In a safe
[13:51] and secure environment. A challenge if Council tonight supports each
[13:56] other in providing equal services to all current residents, I
[14:01] will engage in along with encouraging other members of our
[14:05] community. Starting tomorrow to impact what we feel for present
[14:11] and possible future. Provincial Representatives Obligations to be met. Perhaps
[14:18] at this time we replace the postcards used for the
[14:21] hospital campaign with modern day social media. To contact all
[14:27] political parties to remind them of their responsibility to turn
[14:31] growth pays for growth to Growth enhances value. In our
[14:36] community. A couple of years ago, I raised the question
[14:40] of the actual number of full time, 24, 7365 day
[14:45] per year fire units available. And a senior member of
[14:50] Council waited until I left the podium before asking a
[14:52] member of the fire Department. A question was not. In
[14:57] the same vein as my statement, he received a political
[15:01] but inaccurate answer. As I had left the podium, I
[15:06] was not able to address the false statement. Tonight, I
[15:10] would appreciate one of two courtesies. Questions in reference to
[15:14] my presentation be addressed before I leave the podium in
[15:18] order for me to properly clarify my position and or
[15:22] statements. Or any statements made in reference to my presentation
[15:27] after I leave the podium, if I stand at my
[15:31] seat, I be given a point of order to address
[15:34] those statements. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horner, for your
[15:39] delegation and for keeping it within the five minute time
[15:42] slot. Are there any members that was difficult. Certainly. And
[15:49] appreciate that. Councilor Best has a question for you. Yes.
[15:52] Thank you for your presentation and your continued interest in
[15:56] the budgets you mentioned about. The previous statement. Could you
[16:00] just highlight to Council what that statement was and what
[16:04] you thought was incorrect about it. At the time. We
[16:08] had one full time fire truck on the streets of
[16:12] milton. The question was asked. And it was a chief
[16:18] who is no longer here. About the number of vehicles
[16:22] that we had. And the answer was that. We had
[16:27] a number. We had eight or nine. However. They were
[16:31] all part time. Respondents. And as I pointed out in
[16:38] my letter that I sent around the time for them
[16:42] to respond. Is added dramatically. As I said, right now.
[16:50] We're missing eight firefighters. My calculations. And I haven't heard
[16:55] anybody dispute them. They may be wrong. Is about 730
[17:00] some odd thousand dollars. It's zero point 87% of your
[17:05] budget. Thank you. Councilor culky has a question for you.
[17:13] Thanks madam Chair, if you wanted to stick around, there
[17:16] will be a resolution on the floor at a moment
[17:18] later on in relation to Fire Services. If you want
[17:20] to hear that so that way you're not. Thank you.
[17:27] I do have some questions with regard to. The presentation
[17:33] that was done, I guess last week and the minutes
[17:36] that were presented for that. There were some ambiguous. Answers.
[17:41] The question itself was ambiguous, and some of the answers
[17:44] I feel were ambiguous. One of the people that I
[17:48] have a great deal of concern for. And because of
[17:52] my age, it may affect me and that's the schlegel,
[17:55] retirement people. They may be one of the organizations that
[17:59] I'm looking at. To perhaps retire to and one of
[18:04] the things I intend to do is to ask them
[18:07] where they stand and what information they have available. Thank
[18:10] you. Thank you, Mr. Owner. Your comments have been noted
[18:13] by our staff and with regards to the comments about
[18:17] the budget and the questions you sent earlier, I'm pretty
[18:20] sure our staff will reach out to. You and address
[18:22] those questions. Thank you for your time tonight. That's fine.
[18:27] The questions that I have. I intend. To Slagel because.
[18:35] I'm seriously considering, and I want to know what information
[18:38] they had available to them. I feel that there's a
[18:41] great danger in that fire nation only having. Half staff.
[18:49] And. As I said I spent 4 hours driving up
[18:54] and down the streets. Thank you. Thanks for letting us
[18:59] know. Thank you, thank you. And we had just one
[19:09] delegation tonight. And we have no other delegation. So we
[19:11] will move on to the presentations part of tonight's agenda.
[19:15] And I would like to invite our cfo Glenn Cohen
[19:18] to the podium in order to provide a brief presentation
[19:20] regarding the 2024 budget. Welcome, Glenn. Thank you, Chair. Good
[19:27] evening, everyone. So I will be brief tonight. Just provide
[19:31] a summary, more introduction to getting into the deliberation. And
[19:36] I'll just touch on a few of the points that
[19:37] we did touch on in the workshop as well last
[19:39] week, just starting from a process perspective, touching on both.
[19:43] Where we have been and where we currently are. The
[19:46] process really goes back to the early summer from a
[19:49] public engagement perspective, even before that, this year, because we
[19:52] did the Citizen Engagement Survey earlier in actually late 2022.
[19:57] This is the first budget that we're utilizing those results
[20:00] updated results from noting that they've been fairly consistent between
[20:03] the different. Studies we've undertaken. More recently, we've had the
[20:07] budget workshop and, of course, the release of the proposed
[20:09] budget on November 15. This is the first budget process
[20:13] that's utilizing the new legislation. So the step we're currently
[20:16] in is the 30 day period where Council can make
[20:19] amendments to the proposed budget, followed by an opportunity for
[20:23] a veto process. And potential override process subject to decisions
[20:27] made by Council and the Mayor. In terms of how
[20:31] we've come from the September report to the final budget
[20:34] that's presented in November. This is just a quick summary
[20:37] of some of the larger steps taken to go from
[20:40] what was identified as a pressure to ultimately what is
[20:43] the recommended budget that is tabled in front of Council.
[20:47] Some of the line items are sustainable in terms. Of
[20:51] the steps have been taken in terms of finding reductions
[20:54] in spending. New revenue sources potentially deferring a couple of
[20:58] items before being introduced to the community. Other elements are
[21:02] things like the stabilization reserve and the changes made to
[21:06] the infrastructure funding, which there is a plan within the
[21:09] multi year plan to either phase. Those out or reintroduce
[21:12] them in the case of the infrastructure annual funding amount.
[21:16] With those changes, the budget that is tabled is a
[21:19] $98 million levy. Ultimately, as you can see summarized here
[21:22] by Department of Note is from the gross cost. There
[21:25] is approximately half of the revenue being nonproperty tax base,
[21:29] with user fees being one of the larger sources within
[21:32] the various program areas. Also, of Note is the fact
[21:35] that in addition. To the town's budget is approval of
[21:38] the Dbie budget here tonight. And just as a reminder
[21:41] that that was approved by the board. So it's relaying
[21:45] the information that's already been board approved for the dbia.
[21:48] Within the Budget there are a number of. Ways in
[21:52] which the budget is supporting and investing in the Council's
[21:55] strategic plan. I won't read the list in front of
[21:57] you, which is really itself just. A short and abbreviated
[22:01] list of what you'll find in the budget document. But
[22:03] certainly it touches on areas that were identified as priority,
[22:06] including transit investment in technology, in facilities and in people.
[22:11] And we continue some of the processes for planning those
[22:14] next phases of growth with the work that's anticipated in
[22:17] 2024 as well. Getting to what it means from a
[22:21] final tax rate perspective. So this first slide is the
[22:23] one that will reflect what's in the budget document in
[22:26] front of you. So based on what was known at
[22:28] the time of the budget call report in September, and
[22:31] based on. The still existing guidance that was given at
[22:35] the regional level, the proposed budget would result in, from
[22:40] a local perspective, a nine and a half percent change
[22:43] in. Our budget. But when we look at all three
[22:46] levels of government and the blended rate, what was anticipated
[22:49] to be 5.37% total, which is really what the bottom
[22:53] line from a property taxpayer would look like on the
[22:56] residential side. And you can see here as well. It
[22:59] would translate to around $39 per 100,000 of assessment. So
[23:04] the change I mentioned in the introductory comments is that
[23:07] as the region and the police continue to work through
[23:10] their own process, we do know that there is a
[23:12] potential for a higher number at their level. From a
[23:16] timing perspective, their budget will be passed after ours. I
[23:19] believe they have a committee meeting this week and a
[23:21] Council meeting next week. So as you can see here
[23:25] with the revised budget as it's currently being presented at
[23:28] that level. It would be 5.6% change combined at the
[23:33] regional level. So with what is proposed in our budget,
[23:37] what the bottom line on the property tax bill would
[23:39] be would be in the order of 5.78%. So as
[23:42] we provide updates tonight, it'll be on the basis of
[23:45] this 5.6% at the regional level that we'll speak to
[23:49] once all process. Processes are done and the region has
[23:52] finalized theirs. We will also be updating the figures and
[23:56] the final approved budget document that will be available to
[23:59] the public will reflect the final amounts from each level.
[24:02] So beyond the current year budget pressure included within our
[24:07] forecast is the next two years as well as you
[24:10] can see here. The pressure continues what we were discussing
[24:15] back in September. Is an order of magnitude. What the
[24:20] starting points for the next two years could look like
[24:22] based on what we currently know, it's a continuation of
[24:25] inflation, albeit not necessarily at as high of a level
[24:28] as what we see today. But continuing to work in
[24:31] the inflationary pressures that are on the non residential construction
[24:35] and capital side will take us a few budget cycles
[24:38] to fully reflect those. It also. Includes the resumption of
[24:42] funding for the infrastructure deficit, as well as phase out
[24:45] of the stabilization Reserve in these years, plus some of
[24:48] the new growth initiatives that are either anticipated within our
[24:51] budget or based on when we believe we'll assume various
[24:54] infrastructure and assets through subdivision agreements. In terms of. A
[25:01] comparison from a property tax perspective. I'll just share this
[25:05] one graph tonight, noting there's some others available within the
[25:07] budget document. This is. The total amount for the average
[25:12] house. From the most recent bma study. And you can
[25:15] see milton's position here. And just as a reminder, when
[25:19] we talk about the per $100,000 numbers to get to
[25:21] the average, it's a factor of six. So based on
[25:25] the existing returned rule that we use $600,000 is an
[25:29] approximate average from a residential perspective. So you can see
[25:33] here. It's about a $600 per house differential to the
[25:36] next municipality in our comparator group. And that $600, even
[25:41] though. What the totals here are reflective of the town,
[25:45] the region, and the school boards did. The difference in
[25:48] the 600 is entirely at the local level. Aside from
[25:51] the operating budget, also included in tonight's agenda is the
[25:55] Capital Program. So this is just presenting at a summary
[25:58] level what's included within the 2024 budget. The one note
[26:02] that maybe makes this slightly different from a normal year
[26:04] would really be with respect to funding, you would see
[26:07] that this year, especially there's slightly a little more. Waiting
[26:11] than what we would be normally used to seeing with
[26:14] respect to the non growth investment. It's around two thirds
[26:17] of the overall program. When in a normal year we
[26:19] would see growth being around two thirds. So that's reflected
[26:23] in the combination of the different reserves that are proposed
[26:27] to fund the program. From an investment perspective, you can
[26:30] see no surprise. Roads and facilities. Are generally our largest
[26:34] areas of investment and there'll be no different in 2024.
[26:39] So with that, I'm happy to take any questions now
[26:41] or through the discussion. And I appreciate the time. Thank
[26:44] you so much, Glenn, for your presentation. I have councilor
[26:47] best as the first speaker. Yes. A couple of questions.
[26:50] Ben. Thanks for your presentation. The work that your staff
[26:53] have done regarding the Bill 23, the reductions in development
[26:57] charges. How much of an impact is that having on.
[26:59] Your budget. So I'll speak to this from two perspectives.
[27:07] The immediate pressure from a budget perspective with respect to
[27:09] development charge exemptions. We are including a small increase, $200,000
[27:14] within the property tax increase next year. For that. Really
[27:17] we do need to accelerate the additional amounts we add
[27:20] in future years. For that, it is expected that we're
[27:23] going to spend around $5 million a year over. The
[27:28] next number of years on exemptions. Those really relate largely.
[27:31] And the reason we've seen the increase is because of
[27:34] secondary units and the fact that those do need to
[27:36] be funded from a non growth source. So we've been
[27:40] slowly ramping up the amount in property taxes to fund
[27:43] those kind of exemptions. From the time we started till
[27:46] now, we're probably slightly short of $2 million of what
[27:49] we've been accumulating. But to close the rest of the
[27:51] gap to that 5 million spend before we draw on
[27:54] the reserves too significantly, we are going to need to
[27:57] increase the annual investment, probably in the order of around
[27:59] half million dollars a year. The more recent legislative changes
[28:03] in development charges affect. A number of different other areas.
