[1:19] That
[1:57] Morning everybody.
[2:00] Welcome to the committee a whole meeting
[2:02] at 9:01. We will open.
[2:07] See open mic. Is there anybody for open
[2:09] mic this morning?
[2:12] Nothing at all. Okay. Thank you.
[2:14] Adoption of the agenda.
[2:16] Councilor Nielsen.
[2:19] Yes, Mr. Chair. Um, I would like to add
[2:21] an item
[2:23] inspiring governance.
[2:25] And I would appreciate it if it could be
[2:27] uh placed uh just ahead of the uh
[2:31] discussion on council roles and
[2:33] responsibilities as it ties to that. So,
[2:35] I'd ask that it be put 8.01.
[2:38] >> Okay.
[2:39] » Okay.
[2:39] >> In the agenda.
[2:44] » Anything else?
[2:47] If not, I'd like to move the committee
[2:49] approves the committee the whole agenda
[2:51] for August 11th, 2026 as amended.
[2:57] All in favor?
[3:02] [clears throat]
[3:03] Public hearings,
[3:07] delegations,
[3:08] nothing. Agenda review
[3:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the agenda is
[3:20] attached and we would be happy to answer
[3:24] any questions council has or um look at
[3:27] any additions that council would like us
[3:29] to put into future meetings.
[3:32] >> Councelor White and councelor Hy.
[3:37] » Councelor White and councelor Hy.
[3:37] >> Uh, through the chair to administration,
[3:39] » Uh, through the chair to administration,
[3:39] I see the reserve policy coming up for
[3:41] approval at the regular council meeting,
[3:43] having received initial input on July
[3:45] 28th. I would I would if I had enough
[3:50] friends in there on there around the
[3:51] circle. I think we should revisit it at
[3:53] committee of the whole to see what the
[3:56] um there was quite quite a few things
[3:58] that we wanted adjusted in there and I
[4:02] have observed that we're not always
[4:04] great at amending policies on the fly in
[4:06] a regular council meeting and so I think
[4:08] it might serve us well to look at that
[4:11] first in a committee of the whole. Yeah,
[4:13] I um I think that was just left over
[4:15] from the fact that we thought we would
[4:17] have two discussions prior to then and
[4:19] we would be ready for the approval, but
[4:20] because we've brought local improvement
[4:22] forward, that totally makes sense. We'll
[4:23] change that to cow.
[4:24] >> Thank you.
[4:26] » Thank you.
[4:26] Can I keep on?
[4:27] >> Sure.
[4:28] » Sure.
[4:28] >> Okay.
[4:30] » Okay.
[4:30] Um
[4:33] I don't I was expecting to see facility
[4:36] use policy come up on September 22nd. We
[4:39] did we didn't already pass that, did we?
[4:42] >> No, we didn't. And that was part of the
[4:45] » No, we didn't. And that was part of the
[4:45] um the things that we're working on, but
[4:47] with the um leadership change in the
[4:49] division, it's one of the things that
[4:50] we've pushed off a little bit. And so
[4:51] it'll it'll be coming back before the
[4:53] end of the year, but just not as soon as
[4:54] we had originally planned.
[4:56] >> Thank you.
[4:58] » Thank you.
[4:58] And my last inquiry is
[5:03] I appreciate the value of the
[5:07] agenda review item in in committee of
[5:10] the whole, but I was wondering would it
[5:12] be possible to have a three or four
[5:13] meeting outlook instead of just a two
[5:15] meeting outlook?
[5:18] Would that fit on a single page?
[5:21] We could probably get um yeah, we could
[5:25] probably get a couple of months on
[5:26] there. Uh yeah, we'll work on that.
[5:30] >> Thank you,
[5:31] » Thank you,
[5:31] >> councelor Oy.
[5:33] » councelor Oy.
[5:33] >> Um through the chair administration and
[5:35] » Um through the chair administration and
[5:35] I would think this would be for
[5:36] committee of the whole and it would be
[5:37] council organizational meeting procedure
[5:43] as well as council renumeration policy.
[5:49] » [clears throat and cough]
[5:51] » We typically bring back all of your
[5:54] bylaws and policies to the
[5:57] organizational meeting. Is that soon
[5:59] enough for you or
[6:00] >> um I would like to see the