[28:07] We haven't been affected as significantly yet by those the
[28:10] two most significant that have the most significant potential for
[28:14] us would be the next time we open our development
[28:16] charge bylaw in 2026. If we have to introduce the
[28:19] phasing, there's a potential for the need to fund that
[28:23] which would be significant because we'd be talking out of
[28:25] the in the first year. Alone, 20% of all development
[28:28] charge revenue and then it would be phasing down over
[28:30] five years from there. Other areas where they haven't enacted
[28:34] the regulations yet would be the cost of land. As
[28:37] an example. So there are going to be more impacts
[28:40] down the road. There isn't anything included in the property
[28:42] tax increase we're proposing for next year related to those
[28:45] yet, but we will continue to monitor and certainly by
[28:47] the time we're in our next development charge file update,
[28:50] we may be talking about what's needed to address some
[28:52] of those future pressures. Thank you information. And if you
[28:56] had your information back from any provincial staff regarding the
[29:00] Province's commitment to making Municipalities whole, and how would you
[29:03] treat. If the money was received in the province in
[29:08] whatever form. So nothing specific as to what that could
[29:11] look like. There has been announcement of funding such as.
[29:16] I want to get the name right here, the Building
[29:18] Community Fund, the one where if we exceed your growth
[29:20] target, there would be funding available for municipalities. That's the
[29:23] closest I've seen for something directly related to that. But
[29:27] we're still at such an early stage of knowing what
[29:29] the dollars could actually look like and whether it would
[29:31] actually resolve some of those other pressures. And if you
[29:35] were to receive this money, either from the Province or
[29:37] from Builders, how would you treat that additional revenue. We
[29:42] would have to look at the specific guidelines that are
[29:44] provided with it to see how prescriptive they may be.
[29:50] Certainly where we've had these pressures. I mentioned having to
[29:52] get up to that 5 million a year. That would
[29:54] be a great starting point. But we would have to
[29:56] look to Council as to where the investment is best
[29:58] made. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor best. Are there any
[30:05] other questions to our cfo? I'm not seeing any so
[30:08] thank you so much for your presentation. Okay. Well, we
[30:12] will now get down to business, which is the business
[30:15] of the budget. And we are going to now put
[30:23] all of the recommendations from Report crs 57, two, three
[30:28] on the floor. In order to allow deliberation. Once on
[30:31] the floor, we will deliberate each recommendation clause individually. But
[30:39] withhold the final vote to the very end such that
[30:42] they can be voted on in their entirety. We will
[30:46] approach it this way just in case any amendments arise
[30:50] from the operating budget that affect the capital budget or
[30:53] vice versa. We will also address the conflict of interest
[30:57] momentarily. And to that effect, I have a nation that
[31:01] has been moved by councilor Malbols and seconded by councilor
[31:04] kalki to put the ten recommendations from Report Co. R.
[31:08] S. On the floor for deliberation. So that is where
[31:13] we will start. And due to the declared conflict of
[31:17] councilor best, we will need to have a housekeeping amendment
[31:20] to the wording of recommendation Number Four in order for
[31:24] clarity for Counsel and the public recommendation for will now
[31:29] read as follows. Four, a. That the 2024 operating budget
[31:36] for Town and library. Resulting in a net tax levy
[31:41] of $98,502,101, assuming 2.29. Net assessment growth as
[31:51] outlined on appendix Four of this report, save and accept
[31:55] the portion of the Seniors Program salaries and benefits. Be
[31:59] received for review and any amendments made by Council for
[32:02] B. That the 2024 operating budget for Seniors, Program salaries
[32:06] and benefits in the amount of $39,512. We receive a
[32:11] review on any amendments made by Council. Are there any
[32:15] concerns or questions on this matter from many members of
[32:18] Council councilor Chaliner? Thanks, madam Chair, I just had a
[32:22] question about procedure. So I know there's a number of
[32:27] amendments that have been put forward by various members of
[32:31] Council for discussion. At what point are we discussing those.
[32:35] I will defer to the clerk to answer that question.
[32:38] Those will be forthcoming. Really, this is a housekeeping amendment
[32:42] that we need to make in order to reflect the
[32:45] declared conflict. So as councilor Ali noted earlier on in
[32:48] the meeting, we'll have to vote separately on four B
[32:51] just due to the conflict. So we'll proceed through and
[32:54] address those. Clauses just as soon as we get going
[32:59] with the rest of the recommendation here. So for this
[33:02] purpose, this is just for housekeeping at this moment. Okay,
[33:05] because I think it's fairly obvious to everybody that four
[33:08] A is a bit of a problem. If you're bringing
[33:09] forward amendments, you're putting the cart before the horse to
[33:13] even vote on it. Four B. I get it. There's
[33:15] a conflict of interest. At this point, it's not approving
[33:18] any motions, just ensuring that Council is okay with splitting
[33:22] out four into two clauses, four A, and four B,
[33:25] which will be considered later on in the meeting. Okay.
[33:29] Thank you. I'm really happy you asked that question because
[33:32] it is a little bit confusing. And as we go
[33:34] along clause by clause, we will achieve more clarity on
[33:38] this. So seeing as there are no other questions to
[33:41] this, we will proceed with the required amendments. And now
[33:45] proceed through the individual recommendations. And address any motions to
[33:50] amend that Council may want to consider. So I'm going
[33:54] to clause one now so you can follow along. Clause
[34:03] One States that the 2024 capital Budget with a gross
[34:08] amount of $83,660,103 as outlined in appendix Two and the
[34:15] Capital Forecast with a gross amount of 1,369,298,807. Dollars as
[34:24] outlined in appendix Three of this Report be received for
[34:27] review and any amendments made by Council. And as we
[34:31] discussed before, this is Clause One, I have an amendment
[34:34] to this clause, which is a motion. And it is
[34:38] moved by councilor culkin and seconded by councilor best that
[34:43] a new capital project be added to the 2024 budget
[34:46] for a stop sign beacon pilot project with a funding
[34:50] of $72,512 provided from the Studies and other nongrowth capital
[34:57] res. Reserve and that the pilot provide for the installation.
[35:02] At one always stop intersection per Ward in 2024. I
[35:08] have read the motion. I will now go to the
[35:10] mover and the secondary for any comments. Mover. Councilor kalki,
[35:14] thank you, madam Chair. So, this motion is in relation
[35:17] to some common road safety concerns and inquiries I received
[35:20] from residents, particularly for motorists that fail to stop at
[35:24] stop signs, which in turn usually results in collisions, near
[35:27] misses and. Ultimately puts other road users at risk as
[35:31] well. I'll be the first person to say that the
[35:32] best way to change driver behavior for this particular offense
[35:36] is through police enforcement. However, the police can't be everywhere
[35:39] at once, and I felt that there was still an
[35:41] opportunity to do more on the town end, and as
[35:43] a result of that, began speaking with staff to look
[35:46] into additional alternatives to increase the chances of. Motor Vehicle
[35:49] Compliance would stop. Signs I was able to obtain collision
[35:53] data for Always stop signs in all four of our
[35:55] awards in the community dating back to collisions that have
[35:58] occurred within a five year period. The most collision prone
[36:01] intersections are as follows in Word One, the intersection of
[36:04] Commercial Street and Pine Street saw six collisions in Ward
[36:07] Two. The intersection of Five Side Road and Boston Church
[36:10] Road saw 17 collisions. And Ward Three, the intersection of
[36:13] cleric boulevard and Bennett boulevard saw seven collisions. And in
[36:16] word four, the intersection of farmstead Drive in mclaughlin Avenue
[36:20] saw seven collisions. So within a five year period, these
[36:23] are the intersections in each part of each of our
[36:26] awards that have the most collisions. And having said that
[36:29] the intent of this resolution is to have flashing red.
[36:32] Beacons mounted on top of all Waste Stop signs at
[36:35] our four most. Collision prone intersections in all of our
[36:38] wards as a one year pilot program in an effort
[36:40] to reduce collisions and increased stop sign compliance, as per
[36:44] the Ontario Traffic Manual, flashing red beacons are unceded to
[36:46] be used in areas that have poor stop sign compliance
[36:49] and a collision history with the collision data that we
[36:52] do have that I mentioned a moment ago. This resolution,
[36:55] if passed, would be a data driven. Approach towards furthering
[36:57] our efforts to improve road safety. And I'm hoping I
[37:00] can get Council support for this. Thank you, madam chair.
[37:03] Thank you, councilor kalki, councilor best. Yes, madam Chair. I
[37:07] fully support councilor Kelkey's recommendation. As some of us might
[37:12] remember, there was a number of these. Stop red beacons
[37:16] in the rural area over the years and bring them
[37:19] into the urban area would also assist because unfortunately there's
[37:24] the three ease of traffic enforcement, engineering and education. Unfortunately,
[37:30] the provinces from my opinion, has been lacked in terms
[37:34] of education. We have to. Step it up in terms
[37:36] of enforcement. And engineering. We've had a real traffic issue
[37:41] throughout. The ones as you mentioned here by the councilor
[37:46] highlight how dangerous it is. When you have every two
[37:50] months. And actually almost every three weeks happening in these
[37:54] intersections, we need to find better ways. To enforce our
[37:59] traffic laws and let people know that there is stopplace.
[38:03] We've had numerous fatalities in this community due to people
[38:07] not obeying subsigns. Thank you, Councilor. Best. Certainly. Visibility is
[38:13] important. I have a speaker's list to this motion. Councilor
[38:16] tesser dixon is next. Thank you, madam Chair. Just a
[38:20] question of clarity to the mover and second or through
[38:22] you, madam Chair, is it part of the motion that
[38:25] those specific intersections will be the ones that receive the
[38:28] pilot? Or that'll be something we can discuss. Councilor kalki.
[38:32] Yeah. Through you, madam Chair. No, that can still be
[38:35] discussed. The motion is simply to get funding secured from
[38:38] our Capital Program project to be able to fund the
[38:40] fact that we can do four intersections, one in each
[38:43] Ward. And these are numbers that I got from collision
[38:46] data within the past five years. But it's still up
[38:48] to each Council to have a say in which stop
[38:50] sign or intersection they would like to see. These at.
[38:54] Thank you, madam Chair. Through you. I appreciate that because
[38:57] the volume of accidents is startling. However, we have other
[39:00] intersections where the volume may not be as high, but
[39:03] the severity of the accidents can be much more serious,
[39:06] mostly in our rural areas. So I like the fact
[39:09] that that would be left up to the individual counselors
[39:12] and traffic staff. Councilor kolki yeah. Thanks, madam Chair. And
[39:15] also further to that these are collisions that get reported
[39:18] and are actually documented. There's also collisions that might not
[39:20] get reported. So there's that element as well. Thank you,
[39:26] Councilor cocky. Anything further? Councilor tesser. Okay, going on to
[39:29] the next speaker. Councilor malbos. Thank you, madam. Chair. Yeah,
[39:35] I'll be supporting us in Ward four. Intersection mentioned by
[39:40] the counselor zim Ward 417 basically double of any of
[39:45] the other locations. So I'll support this as a pilot
[39:50] project. And I would be pushing that into section be
[39:53] the one in our Ward. John and I board that
[39:57] have that beacon stop sign so that we can monitor
[40:00] see basically what impact it does have and does it
[40:03] help solve the problem or mitigate the problem? So I'll
[40:05] be supporting this. Thank. You, councilor Malbout. I have councilor
[40:10] Jazz. Next. Thank you, madam Chair. Prioritizing. The safety of
[40:12] our residents is of utmost importance and in this pursuit,
[40:16] I support this motion. By investing in this targeted safety
[40:19] measure, we commit to fostering a secure environment for our
[40:21] community, addressing critical aspects of road safety and safeguarding the
[40:25] well being of our residents. Due to this. Reason I
[40:29] support this motion. Thank you very much. Thank you, councilor
[40:32] Jazz. Next I have councilor chalender. Thanks, madam Chair. In
[40:36] principle, I am supportive of what is being proposed, but
[40:39] I need to hear from staff in terms. Of. The
[40:44] human resource implications for this. It wasn't something that was
[40:47] planned for this year. And I also want to know
[40:50] if they're comfortable with proceeding with it generally. Because the
[40:56] cost is one thing. But who's going to do the
[40:59] work? So that's my question to engineering. Okay. I think
[41:03] Commissioner Hogan will answer this question. Thank you for the
[41:07] question. Councilor, challenge. We do have the people power to
[41:12] implement this and we are definitely supportive of it. Great,
[41:17] thank you. Thank you, councilors. Any other comments or questions.
[41:23] I don't see any. So I will call the vote.
[41:24] Now on this motion. All those in favor. Please raise
[41:28] your hand. And it is carried.
[41:43] At this point I would like to ask my colleagues
[41:45] on Council if there are any further motions to be
[41:48] considered in relation to Clause One of the 2024 Capital
[41:51] Budget and forecast. I do not see any, so I'm
[41:55] going to move on to clause two. Now. Clause two
[42:00] States that in accordance with. Ss 51 of the Development
[42:04] Charges Act of 1997. And S. Five of Ontario, Regulation
[42:10] 82, 98. It is Council's clear intention that any eligible
[42:15] excess capacity provided by the 2024 Capital Program will be
[42:19] paid for by future development charges. That is, clause Two.
[42:24] Are there any motions to be considered in relation to
[42:27] this clause. Seeing none. I will owe councilor Sorry, Mayor
[42:32] Krant. No amendments to that madam Chair. And again, through
[42:38] you to Glenn to drill exactly right down. Really? What
[42:43] does this mean? Bottom line, I guess a little bit
[42:45] of clarity just on clause, too. As I understand, I
[42:48] want to be correct in my understanding of it. Thank
[42:51] you, Mayor Kranst. Glenn will answer that. Both clause two
[42:55] and three are really housekeeping items based on the legislation,
[42:59] by having Council's clear intention. It'll make sure that we
[43:04] have the opportunity to maximize our development charge utilization in
[43:07] the future and make sure that we get the revenue
[43:10] where we need it. Anything further, Mr. Mayor? Okay, well,
[43:15] as I'm seeing no other motions to this clause, I'm
[43:18] going to move to clause three. Clause three States that
[43:21] any donations, grants, or subsidies applied in the 2024 Capital
[43:25] Program to projects with development charges, funding are to offset
[43:29] the nongrow. Nongrowthrelated cost of those projects, unless otherwise specified.
[43:36] Are there any motions to be considered in relation to
[43:39] this clause from any of my colleagues on Council. I
[43:42] am seeing none. So I'm now going to move on
[43:44] to clause four, which is as clerk advised before, has
[43:48] been divided into two A and B because of the
[43:51] conflict of English declared earlier in the meeting. So going
[43:55] to clause for a clause for A as amended, States
[43:59] that the 2024 operating budget for Town and. Library Consulting
[44:04] Sorry, resulting in a net tax levy of $98,582,101, assuming
[44:14] 2.29%. Net assessment growth as outlined on appendix Four of
[44:19] this report, save and accept a portion of the seniors.
[44:22] Program salaries and benefits be received for review and any
[44:26] amendments made by Council. And to that effect. On clause
[44:32] for a I have a number of motions. And the
[44:36] first motion before me is moved by councilor kulki and
[44:40] seconded by councilor best. That a senior transportation planning technologist
[44:47] won full time employee be added to the 2024 operating
[44:51] budget with funding from the tax levy of $155,055. I
[44:58] will now go to the mover of the motion to
[45:01] speak to it. Thanks, madam Chair. I just want to
[45:04] start off by talking about the recent strategic planning that
[45:07] we did. And one of the first imperatives that we
[45:10] established through that planning process was that we would be
[45:12] investing in people. And this is what this motion really
[45:16] speaks to. And the fact that the intent is to
[45:18] secure funding to hire a senior transportation technologist. This role
[45:22] would provide the town. With a lead person who will
[45:24] work on the Transportation Master Plan study and facilitate the
[45:28] implementation of it. The position is really important because it
[45:31] would play a key role in creating further active transportation
[45:33] initiatives, townwide and work towards making cycling and walking a
[45:37] safe and desirable alternative to driving. In addition, this position
[45:41] would review the high profile. Development applications that we receive,
[45:45] including those high density, mixed use developments where balancing both
[45:49] vehicle and pedestrian traffic is really critical and important. This
[45:52] position would also be the lead for all halton Region
[45:55] Road environmental assessments and will ensure that milton has a
[45:58] strong voice at that table. One of the key parts,
[46:01] like I said of our strategic plan was to invest
[46:03] in people and in order for us to serve milton
[46:05] residents appropriately, we must make investments like these right now
[46:08] rather than deferring them. To ensure we have applicable resources
[46:12] in town staffing to help. Deliver positive results for our
[46:14] community. Thank you. Thank you, councilor Jazz councilor best as
[46:19] the seconder yes, just echoing the comments as we've seen
[46:23] with. A recent high density applications. We need to have
[46:28] the staff there to plan and anticipate traffic projections because
[46:32] we cannot rely on consultants alone and who knows who
[46:35] might even reduce costs in the future, because as we
[46:38] saw in the discussions on Thompson Road and Ontario Street
[46:42] and the impact of additional traffic, we need. To know
[46:45] the implications and also plan ahead in terms of our
[46:48] capital budgets, to make sure that we have the appropriate
[46:51] traffic and also transit coordination as well. Thank you, councilor.
[46:57] Best I have speakers list now. Councilor ijazz is first.
[47:01] Thank you, madam. Chair. The incorporation of a senior Transportation
[47:05] planning technologist into the 2024 Operations budget would exceed the
[47:09] 9.5% tax increase outlined in the mayor's proposed 2024 budget,
[47:13] which aligns with Council's request budget direction. To this reason,
[47:17] I cannot support this motion. Thank you very much. Thank
[47:20] you, councilor. Jazz, councilor challenge. The next speaker. Thanks, madam.
[47:24] Chair, I can't support this motion, either. There's a couple
[47:28] of things. That I think about. When I hear this.
[47:34] The second thing is, Well, the first thing is we
[47:36] are investing in terms of people. There's 20 new hires
[47:40] coming on this year. If this budget is approved. The
[47:43] fact is. That when you look at those things that
[47:48] drive revenue in this Corporation. We aren't where we need
[47:52] to be, whether it's housing starts or other revenue. Our
[47:58] population isn't where it was projected to be. And so
[48:02] the need isn't immediate. And I think staff recognized that
[48:06] in not bringing it forward into the budget this year.
[48:08] And I think that needs to be respected. The other
[48:11] thing is. That we are way over in terms of.
[48:16] A budget. That, quite frankly is satisfactory to the majority
[48:20] of miltonians we're in a recession. Interest rates are high.
[48:24] Mortgage defaults are increasing. People not paying their taxes is
[48:30] increasing. I think 2024 is going to be like 2023.
[48:36] And for that reason. I think that. We need to
[48:40] really put the foot on the brake and not the
[48:42] gas pedal in 2024. If we have to wait another
[48:47] twelve months for this position to be filled. In my
[48:50] mind that's just common sense. The need is not there
[48:54] this year. Thanks. Thank you, councilor Chaliner first time Speaker
[49:00] Mayor Grant. Yeah. Thank you, madam Chair Nagay. And I
[49:04] cannot and will not support. The request there as well.
[49:09] But just a little bit of clarity, as I recall.
[49:13] The report that's going forward to Council suggest 20 new
[49:18] staff people on the assumption that this was to pass
[49:22] and on the assumption that the nexon was to pass.
[49:24] We're talking about. 22 additional. Full time individuals correct me
[49:30] if I'm wrong. Maybe our cfo can respond to that.
[49:34] That's correct. Recently we were circulated with a document.
[49:44] That suggests there's many people in the employee of the
[49:48] town that makes over $100,000. I believe that's correct. So
[49:53] I'm just assuming that those additional people will be $100,000.
[49:58] So really, what we're talking about here. Is $2,200,000. In
[50:05] new employees. For taxes forever. Is that what we're talking
[50:11] about? Correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption. Rounding
[50:14] that off at $100,000, an additional 2 million. If I
[50:19] can, I'll answer that in two parts from the perspective
[50:23] that what's in the tax rate in front of you
[50:25] now, before these new positions for the 20 that we
[50:28] identified in the book, it's around $850,000. The reason for
[50:33] that is because. There are revenues from other sources. There
[50:40] were contract savings, and there was some reprioritizations. There was
[50:43] also some positions that won't start until October next year.
[50:47] To your point, though, about what the gross cost is,
[50:49] I do think the 2 million is a fair. I
[50:52] don't have the exact tally for the 20 positions, but
[50:54] that would be a more fair representation of the total.
[50:58] Just noting, though, that. A significant amount is identified in
[51:00] other forms. So I think, madam Chair, I've made my
[51:04] point. And I'm well aware there may not be hired
[51:06] until June or July or next October. But let me
[51:10] assure you, 2025. This Council will still be here. It's
[51:15] going to be felt dramatically then. And I know what's
[51:18] being projected right now. As at least at twelve or
[51:21] 14% increase at this point for 2025 and probably just
[51:26] as much if not more for 2026. I'm talking about
[51:30] the term of this Council, and I know this is
[51:32] not the time for statements, but I just want to
[51:34] be very clear as to what we're doing, adding more
[51:38] on to the future. I make my point. Thank you,
[51:41] Mr. Mayor. First time Speakers List councilor tesser dirkson is
[51:46] next. Thank you, madam. Chair. A question. About long term
[51:52] staffing. So in traffic. And this might be a question
[51:56] that our cao answers. About. How the movement of staff
[52:01] that are currently in traffic would be affected by this
[52:03] position? Would it be affected? How. Would this position integrate
[52:08] with the staffing plans for the rest of the Council
[52:10] term, for example. Looking at our Co for response. I
[52:14] mean, I can answer it, or our Commissioner can answer
[52:15] it, but there's no impact on any other. It's an
[52:18] additional capacity with an expertise that we don't presently don't
[52:22] have in that Department. Okay, thank you. We have Councilor
[52:28] Melbores as the first time. Oh, Councilor. Has a floor
[52:34] and has a follow up question. I do. Thanks, Glenn.
[52:38] Could you tell us what the dollar impact would be.
[52:41] For this. So it would be $155,000 investment, which would
[52:48] be on a per $100,000 basis. Fifty one cents. At
[52:52] a local level, it would be a zero point 17%
[52:55] increase on the blended. It would be 0.7%. Sorry. I'm
[53:00] trying to do quick math. So on the average mpac
[53:04] assessed home of $600,000 annually, it would be around $3.
[53:09] Okay. Thank you. Anything further? Councilor Tesserkson. Okay, good. So
[53:14] I have Councilor Melbourne next. Thank you, madam chair. I'll
[53:19] not be supporting this motion. For. The reason Echo the
[53:24] comments made by councilor Chaloner. Staff didn't see the need
[53:30] or the priority to include this in the budget, so
[53:34] I don't see it as a major priority or an
[53:37] issue. And my other concern is if we brought on
[53:40] this extra fte for the senior traffic strategy. I suspect
[53:44] that when we look at it, we're going to hire
[53:46] an outside consultant anyway. Just like we do with everything
[53:49] else. So I'll not be supporting that. Thank you. I
[53:53] have councilor kalki next. Thanks, madam Chair. I'm just wondering
[53:57] if we could get the Commissioner, Commissioner Hogan, to speak
[54:00] about the importance and this role a bit further in
[54:02] relation to what it would offer, what it would provide.
[54:06] Missionar Hogan. Thank you, councilor calkey. It is a senior
[54:11] level position. And as the cao said, we currently don't
[54:14] have that level of expertise in our division. And it's
[54:17] really a holistic position that would look at milton as
[54:21] a whole from a transportation planning perspective. With an eye.
[54:27] To. Implement and be the lead on our broader transportation
[54:31] Master Plan and all of the active transportation initiatives and
[54:35] making all of those connections throughout town. As councilor culky
[54:39] also said, we do have a number of very complex.
[54:43] Mixed use, higher density development applications, and those reviews do
[54:48] require a level of expertise that we don't currently have.
[54:52] We're making things work, but I think a position such
[54:56] as this could make things better. The goal is not
[55:02] to retain consultants, to do this type of work and
[55:05] to do it in house. And I do foresee potential
[55:07] savings in that regard. Moving forward. Thank you. Thank you,
[55:11] Commissioner. I have Councilor. Clark, he still has the floor.
[55:15] Yes. Thank you, madam Chair. And also when we get
[55:18] to the point for voting, if this could be a
[55:19] recorded vote just so that's noted down. And Secondly, again,
[55:22] for the cost it was mentioned, it's going to be
[55:24] at the $600,003.06 in turn. Like Commissioner said, it's going
[55:28] to be investing back into the community for things like
[55:30] active transportation, cycling, creating those walkable communities that. We all
[55:35] want to do with these high densities coming in these
[55:38] new developments. It's a really important position. I feel that
[55:41] we need to incorporate. Thank you, Councilor cocky. I have
[55:46] Councilor challoner as the next speaker. Yeah, just very quickly.
[55:51] We do have a requirement. To have the applicant get
[55:55] involved in this process by hiring their own consultant. Maybe
[56:01] that's going to change. I don't know. I haven't talked
[56:03] to the Commissioner about it. She may not be in
[56:05] a position to answer that question tonight. But at any
[56:09] rate. When I see the decline right now. In high
[56:14] density construction in our community. Where cranes are being pulled
[56:18] down. I don't think. It's important this year. I'm not
[56:22] saying that it's never important. What I'm saying is, let's
[56:24] talk about it in 2025, because we have enough on
[56:28] our plate in this budget. And at any rate I
[56:32] will be curious down the road to see how this
[56:35] position integrates. With the development community is required to do
[56:40] by our Corporation today. Thanks. Thank you, councilor Chalner. I
[56:44] have councilor tesser Jrkson. Next. Thank you, madam. Chair. Two
[56:49] questions. Firstly, do comparator municipalities. At the same level of
[56:55] progression as we are with respect to our development and
[56:57] growth. Have this type of position or a comparable position.
[57:01] Second. Question, and you may not be able to answer
[57:04] this, but do staff foresee a savings as a result
[57:07] of this position in the future. Is there a benefit
[57:12] to spending the money now. The first part of your
[57:16] question. Sorry if comparator municipalities. I just wrote down Yes.
[57:26] Comparable municipalities would have a position of this nature in
[57:31] terms of future cost savings. I do think we would
[57:34] have the ability to leverage this position to reduce consulting
[57:38] fees. Councilor challenger is correct. The development industry does do
[57:45] their own traffic impact studies. This position would lead more
[57:49] of the town initiated work, including the Transportation Master Plan
[57:53] and active transportation Strategy. Moving forward. Councilor Tesla I was
[57:58] debating whether to ask this question or not. Why did
[58:01] staff not put this position in their proposal. Commissioner Hogan.
[58:10] Thank you for the question. It was a position that
[58:13] I did put forward originally in the budget and due
[58:16] to other competing interests, it was not put forward. Anything
[58:21] further? Councilor. Tessa. Drikson. Okay. Does the cio want to
[58:28] add a comment. Okay. I'm seeing no other speakers to
[58:33] this motion. So a recorded vote has been asked for,
[58:36] and so I will leave it to the clerk to
[58:37] deal with that. Thank you for this recorded vote. I
[58:42] will ask all members. In favor of the motion to
[58:47] please stand. And I will recognize you standing as in
[58:50] favor. Thank you. I'm seeing Councilor culky in favor. Councilor
[58:56] best in favor. Councilor Marshall in favor Councilor tesser dirkson
[59:00] in favor and Councilor elite in favor. Thank you. Be
[59:07] seated. I'll now ask members opposed to Please stand. I'm
[59:11] seeing Mayor krantz opposed Councilor chalin are opposed. Councilor Melbourne
[59:16] opposed Councilor Jazz opposed that motion is carried. Thank you,
[59:22] madam chit, clerk. We will now move on to the
[59:28] Second Amendment to the Clause. It's a motion moved by
[59:31] councilor kalki, seconded by councilor Malbouth that a platoon chief,
[59:37] one full time employee be added to the 2024 operating
[59:40] budget with funding from the tax levy of. $186,723. I
[59:50] will go to councilor kalki as the mover of the
[59:52] motion to speak. Thank you, madam. Chair. Obviously, in the
[59:55] start, we heard a delegation advocating for fire services as
[59:59] well. So anyways, to move forward with this one, I
[1:00:02] think it's important as well as one of the key
[1:00:04] items identified in our current fire master plan was the
[1:00:07] fact that we need to hire up to a total
[1:00:09] of four platoon fire Chiefs in response to our forecasted,
[1:00:12] municipal and Department growth. We currently have two platoon fire
[1:00:15] Chiefs, and the objective towards getting towards a total of
[1:00:18] four would secure sufficient. Incident Command on a 24/7 basis,
[1:00:23] I want to highlight the importance of ensuring that we
[1:00:25] remain on track with this particular item given that all
[1:00:27] of us have rapid growth coming into our communities with
[1:00:30] particular means of growth being by way of high density
[1:00:33] development. It worries me when items like these are deferred,
[1:00:35] and I believe that it's important to ensure that we
[1:00:37] remain committed to our forecasted plans, especially as it pertains.
[1:00:41] To our emergency services. Having said that the importance of
[1:00:44] having sufficient incident command when responding to and dealing with
[1:00:47] an emergency situation is vital towards contributing towards the overall
[1:00:51] safety and well being of our community. Having strong incident
[1:00:54] command allows for an emergency response to become more efficient,
[1:00:57] improves communication span of control, and allows for. A more
[1:01:01] organized and structured response to an emergency. I'm proud of
[1:01:04] the investments we've made thus far into fire. However, I
[1:01:07] feel like we need to move further right now, like
[1:01:11] I said, to ensure we have better staffing for our
[1:01:13] fire Department to reach the targets outlined in our fire
[1:01:16] master plan. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor palky. Councilor Malbol
[1:01:20] says the secondary. Right. Thank you, madam. Chair. I'm having
[1:01:24] a second and support this nation number one priority. Of
[1:01:30] this Council is not only the safety protection of our
[1:01:32] residents, but of our employees as well. This position was
[1:01:38] included in our Fire Master plan. That we had approved
[1:01:42] and should have been included in this budget. Removing this
[1:01:46] position to save $186,000 while we're spending nearly $1 million
[1:01:51] on an arts center to me, doesn't make sense, but
[1:01:55] maybe I have my priorities wrong. So I would ask
[1:01:59] this Council to support this motion and support our fire
[1:02:02] Department. Thank you, Councilor Malbout. I have a Speaker Councilor
[1:02:07] challenge. Next. Thanks madam Chair, I won't be supporting the
[1:02:12] motion. The Fire Master plan. Is Unfortunately. I don't want
[1:02:20] to say that it's completely irrelevant, but it's becoming irrelevant.
[1:02:24] As I explained earlier when I was asked about supporting
[1:02:27] this motion. The six individuals who are now a part
[1:02:31] of the 911 program were not a part of that
[1:02:35] Master plan. Things have changed, and the master plan needs
[1:02:39] to be changed to reflect that. Unfortunately. And again I
[1:02:43] go back. To. We don't have the population. We don't
[1:02:49] have the level of development of activity. We have a
[1:02:54] fire station that isn't being fully utilized today. And we
[1:02:59] can't wait twelve months to reconsider this. When staff have
[1:03:05] recommended that it be put off for twelve months, that's
[1:03:08] all they're asking us to do. And that's all we're
[1:03:11] asking of ourselves. And when you look at the metrics,
[1:03:14] the metrics don't support. Today, the demand for this position
[1:03:19] immediately. The metrics today support the need for six people
[1:03:24] to get us into the 21st century with a 911
[1:03:27] system that wasn't contemplated in the last fire Master plan.
[1:03:31] So in addition to that, I go back to and
[1:03:34] I'm sorry if it comes across as a harangue, but
[1:03:37] our current economic situation. Demands that we be fiscally responsible
[1:03:43] more so than ever before. And it's not going to
[1:03:47] make a difference in twelve months. We're not at risk
[1:03:52] if we were at any kind of risk. We'd be
[1:03:56] hearing from the insurance companies of Canada, and we'd be
[1:03:59] hearing from our residents because the cost of ensuring their
[1:04:03] homes and their businesses would be going up. They aren't
[1:04:05] as a result of our fire service support in this
[1:04:09] community, we have excellent fire service support. We can wait
[1:04:13] until the 2025 budget to look at. This. And as
[1:04:17] I indicated, and as we all know, things have changed.
[1:04:20] Thank you. Thank you, councilor Chaliner. I have councilor adil
[1:04:24] kalki. Next. Thanks, madam Chair frankenstein to maybe ask the
[1:04:28] questions to the fire Chief if he could further speak
[1:04:30] to the importance of what this rule would entail if
[1:04:34] it was added back into the budget. And given the
[1:04:36] fact that it's not in the budget as it stands
[1:04:38] right now. If we weren't funding the communication staff, would
[1:04:42] we still be having this investment being put into the
[1:04:45] budget if that wasn't there. Thank you, Chief ghetto, I
[1:04:50] see you at the podium. Please proceed. Thank you, madam.
[1:04:53] Chair to the role of Platoon Chief. Platoon Chief reports
[1:04:57] directly to the Deputy Fire Chief. Functions as a Supervisor
[1:05:00] who coordinates supervisors and participates in firefighting related activities and
[1:05:05] coordinates between the other divisions. Public Education, prevention. Training and
[1:05:10] other activities. Platoon chief's primary role is emergency response. I
[1:05:14] think that was already discussed. And they improved the scene
[1:05:17] through communication span of control and they delineate honesty and
[1:05:21] personnel's roles and responsibilities. Platoon chief, specialize. They're specialized experts
[1:05:28] in leadership and instant command. They manage complex instance. A
[1:05:33] complex incident would be a high rise fire, a large
[1:05:35] industrial fire. A firefighter May day or rescue, and they
[1:05:40] ultimately contribute to the overall safety and well being of
[1:05:43] our community. They also have administrative tasks that offset the
[1:05:48] workload of the Deputy Chiefs. They improve also our effective
[1:05:52] response force because it allows the captives to work at
[1:05:56] a tactical level, while an instant commander works at a
[1:05:58] strategic level and also creates an extra layer. Of management
[1:06:03] during large. Scale Disasters and Supports our Emergency Operations Center.
[1:06:09] Thank you, Chief. Anything further, Councilor kulfi? Yes. Thank you,
[1:06:12] Chief, for that. So obviously that right there speaks to
[1:06:15] the gravity of what this rule would entail and how
[1:06:18] important it is and making sure we get to where
[1:06:21] we need to be will help us get to that
[1:06:22] point where we have 24/7 incident command and adequate emergency
[1:06:26] response. Again, emergency. Services, they get paid for what they're
[1:06:31] expected to do many of the times compared to what
[1:06:33] they're actually doing. And when an emergency happens, which is
[1:06:36] obviously hard to predict. It's really, really important that we
[1:06:40] have those resources. This would bring us a step closer
[1:06:42] towards fulfilling our requirements under the Master Plan, which was
[1:06:45] created obviously for a particular reason to satisfy the growth
[1:06:50] that we're seeing in the community. Thank you, Council. Cookie.
[1:06:53] Thank you, chief. Next on my Speaker's list is councilor
[1:06:57] Best. Yes. Thank you, madam Chair. And I support the
[1:07:02] motion here and especially accounts for Malhos comments as well.
[1:07:07] Staff have presented the budget and the best their ability.
[1:07:10] We have to look at it. And not only how
[1:07:13] much, but also where we're spending our money. I initially
[1:07:16] would have supported six firefighters, as the chief mentioned, unfortunately,
[1:07:20] wasn't able to get that in in time, but I
[1:07:22] certainly support the one platoon chief, but I could sympathize
[1:07:25] with councilor Chowner's concerns. It may be reduced and residential,
[1:07:31] but all you have to do is call along James
[1:07:32] Snow parkway in Fifth Line and see the millions of
[1:07:35] square feet of construction going on right now from large
[1:07:38] corporations with buildings. That when a firefighter gets there, we
[1:07:42] don't know what's in there unless they have the planning
[1:07:45] and the staffing ahead of time to plan out how
[1:07:48] to fight a fire. Because when you have a million
[1:07:50] square foot building as we've seen. By some on browning
[1:07:54] Street North recently, you don't know what's in there. And
[1:07:58] unless you have the staff that have the experience in
[1:08:01] training, you might be sending someone in there to be
[1:08:04] injured or killed if you don't know how to do
[1:08:06] it right. So I certainly support this. And I support
[1:08:10] anticipating ahead of time, not reacting after the fact. Thank
[1:08:13] you, Councilor. Best Councilor Jazz is next. Thank you, madam
[1:08:16] Chair, this is a question for staff, the six firefighters,
[1:08:19] the individuals that are being added to Ng, 911. When
[1:08:26] do they start. Do they get employed in the upcoming
[1:08:30] year, or. When the program goes to. So of the
[1:08:36] six, there are two that are expected to be part
[1:08:38] of the project implementation, so they would start earlier in
[1:08:40] the year in February, and they're funded from capital. The
[1:08:45] tax dollars for all six positions begins at the start
[1:08:47] of October next year, and then annualizes fully in 2025.
[1:08:53] Anything further? Councilor. Jess. Thank you, madam chair. Councilor cokey's.
[1:08:59] Next. Thanks, madam Chair. Two things. One again recorded vote
[1:09:02] for this one as well, please. And two, it wasn't
[1:09:05] brought up by any of the other Council, but I
[1:09:06] want to talk about the cost associated to this in
[1:09:08] gwen. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
[1:09:10] But what I have here is this would impact the
[1:09:13] overall rate by zero point 21%. Change the blended to
[1:09:16] 0.8%. Which would equate to a 60 residential assessment value
[1:09:22] increase. So if my math is correct here at that
[1:09:24] 600,000 number, it'll be three point sixty six cents to
[1:09:27] fund this particular position. Is that correct on your end
[1:09:31] as well? Correct. Okay. I'm glad we have that clarity.
[1:09:35] Now. I'm looking around and seeing if any of my
[1:09:36] other colleagues have any questions. I'm seeing none. So a
[1:09:41] recorded work has been called and I will leave it
[1:09:43] to the clerk to take it from here. Thank you.
[1:09:46] I'd like to ask all members who are in favor
[1:09:48] of the motion to please stand. I see Councilor
[1:09:58] cokey in favor of a motion. Councilor Best in favor
[1:10:01] of the motion. Councilor Marshall in favor of the motion.
[1:10:04] Councilor Malbuff in favor of the motion. Councilor tesser dirkson
[1:10:07] in favor of the motion. Councilor Jazz in favor of
[1:10:11] the motion. Can I now, please ask. Members to be
[1:10:15] seated. Councilor elite. Excuse me in favor of the motion.
[1:10:19] Can I now ask for members who are opposed. Please
[1:10:22] stand. And I'm seeing councilor chalin are opposed, and Mayor
[1:10:26] cramps opposed. That motion is carried. Thank you, Colleagues. That
[1:10:32] motion is carried. As the clerks just mentioned, we will
[1:10:35] move on to the next. Motion, which is basically an
[1:10:42] amendment to clause four, a. It is moved by councilor
[1:10:45] tesser, dirkson, and seconded by councilor. Oh, I see the.
[1:10:51] Apologize. Yeah. Just before you move on, madam Chair there
[1:10:56] with regards to what just happened in those two or
[1:10:59] three previous motions, I'd like to know the total and
[1:11:03] what impact that has, because the next two are reasonably
[1:11:07] complicated. I think I've got it figured out. But I
[1:11:09] think. It's important on bottom line. Where we're presently at.
[1:11:14] Because I think we're getting very close to double digits.
[1:11:18] 9.5 is close enough for me to call it double
[1:11:21] digits, but I think we're inching closer to it. So
[1:11:24] good. Gosh only knows on the next two motions. But
[1:11:27] may or may not happen. So little clarity on what
[1:11:32] the possibility is on the assumption that the next two
[1:11:35] motions were to pass, and if they didn't pass, what
[1:11:39] impacted is this already got on what we just passed.
[1:11:43] Thank you, Mayor Cranza. I know that I saw our
[1:11:46] financial team crunching numbers all along, so I'm pretty sure
[1:11:48] they have a number ready for us. We do at
[1:11:51] the local level. We are sitting at 9.88%. On the
[1:11:56] blended level. We're at 5.93%. We've added dollar and assessment.
[1:12:04] So $6.0.66 on an average house. Madam Chair. Thank You,
[1:12:09] Mr. Mayor. Any other questions or comments from my colleagues.
[1:12:16] Seeing none. I will move on. To the next motion,
[1:12:20] which is moved by councilor tesser dirkson and seconded by
[1:12:23] councilor Marshall that the transfer from the Tax stabilization Reserve
[1:12:28] to the 2024 operating Budget be reduced by $750,000. With
[1:12:35] an equivalent increase in the net tax levy in order
[1:12:38] to fund the related ongoing expenses. I've read the motion.
[1:12:43] I will go to the mover of the motion. Councilor.
[1:12:45] Tesser. Dirkson. Now, thank you, madam Chair. Will. This motion
[1:12:49] certainly isn't as shiny as the other two. It's a
[1:12:53] little bit dry, but frankly, it's a motion about sound
[1:12:57] financial management. And in reviewing the budget, I had noticed
[1:13:00] that 1.7 million was being transferred from the tax rate
[1:13:02] stabilization. Reserve Fund in order to mitigate the impact to
[1:13:06] taxpayers. That bothered me a little bit going into the
[1:13:10] projections for next year and the year after that and
[1:13:12] the year after that. In speaking to Staff originally, this
[1:13:16] motion, I was debating 1.5 million. And when we looked
[1:13:22] at the numbers. We just had to take into consideration
[1:13:25] what kind of impact that was going to have on
[1:13:27] the average person. So the figure we arrived at was
[1:13:30] $750,000. And to continue to pull from the tax rate
[1:13:35] stabilization Reserve bothers me for a number of reasons. Number
[1:13:37] one, it doesn't align with our financial management policies, which
[1:13:40] we have committed, to which we have. And we have
[1:13:44] significant pressures going into next year. We've already heard 2023
[1:13:46] and 2024 going to be similar. 2025, 2026. Probably worse.
[1:13:52] And I have heard some talk that 2027 2028 is
[1:13:55] going to level out. I don't have a Crystal ball.
[1:13:57] All it takes is another pandemic. Another war that affects
[1:14:01] supply chain inflation. I don't want to kick this can
[1:14:05] down the road. I want us to stare it in
[1:14:08] the face and make the difficult decision to be shouldn't
[1:14:12] be a difficult decision to make a sound financial decisions
[1:14:15] for our residents and for ourselves. So that's the basis
[1:14:18] of this motion. As far as a dollar amount, I'm
[1:14:21] really focused on the dollar impact, the wallet impact to
[1:14:24] the average person. And we figured that it was $14.68,
[1:14:29] I believe. For the average home per year. That averages
[1:14:34] out to I think a dollar 22 a month. In
[1:14:38] order for us to say to our residents that we
[1:14:40] thought hard and long about how we're managing their money,
[1:14:43] how we're managing our reserves. And I think it's something
[1:14:46] that I can certainly justify to residence. And I'm sure
[1:14:48] others can, too. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Just the
[1:14:52] secondary of the motion. Councilor Marshall. So christina, councilor Tesla
[1:14:57] had the chance. To take all the excellent talking points.
[1:15:02] But I just want to remind everybody that when we
[1:15:05] looked at this exact thing last year, that we said
[1:15:08] we were going to defer payment until this year, and
[1:15:10] now we're here. So I want everybody to just remember
[1:15:14] what type of planning was intended at this time last
[1:15:18] year, before deciding. What to do this year? And is
[1:15:22] it actually worth deferring this till next year or the
[1:15:25] year after when we've already seen what those potential impacts
[1:15:29] are going to be. Thank you, councilor Marshall. I'm looking
[1:15:34] around to see if any of my other colleagues have
[1:15:36] any comments to add. Councilor Chaliner has a comment. Thanks
[1:15:41] madam Chair, I won't be supporting the motion. And. I
[1:15:49] really wish individual members of Council would get away from
[1:15:52] what this is costing per unit or per program or
[1:15:57] per individual because. Taxpayers look at the cumulative effect. The
[1:16:03] bottom line. And at this point. We're going to be
[1:16:07] well over 6% well over 10% if we do this.
[1:16:12] Is not good financial management. To not use this without
[1:16:17] something to replace it with it's. Poor financial management. And.
[1:16:24] I indicated and I don't know how many people read
[1:16:26] the Q and a's. But you'll recall if you attended
[1:16:29] the last meeting. I talked to the Treasurer about establishing
[1:16:34] two income funds. Essentially. To. Replace. The Tax stabilization rate.
[1:16:42] Reserve. As a revenue source for the operating budget. And
[1:16:47] to replace the non growth reserve with an income fund
[1:16:51] so that it is funded that way and not through
[1:16:55] the operating budget. That's good financial management. We have a
[1:17:00] revenue problem and. We have done nothing in this budget
[1:17:05] to address that. And it's the second time that we've
[1:17:08] had this in the last three years. I'd forgotten about
[1:17:12] 2021, but we had a problem then, too. It was
[1:17:15] fairly obvious what it was. In my view. If Council
[1:17:21] Marshall and councilor tesser dirkson said this is the last
[1:17:25] year. I would support that. But at this point, that's
[1:17:29] not what they're asking. We simply can't afford to do
[1:17:33] that. And please. Don't. Say things like it's only $14
[1:17:38] a month or whatever it is, it's meaningless. What is
[1:17:41] the cumulative effect of this budget on taxpayers? Everything else
[1:17:45] is pointless. Mindless, quite frankly, and insulting. If they said
[1:17:49] this is the last year they've got my support. Because
[1:17:54] in January, we're going to have as a counsel a
[1:17:56] workshop where we're going to discuss these income funds and
[1:17:59] how they could replace the Tax stabilization Reserve. I agree
[1:18:03] with councilor tesser dirkson. This is not how it should
[1:18:06] be used. The Treasurer knows that I've made that clear.
[1:18:09] It's here to deal with end of year balance issues.
[1:18:14] Yes, you can use it for the purpose. We've been
[1:18:15] using it for the last ten years, but it's not
[1:18:17] good fiscal management. And so I can't support. This. I
[1:18:22] have thought long and hard about an alternative. I've been
[1:18:25] discussing it with the cao and the Treasurer since the
[1:18:28] summertime. This is a serious issue. And what is being
[1:18:34] proposed is not good financial management. What we will discuss
[1:18:37] in January is a move in the right direction towards
[1:18:40] good financial management. And I hope it's something that happens
[1:18:43] so I can't support this. I apologize. Thank you, councilor
[1:18:47] chaloner. I have councilor just as the next speaker. Thank
[1:18:50] you, madam Chair. I respectfully disagree with the proposal to
[1:18:53] reduce the transfer from the Tax stabilization Reserve to the
[1:18:56] 2024 operating budget by $750,000. With an equivalent increase in
[1:19:03] the net tax levy. This adjustment will result in a
[1:19:05] higher tax increase for milton residents, placing an added burden
[1:19:09] on taxpayers. On a separate note, we started with the
[1:19:11] mayor's budget, which aligns seamlessly with the Council's requested budget
[1:19:15] direction of 9.5%. Now with the previous additions, the tax
[1:19:19] increase is standing at nine point. 88% that can support
[1:19:23] that, but anything above this. 9.88%. I cannot support. Thank
[1:19:27] you, madam Chair. Thank you for your comments. Councilor Jazz,
[1:19:31] I have Councilor kalki next. Thanks, madam Chair. Just wondering
[1:19:34] if cfo can comment on. This particular item and how
[1:19:38] it is in terms of financial management, the particular move
[1:19:41] that's being made here. So the biggest effect of this
[1:19:45] if it were approved, would be the relief in future
[1:19:48] years budgets where we are forecasting pressures that are higher
[1:19:50] than what is currently being contemplated for approval for 2024.
[1:19:57] I do think that as recommended, it is a reasonable
[1:20:01] and appropriate use of stabilization fund if there is a
[1:20:05] concrete plan to unwind it while they're still funding in
[1:20:07] that reserve balance. But ultimately from a revenue perspective, looking
[1:20:12] at service levels and sustainable revenue sources, it really is
[1:20:16] only meant to bridge. From what the tax rate currently
[1:20:19] is, to what it needs to be to support the
[1:20:21] service levels that there are as to how quickly we
[1:20:24] go there. It really is a decision of counsel weighing
[1:20:27] the factors such as what is a reasonable change at
[1:20:30] the property tax base, what service levels are expected, and
[1:20:34] how long we can sustain drawings in that stabilization reserve,
[1:20:38] right. Now you'll see in the forecast. It is shown
[1:20:41] to go from right now around the target balance around
[1:20:43] $8 million to around 4.6 million after we've used this
[1:20:48] for a few years of phasing it out. One of
[1:20:51] the benefits of this motion would be is additional funding
[1:20:54] in that stabilization reserve balance closer to the target. When
[1:20:57] we come out of the next few years of pressures.
[1:21:00] So ultimately. There is a number of different answers here,
[1:21:05] and ultimately, Council can decide which is the most appropriate.
[1:21:10] Thank you to our cfo for that answer. Councilor. Ijaz
[1:21:13] is next. Thank you, madam Chair. This is a question
[1:21:16] for Glenn. If this motion were to pass, what would
[1:21:19] that 9.88% increase to. So the 9.88 would become ten
[1:21:26] point 72. From a local tax rate change perspective, the
[1:21:30] blended total would become 6.27%, which is $46 per 100,000
[1:21:36] of assessment. And started scrolling down $276 from an average
[1:21:45] house perspective. Thank you, madam. Chair. Thank you, councilor Jeff.
[1:21:52] Any other speakers to the motion. Councilor best. Yeah. Just
[1:21:57] as councilor Chowner raised some interesting points here regarding our
[1:22:01] reserves. What is the return that we're getting on our
[1:22:04] reserves and reserve funds? I take it they are all
[1:22:08] invested. I just want to see how that compares with
[1:22:11] a potential income fund. Looking at the cfo for a
[1:22:14] response. So within the budget, we've assumed from the overall
[1:22:20] portfolio perspective, a total return averaging 3.95% next year. That
[1:22:25] would be the highest amount we realized in recent years,
[1:22:28] in part because we're going to be starting the year
[1:22:30] with the relatively high rates that we have today, especially
[1:22:33] on the shorter term investments. Keeping in mind that. The
[1:22:37] portfolio is a mix of the more liquid funding that
[1:22:40] we have. In those savings accounts versus the longer term
[1:22:44] investments that were already locked into. In terms of that
[1:22:47] income, funds. I do think and our suggestion was to
[1:22:51] explore that further in the workshop setting so we could
[1:22:54] make sure. We're addressing Council's intentions with it. The thing
[1:22:58] will have to be balancing in that is that the
[1:22:59] seed funding for that fund is likely to come from
[1:23:02] those existing reserves which are already being invested and ideally
[1:23:06] to maximize the return that we can get given when
[1:23:08] the timing of the draw on those reserves. Maybe. Thank
[1:23:12] you for the answer. Just the last question in terms
[1:23:15] of provincial regulations. What are the limitations we have on
[1:23:20] investments. So the primary investment tool for municipalities are areas
[1:23:25] in fixed income. In terms of especially in the bond
[1:23:29] market. There has been introductions to allow for equity in
[1:23:32] one of two ways, either through the One fund, which
[1:23:35] is a professionally managed investment tool for municipalities. That's the
[1:23:38] one that our current. Town bylaw currently allows for and
[1:23:44] then separately, there's the prudent Investment standard, which we're not
[1:23:48] entertaining at this stage, given the size of our portfolio
[1:23:51] and the cost and the process involved. We also do
[1:23:55] invest in other investment tools, such as the Savings Account
[1:23:59] Reference gics. But it's very much just fixed income oriented
[1:24:03] strategy. And then within our own town guidelines are the
[1:24:05] limitations in terms of how much exposure to federal provincial
[1:24:09] notes, how much. To the corporate and banking sector and
[1:24:13] the overall balance that we're allowed to work with him.
[1:24:17] Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilor. Best I have
[1:24:20] councilor tessard next. Thank you very much, madam Chair. Just
[1:24:24] to note, councilor Chalner is correct in that there's nothing
[1:24:27] wrong with looking for additional revenue sources. And I'm fully
[1:24:30] fully supportive of that. If we find a way to
[1:24:32] fund an income reserve or an income fund. I would
[1:24:36] be supportive if it was reasonable and made sense. However,
[1:24:41] like I said, I don't want to kick this down
[1:24:43] the can because an income reserve is not guaranteed. We
[1:24:46] don't know where we're going to get the seed money
[1:24:48] from. If the Income Reserve Fund works out great, we'll
[1:24:52] have an easier year next year in addition to this
[1:24:55] motion. And if it doesn't go ahead, we'll still have
[1:24:58] an easier time next year because of this motion. Thank
[1:25:04] you, councilor tesser Jackson. I have councilor Chaliner. Next. Thanks.
[1:25:11] So again it's in the notes. The cfo talked about
[1:25:15] a one fund and the return on that is significant
[1:25:18] compared to the investments. We currently have. Double of many
[1:25:24] of them. The seed money, yes, would come from our
[1:25:28] current reserves. But for example, if it came from. A
[1:25:34] GIC that was maturing at 1.5%. You're far better off
[1:25:40] taking that ten or $15 million and putting it into
[1:25:43] the One fund because you're going to see a pretty
[1:25:47] rapid return. Within twelve months. And there are other funds
[1:25:53] as well. I'm sure the cfo is looking at contemplating
[1:25:58] my questions. The main issue. I have. Is.
[1:26:08] Yes, we are kicking the can down the road. We've
[1:26:10] been kicking it down the road for the last decade
[1:26:13] again. There's a table in there that shows what we've
[1:26:15] been doing. I'm not confident that. Without an income fund
[1:26:24] or a revenue source that we won't kick the can
[1:26:27] down next year because. What I see too much of
[1:26:32] is a lack of fiscal discipline. And it's a shared
[1:26:37] responsibility. It starts with senior Staff and it concludes around
[1:26:44] this table. And quite frankly. The most important place that
[1:26:49] has to occur is here. And I don't see that
[1:26:51] happening. I don't have that confidence. And. I think that
[1:26:59] simple logic and common sense is you ended as soon
[1:27:02] as. You have a plan to end it with and
[1:27:08] I'm hoping. That in January, we put the pins in
[1:27:12] place as a Council to provide financial stability for future
[1:27:16] generations by considering. Would I been proposing to Senior staff.
[1:27:22] Because I'm as frustrated by this as anybody else around
[1:27:26] this table is maybe even more. I go back. I
[1:27:29] reflect on the time my 1st 15 years here. We
[1:27:32] never did this kind of stuff. We didn't blend our
[1:27:38] tax rate with the region. We stood up and we
[1:27:40] managed budgets as they were. We didn't look. For any
[1:27:47] kind of subsidy within or without. And we need to
[1:27:51] get back. To as much of that as we possibly
[1:27:55] can. Because we don't know what's ahead of us. Councilor
[1:27:58] tesser Durkson is exactly right. We don't know what's going
[1:28:04] to happen in the next couple of years. I don't
[1:28:07] have confidence, quite frankly. That any of our future projections
[1:28:11] are accurate. And I don't know how they can be
[1:28:14] unless you've got some sort of special Crystal ball. And
[1:28:17] so I'm not criticizing the cfo. He's doing the best
[1:28:20] job he possibly can under. Very difficult circumstances. But what
[1:28:24] that demands is. A plan that brings in revenue on
[1:28:29] a consistent basis where you aren't robbing Peter to pay
[1:28:34] Paul, which is exactly what we're doing with the stabilization
[1:28:37] reserve. So my message suck it up for one more
[1:28:42] year. Let's figure it out in January, and let's get
[1:28:45] going. But I'm not in favor of this motion. Thank
[1:28:50] you, councilor Chalner. I'm looking around to see if any
[1:28:53] of my other colleagues have any comments. Questions to add.
[1:28:58] I'm seeing none. So no recorded vote has been called
[1:29:01] for, so I'm going to call the vote. Now, all
[1:29:03] those in favor of this motion, please raise your hand.
[1:29:07] All those opposed. Motion fails. We are now moving on
[1:29:16] to the next motion, which will be the last motion
[1:29:19] to clause for a. And it is moved by councilor
[1:29:29] chaloner and seconded by councilor malbos. Whereas the proposed town
[1:29:34] of milton 2024 property tax increase when blended with the
[1:29:39] regional municipality of halton and School board's 2024 operating budgets
[1:29:44] will net out at Five point. 37% if the region
[1:29:50] and the school board's budgets are approved, as Is and
[1:29:53] whereas the proposed 2024 Town of milton property tax increase
[1:29:58] when blended with the regional municipality of halton School Boards
[1:30:02] and proposed halton Regional Police Services, operating budgets could net
[1:30:07] out. At about 5.78% if they are approved as proposed.
[1:30:13] And whereas milton is in economic recession, interest rates are
[1:30:18] high, food inflation is continuing unabated, and an increasing number
[1:30:22] of miltonians are defaulting on their mortgages and not paying
[1:30:26] their property taxes. Therefore. Be it result that in order
[1:30:32] to provide financial relief to hard hit milton families, the
[1:30:36] Town of milton 2024 operating budget achieve a 5% blended
[1:30:42] property tax rate objective. And further Be, it resolved that
[1:30:48] the 36 million purchased goods and services. Line items in
[1:30:51] the 2024 Town of milton operating budget be reduced in
[1:30:55] order to achieve a 5% blended tax rate total requiring
[1:31:00] an estimated reduction of 825,000. To 1,770,000. Dollars depending on
[1:31:10] the final budgets established for halton Region and the halton
[1:31:14] Regional Police service. I have read the motion and you
[1:31:17] can see it on the screen as well. I will
[1:31:19] now go to the mover of the motion to speak
[1:31:22] to the motion. Councilor chaloner. Thanks, madam chair. And Council
[1:31:28] recall from last year, when I brought this forward. Staff
[1:31:33] didn't love this. I can tell you they still don't.
[1:31:37] Reluctant was the word. I got back and I understand
[1:31:40] that. But. When I saw. Where we were netting out
[1:31:46] and when I see where we're netting out tonight. We
[1:31:50] don't have the revenue. And when you don't have the
[1:31:54] revenue, you've got to do with your expenses as well.
[1:31:57] And all of our leading indicators are falling at this
[1:32:00] point. And what are we doing. To try to bring
[1:32:06] ourselves into balance. And while I support a lot of
[1:32:10] the things that are in the new budget. The new
[1:32:13] proposed budget. I think we have to take a look
[1:32:16] at those auxiliary things that we're spending on. And much
[1:32:22] of it is in that $36 million purchase, goods and
[1:32:25] services, budget. And take a hard look at it. And
[1:32:30] provide some discipline that way. And. This is. The least
[1:32:35] challenging way to deal with that. Where does that nation
[1:32:38] come from? Well. I spent 40 years in business. Not
[1:32:43] all of them were rosy years. I always spent most
[1:32:45] of my career in technology in the we had some
[1:32:49] pretty tough times, 80s as well. And whenever revenue was
[1:32:53] not going to make the expense line, the expense line
[1:32:56] had to get cut. You had to balance the budget,
[1:32:58] you had to make money. And typically, that's where you
[1:33:01] started first. You avoided going to headcount. Sometimes we had
[1:33:08] to. And I'm not proposing that this evening. At all.
[1:33:17] But. I'm supportive of, for example, of the six positions
[1:33:20] to deal with 911, the benefits of that are going
[1:33:23] to be groundbreaking. So that is it in a nutshell.
[1:33:30] We're in a tough place with our economy. I think
[1:33:33] that we need to swing a little bit harder at
[1:33:36] our operating budget when we look at places to reduce.
[1:33:39] I don't think that we've necessarily looked hard enough. We've
[1:33:43] reduced proposed spending, but we haven't reduced actual spending. And
[1:33:48] that's why I brought it forward. What is my sense
[1:33:51] of optimism about this passing tonight? Low. But I want
[1:33:57] you to know that I was thinking about it. That
[1:34:01] there are ways around this, but. It takes. A little
[1:34:06] creativity. And leadership, quite frankly. And I know there's a
[1:34:13] lot of people in milton right now who are hurting.
[1:34:15] I hear from them. And they're looking to us to
[1:34:20] help them in a very difficult year, which may prove
[1:34:23] to be a couple of difficult years. Thanks. Thanks, councilor
[1:34:27] Chalner, councilor melbo as a secondary. Thank you, madam Chair.
[1:34:32] I agreed to second the motion to get this on
[1:34:35] the floor and wanted to see exactly where we were
[1:34:37] going. But based on the numbers that are in the
[1:34:40] motion and everything else, we're way over that and we're
[1:34:42] not going to hit those numbers. So I don't know
[1:34:45] if the motion is redundant or what. There are a
[1:34:47] lot of areas that. We could be using. To reduce
[1:34:53] the tax burden for our residents. Outside consultants. I believe
[1:34:58] we spend too much money on outside consultants. There's a
[1:35:01] way there. Our facilities, our sports facilities, the art center.
[1:35:06] Can't we make those more efficient and cost effective to
[1:35:09] reduce the cost on taxpayers. Private sector sports centers break
[1:35:15] even or make money for some reason. Our facilities we
[1:35:18] lose $4 million a year. We have a transit system
[1:35:21] that costs $7.7 million a year. That's used by less
[1:35:25] than 2% of our population. That comes out to about
[1:35:29] $3,500 a person arriving. We can buy them each a
[1:35:33] car for less than that. So there are a lot
[1:35:36] of areas, but Unfortunately. I can't see that happening. The
[1:35:41] political will is not there. So. We're already at. Almost.
[1:35:47] 10%. That's as high as I can go. So I'll
[1:35:51] support the budget of the way it stands now, but
[1:35:53] hopefully this will be the end of it. Thank you,
[1:36:00] Councilor malpa. Councilor Jazz is next. Thank you, madam Chair,
[1:36:03] this is a question for Glenn. Glenn, can you tell
[1:36:07] us if I saw the blended rate? But what would
[1:36:10] be the local rate if this was to happen. So
[1:36:14] maybe just quickly before speaking to the rates. One quick
[1:36:16] update. So when we provided the range that's in the
[1:36:18] motion itself up to 1.77. That was based on what
[1:36:24] potential changes could happen at the region. One thing I
[1:36:27] hadn't factored in when helping provide that number was what
[1:36:30] other decisions may have occurred here tonight. So. With the
[1:36:34] two amendments that have been made to date, it would
[1:36:36] be a $2.1 million reduction. In the purchase services and
[1:36:41] goods to achieve the 5% blended. Assuming again that the
[1:36:45] region finalizes at the current number, the ultimate impact of
[1:36:49] this motion won't be able to be fully calculated until
[1:36:52] after the region has gone through their entire process. But
[1:36:54] right now it would be 2.1 million. So on that
[1:36:58] basis, what it would mean at a local level would
[1:37:00] be a 7.55% change in our local budget with that
[1:37:04] $2 million removed, and then the blended would come to
[1:37:07] that 5% number that is the intended target. Thank you,
[1:37:12] madam Chair. And thank you, Glenn. Thank you, councilor. Jazz.
[1:37:15] Next is councilor best. Yes. Thank you, madam Chair. Just
[1:37:20] a question regarding this. I understand. Where councilor Melbourne are
[1:37:24] coming from, but two staff, either the cio or Treasurer,
[1:37:28] the 36 million looking. 2.1. What impact would this have
[1:37:33] and what risks you see in this. I'll feel that
[1:37:37] one first. I see this significant in order to arrive
[1:37:41] at the 36 million, there's already been a number of
[1:37:44] reductions not just in purchase goods and services, but across
[1:37:46] the board in the budget process, some of the specific
[1:37:49] areas that help get us to that million dollar reduction
[1:37:52] we're in areas like the utilities that we're purchasing at
[1:37:54] the facilities at some of the It contracts. So some
[1:37:57] of the very items that are in here. So 2.1
[1:38:00] million out of that 36 when you look at which
[1:38:03] services we're spending that external funding on it's in road
[1:38:07] operations, it's in transit, it's in our facilities. And it's
[1:38:10] in our it is our biggest areas of spend. And
[1:38:13] so to achieve 2.1 it would result in service level
[1:38:16] impacts. I'm confident in saying that even though we haven't
[1:38:19] gone through the exercise yet to identify specifically where we
[1:38:23] would go about that because of service level changes being
[1:38:26] involved. Ultimately, we would bring that back to Council. As
[1:38:29] that's really where service level decisions are best made. Anything
[1:38:33] further, Councilor best. Well, maybe the cio could comment on
[1:38:36] this. Yeah, I would just add. The most important piece
[1:38:39] was the ending to glenn's statement is that we'd be
[1:38:42] looking for counsel to identify those service level cuts. Just
[1:38:48] to inform counsel that to my knowledge that there is
[1:38:51] no more proposed changes at the Regional Council, I don't
[1:38:53] believe anyone's adding or subtracting. So what you see. Being
[1:38:59] proposed. The Regional Council is what's going to come through.
[1:39:03] Fortunately the police are looking at hiring it was a
[1:39:06] 48 new officers. So that's where the major increase is
[1:39:09] going to be. Plus, we also have inflation. I believe.
[1:39:13] Correct hearing from Staff 80% of our budget is due
[1:39:16] to inflation and. Having approved two other budgets recently, a
[1:39:21] lot of these costs aren't going down. We're going to
[1:39:24] be increasing, not decreasing. So looking at some I appreciate
[1:39:29] where councilor Chowner is coming from, but it's going to
[1:39:32] be very difficult on this unless we're looking at some
[1:39:34] major service cuts. Thank you, councilor. Best. Are there any
[1:39:39] other comments or questions on this motion? I am seeing
[1:39:43] none. So I will call the vote now all those
[1:39:45] in favor of this motion. O, councilor chaliner. All those
[1:39:51] in favor of this motion. Please raise your hand. All
[1:39:53] those opposed. Motion fails. With this. Ladies and gentlemen, we
[1:40:03] come to the end of the motions or amendments to
[1:40:06] clause four, A, and I can confirm that all motions
[1:40:11] on the 2024 operating budget of Town and Library, which
[1:40:14] was clause foray are. Now complete. At this point, I'm
[1:40:23] going to go to our cfo to see if he
[1:40:26] can give us a final number where we are in
[1:40:27] the budget, so that all of my Council colleagues. Are
[1:40:32] on the same page on the Budget numbers. Yes. So
[1:40:37] our local change is a 9.88% change. The blended total
[1:40:43] change is 5.93%. The total dollars per 100,000. And this
[1:40:49] is including the estimated regional amount would be $43.60 per
[1:40:54] 100,000. So for the average house of 600,000, it would
[1:40:58] be $261.62. Thank you for that update. Are there any
[1:41:05] other staff members who want to speak to any of
[1:41:09] these items before we proceed. I'm seeing none. I know
[1:41:15] that my colleagues are eager to share their statements on
[1:41:18] the budget that will come very in the near future.
[1:41:22] But we have to go through many more clauses before
[1:41:24] we get to the point. I just wanted to clarify
[1:41:26] that I know how eager my colleagues are. With this,
[1:41:29] we will now move on to clause four, B. And
[1:41:37] this is where councilor best declared a conflict, and you
[1:41:40] can see him sliding way back over there. Clause four
[1:41:44] B States that the 2024 operating budget for Seniors, program
[1:41:49] salaries and benefits in the amount of $39,512 we receive
[1:41:55] a review and any amendments made by Council. Are there
[1:42:01] any motions to be considered in nation to this clause.
[1:42:05] Seeing none. So I'm going to call the vote on
[1:42:10] this. No, there's no vote. Yeah. We are going to
[1:42:12] move on to clause five. Councilor Best is welcome to
[1:42:15] slide right over. Clause Five States that if the actual
[1:42:19] net taxable assessment growth is different than 2.29%, any increase
[1:42:26] in the tax dollars generated from the town's portion of
[1:42:29] assessment growth for 2024 Taxation be transferred to the Tax
[1:42:34] Rate stabilization Reserve, or any. Decrease in tax dollars. Generated
[1:42:40] from the town portion of Assessment Growth for 2024. Taxation
[1:42:45] be funded from the Tax Rate stabilization reserve. And I'm
[1:42:49] pretty sure. I have now read that. Are there any
[1:42:53] motions to be considered in relation to this clause, which
[1:42:57] is clause five? I'm seeing none. I will now move
[1:42:59] on to clause six. Clause Six States that the nonunion
[1:43:05] salary range adjustment for 2024 be approved at a rate
[1:43:08] of 2.1%. Are there any motions to be considered in
[1:43:12] relation to this clause? I'm seeing none. So I'm going
[1:43:15] to move on to clause seven. Clause Seven States that
[1:43:19] the 2025 2026 operating. Forecast for the town, including the
[1:43:24] Library, with a combined net increase in the tax levy
[1:43:28] of 27.1 million as outlined in appendix Five of this
[1:43:32] Report or as potentially revised to be received. And on
[1:43:37] this I do have an amendment to the clause, which
[1:43:39] is a motion moved by Councillor challoner and seconded by
[1:43:43] councilor Marshall. And I'm going to read that motion now.
[1:43:48] That staff be directed to prepare a report for Council
[1:43:50] that outlines alternatives for a multiyear financial strategy for the
[1:43:55] town that can be used as a basis to guide
[1:43:57] future budget processes. And that a Council workshop to discuss
[1:44:01] the alternatives be held in advance of the presentation of
[1:44:04] the report to Council and that the staff report be
[1:44:07] presented to. Council for consideration no later than June 2024,
[1:44:10] and finally, that an annual financial workshop occurred in June
[1:44:15] or July to discuss pertinent financial information. As well as
[1:44:20] facilitate pre budget discussions. I have read the motion. I
[1:44:23] will go now to the mover of the motion. Councilor
[1:44:26] Chaloner. Thanks, madam Chair. I think it's pretty straightforward. I
[1:44:32] just want to thank the cfo, the cao, councilor Marshall
[1:44:36] and councilor tesser dirkson for their leadership in this discussion.
[1:44:40] Thank you, Councilor chandler, Secondary Councilor Marshall. I would agree.
[1:44:43] It's pretty straightforward. Thank you, councilor Marshall, are there any
[1:44:48] comments or questions on this motion. I'm seeing none. So
[1:44:53] I'll call the vote. All those in favor. Motion Passes
[1:44:56] unanimously. Are there any further motions to be considered in
[1:45:01] relation to Clause Seven related to the 2025 2026 Operating
[1:45:05] forecast. I'm seeing no other motions, so I'm going to
[1:45:12] move on to Clause Eight, clause Eight States that the
[1:45:17] transfers to and from reserves and reserve fronts within the
[1:45:20] 2024 Budget, as outlined in appendix Six or as potentially
[1:45:24] revised be received. Are there any motions to be considered
[1:45:27] in relation to this clause. I see none moving on
[1:45:30] to clause nine. Clause Nine States that the milton bia
[1:45:35] budget in the gross amount of $487,675, resulting in a
[1:45:42] net tax levy of 270,990. Dollars as outlined in appendix
[1:45:50] Seven we received for review and any amendments made by
[1:45:54] Council. Are there any motions to be considered in relation
[1:45:57] to this clause. I am seeing none. Okay. So this
[1:46:02] was clause nine. And at this point. I would like
[1:46:07] to say that all motions are complete. And now we
[1:46:10] will move to vote on the motions as revised. And
[1:46:16] in advance of US calling the final vote on the
[1:46:18] motions as amended. I will now ask the cfo for
[1:46:25] an updated slide on where the numbers for the operating
[1:46:28] and capital budget sit. And of course, pursuant to that
[1:46:32] will be the opportunity for my colleagues to share their
[1:46:35] comments and statements. Glenn. So coming up on the screen
[1:46:40] now is a reflection of the figures that we verbally
[1:46:43] spoke about just a few moments ago and we can
[1:46:46] leave the slide up during the comments just so it's
[1:46:48] an easier reference for Council. But as mentioned, it's a
[1:46:52] 9.88% change at the local level and a 5.93% projected.
[1:46:59] Impact at the total level with the other levels of
[1:47:01] government as well, which translates to assessment or. 261 on
[1:47:09] the average household. Thank you, Glenn. I am sure my
[1:47:14] colleagues had a chance to look at the screen, all
[1:47:16] the numbers up there in the graphic. And I will
[1:47:19] now go to my colleagues to see if they have
[1:47:22] any comments or statements. I have Mayor cranz to my
[1:47:25] right, Mr. Mayor, you're absolutely right. The agenda that was
[1:47:32] sent out with the recommendations. I don't see. And of
[1:47:40] course I know it's changed tonight from 9.5 to 9.88,
[1:47:46] and the rest that's in there. How will that be
[1:47:49] incorporated. In the staff recommendation there. And those nine points
[1:47:54] that you've been alluding to I know in the Executive
[1:47:57] Summary, it covers it off, but I want to be
[1:47:59] very clear. Because. It's bottom line that I'm concerned about.
[1:48:05] And again, I think I've made it very clear to
[1:48:07] anybody that wants to listen. But I was never in
[1:48:10] support of 9.5 and certainly never in support now of
[1:48:13] 9.88 or I'm going to round it off at 10%.
[1:48:17] Going around at office. Because there are certain things in
[1:48:22] those nine things that I support. But I don't support
[1:48:26] 9.88. So I'm not suggesting breaking every one of the
[1:48:30] mode again separately and deal with. But bottom line, I
[1:48:33] don't support nine, eight, eight. As an example. We were
[1:48:38] circulated and Glenn alludes to this earlier on this evening.
[1:48:42] Some of the comments from individuals. And these aren't my
[1:48:45] words. They're talking about tax increases as unacceptable. More than
[1:48:51] once. An outrageous. I could probably add other. Actual as
[1:48:58] to what we may be doing here tonight, but I'm
[1:49:00] not going to do that. Again. As you know, madam
[1:49:03] Chair, I signed off. Of the strong mayors issue, and
[1:49:08] the clerk will get to that in just a few
[1:49:10] moments on waiving some of the rights that I could
[1:49:13] have had, but I did reserve the right to change
[1:49:16] my mind at any time. And the clerk knows that
[1:49:19] as well. But it's not my intention to do that.
[1:49:22] I'm a firm believer in majority rules, and that the
[1:49:25] majority of this Council wants to put it up 10%.
[1:49:28] So be it. I won't be supporting that. But other
[1:49:32] than that, I have no thoughts on it. I just
[1:49:35] don't want to be part of. A spend thrift Council.
[1:49:39] I'll make that very clear. Co. Is well aware of
[1:49:42] that of my sentiment. And growing bureaucracy by leaps and
[1:49:48] bounds. In this particular case, 22 additional new people on
[1:49:52] top of what, 600, 700 people that's already here. I
[1:49:56] was never part of that. Never wanted to be part
[1:49:58] of it. Never will be part of growing government. So
[1:50:02] other than that, I have no thoughts. So thank you.
[1:50:05] Thank you, Mr. Merritt. Thank you for sharing your sentiments
[1:50:08] with us. I have councilor Jazz next. Thank you, madam.
[1:50:12] Chair. This might be unorthodox, but I put something together.
[1:50:16] I think this is the right time to state it.
[1:50:17] And the town of milton Worth. Growth unfolds a tale
[1:50:20] of inflation its narrative holds infrastructures embrace services, dance yet.
[1:50:26] The cost of progress, a circumstance. Inflation whispers through the
[1:50:30] bustling streets a reality that municipal balance greets. Taxes rise
[1:50:34] unnecessary tune to fortify foundation under the crescent Moon bridges
[1:50:39] of progress, roads paved in dreams yet the fiscal river
[1:50:42] turbulent. It seems to maintain the heartbeat of the town's
[1:50:45] core taxes ascend a fiscal metaphor for. Schools that blumen
[1:50:50] parts that thrive. Inflation's challenge. They must survive. Town's embrace
[1:50:53] expanding sphere taxes climb a pathway clear and the Echo
[1:50:57] of growth a fiscal verse in milton's heartbeat the people's
[1:51:01] purse inflation's dance a complex song Taxes rise a town
[1:51:06] grows strong. Thank you, councilor jazz. Before I call the
[1:51:14] vote on the clauses, we just deliberated. I would wish
[1:51:18] to look around again and see if any of my
[1:51:21] colleagues have any comments or statements to add. Councilor kolki.
[1:51:26] Thanks, madam Chair. I'll just keep it brief. I'm happy
[1:51:28] of the investments that we're making here. And appreciate all
[1:51:31] those that supported those three motions earlier as well. It's
[1:51:34] an investment in road safety, it's an investment in traffic
[1:51:37] staffing. It's an investment in fire services, amongst the other
[1:51:41] items that are in the budget as it is, I'm
[1:51:43] supportive of the budget and I look forward to again
[1:51:45] in future budgets, just continuing to be the best advocate
[1:51:48] I can be for the community and making investments that
[1:51:50] we need. To get to where we need to be
[1:51:52] by 2051 thank you. Thank you, councilor kalki. Certainly those
[1:51:59] investments have been included in the budget. Mayor krantz. It's
[1:52:05] on the overall budget. Madam Chair, I'm calling for a
[1:52:08] recorded vote on that as well. Thank you. Clerk has
[1:52:12] noted that thank You, Mr. Mayor. I'm seeing none of
[1:52:16] my colleagues have any other comments or statements to add.
[1:52:20] So a recorded vote has been called and I will
[1:52:22] leave it to the clerk to deal with that. So
[1:52:26] with respect to clauses one through nine, excluding item Four,
[1:52:29] B. I see councilor Best has a comment to that.
[1:52:33] I just wanted to make sure you've excluded my conflict.
[1:52:36] Thank you. Yes. Thank you, counselor. Thanks for pointing that
[1:52:40] out. So again, clauses one through nine, excluding four B
[1:52:44] due to the conflict. I would ask all members who
[1:52:48] are in favor of the motion to please stand. In
[1:52:52] favor. I see councilor culky councilor best. Councilor Marshall
[1:53:02] councilor Malbaf councilor tesser dirkson, councilor at Jazz councilor eli.
[1:53:08] Thank you. You. Please be seated. Members opposed. Please stand.
[1:53:12] Opposed. I'm seeing Mayor krantz and councilor Chalanor that motion
[1:53:16] carries. Thank you, madam clerk. We will now call
[1:53:26] the vote on clause B separately. Clause Four B separately.
[1:53:38] It is moved by councilor malbon. Second, by councilor kalki
[1:53:41] that the 2024 operating budget for Seniors, program salaries and
[1:53:45] benefits, and the amount of $39,512 we received for review
[1:53:49] and any amendments made by Council. All those in favor
[1:53:55] of this motion. And that's carried. Thank you. We
[1:54:05] have now finalized all nine clauses, including clause four, B.
[1:54:09] We will move to clause ten. But the clause ten
[1:54:14] will confirm that there are no further amendments for members
[1:54:18] of Council. And I will read clause ten, and then
[1:54:21] I will go to our cfo to add a little
[1:54:23] bit of information to clause Ten for clarification because it
[1:54:26] is a little bit confusing here. Boston that for the
[1:54:33] purposes of the 2024 Budget, the 30 day period referred
[1:54:36] to in subsection six of Ontario Regulation 530. 22 be
[1:54:41] shortened such that it is considered expired at the time
[1:54:45] of Council approval of this Resolution on December 4. 2023,
[1:54:51] Glenn, can you please explain. Yes. So this is a
[1:54:54] new resolution this year, specific for the new legislation. In
[1:54:58] previous years, the last vote would have been a vote
[1:55:00] to approve the entire budget, and the budget process would
[1:55:03] have been complete this year. It was only to approve
[1:55:06] amendments to the proposed budget. There's still the remaining legislative
[1:55:10] timelines. So essentially, with approval of this CL. Clause. And
[1:55:14] especially given that there's no further plans Council meetings between
[1:55:18] now and when the time period would naturally expire. By
[1:55:22] having this vote tonight, it allows us to confirm that
[1:55:25] the period for amendments is finalized and proceed with the
[1:55:27] remaining legislative steps, the next of which would be the
[1:55:31] period the ten day period where the American make vetoes
[1:55:34] Merric. Merrickrantz. Yeah, madam Chair, I've already confirmed with the
[1:55:38] clerk that I'm signing off on this. And again, I
[1:55:42] spoke to it earlier on democracy. Is alive and well
[1:55:45] here this evening, even though I lost hope, my wishes.
[1:55:49] But that's democracy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any
[1:55:54] other further questions of clarification to the cfo on this
[1:55:57] clause from anybody. I'm seeing none. So I'm going to
[1:56:00] call the vote on this. All those in favor of
[1:56:04] clause ten. And that is carried. With the approval of
[1:56:09] this motion. I can announce that Council's period to amend
[1:56:16] the proposed budget, as described in Ontario Regulation 530. 22
[1:56:22] is hereby concluded. And with that members of Council, we
[1:56:25] were going to go on a brief recess and we
[1:56:28] will reconvene shortly. Thank you.
[1:58:45] I would like to request my members of Council colleagues
[1:58:49] that we are back from the recess. We are back
[1:58:55] from the recess and I have just received. The signed
[1:59:01] declaration from the Mayor to shorten the time to veto
[1:59:05] any motions such as the Timeline expires on December. Fourth
[1:59:11] and at this time through the mayor's signing of the
[1:59:15] declaration received by the Town clerk as part of Public
[1:59:18] Record, the 2024 budget for the Town of milton is
[1:59:22] hereby finalized. And with this, we'll move on to our
[1:59:26] regular business items on the agenda. Before me, I have
[1:59:31] staff reports. Urs 58, two, three. Ontario Regulation 28409. It
[1:59:39] is moved by councilor Malbouls and seconded by councilor kalki
[1:59:43] that the compliance report for the expenses excluded from the
[1:59:47] 2024 budget outlined in Reports urs 57. Two, three be
[1:59:52] approved as a requirement of Ontario Regulation 28409, passed under
[1:59:56] the Municipal Act of 2000, and. One. Are there any
[2:00:00] questions or comments to this motion? I'm seeing none. So
[2:00:03] I'm going to call the vote, all those in favor.
[2:00:06] And that passes. With that we move on to the
[2:00:09] bylaw section. I have a motion moved by councilor Malbout.
[2:00:14] Seconded, by councilor kulki that bylaw number nine, one, 2023,
[2:00:18] be read, passed and numbered, and that the Mayor and
[2:00:20] the Town clerk be authorized to sign the set bylaw
[2:00:23] seal it with the seal of the Corporation, and that
[2:00:25] they be engrossed by the bylaw book. Are there. Any
[2:00:32] questions and comments from my colleagues on this and seeing
[2:00:34] none, I'm going to call the vote. All those in
[2:00:36] favor that passes. And with all business concluded for this
[2:00:42] agenda, ladies and gentlemen, this meeting is now adjourned. Thank
[2:00:48] you. Mr. Mayor has a comment. Just before you adjourn.
[2:00:53] I just wanted to thank you, madam Chair, for doing
[2:00:56] a nation job on the budget. It's not an easy
[2:01:03] job. I know that you've been involved with staff on
[2:01:07] getting this whipped into shape for some time. So I
[2:01:10] just want to acknowledge that. And Glenn and all the
[2:01:14] senior staff has taken a lead role on lotus. Hasn't
[2:01:17] been easy and I know staff. I'm working on this
[2:01:19] for many weeks and many months. With that, I take
[2:01:24] the privilege, and this doesn't have to be an open
[2:01:27] session. Of course. But one of your and my colleagues
[2:01:31] is celebrating a very special. Day today. And I'm not
[2:01:34] sure whether you're aware of or not, but I know
[2:01:37] councilor ayjaz has become more mature today because today is
[2:01:43] his birthday. Mayor. It's actually my birthday. Council calculate birthday,
[2:01:48] not councilor Idaz's birthday. He matured a long time ago.
[2:01:55] I still have some work to do. He then as
[2:01:59] well become a little bit more mature. The information that
[2:02:02] I got was councilor. Ijaz so. I just want to
[2:02:07] congratulate councilor coke on becoming more mature as of today.
[2:02:12] I think that refers to becoming a little older as
[2:02:14] well. Councilor Healthy wanted to share a few sentiments. Absolutely.
[2:02:20] Thank you very much for the birthday wish. Much appreciated.
[2:02:24] And thank you for recognizing that I've matured. I appreciate
[2:02:27] that. Mr. Mayor, I can confirm we can all use
[2:02:30] a little bit of maturity here. Thank you. Thank you
[2:02:33] so much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your comments and
[2:02:36] highlighting our colleagues birthday. I have councilor Jazz now wishing
[2:02:40] to speak, yeah, wishing to speak and wishing you happy
[2:02:43] birthday? Had I known earlier, I would have wrote you
[2:02:45] a poem. Thank you, Council Jazz. I would take this
[2:02:50] moment to congratulate our staff, especially our senior staff, our
[2:02:57] CEO, Andrew Sutila, for running a tight ship here. And
[2:03:01] all of our senior management team, all of our commissioners,
[2:03:04] all of your directors. You work so hard. And certainly
[2:03:10] we see that we work with you. And we appreciate
[2:03:13] you all so much and your teams who do all
[2:03:15] of the Daily grind. So thank you for that. And
[2:03:18] special thanks to cfo Glenn Cohen and his partner in
[2:03:23] Crime, Jennifer, who honestly did a wonderful job. Preparing me
[2:03:27] for tonight's meeting. And I appreciate the mayor's kind comments
[2:03:30] of appreciation. Thank you so much all for attending tonight.
[2:03:35] Those of you who are watching online. Thank you for
[2:03:37] watching us. And being part of this meeting. With that,
[2:03:43] I will now declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you.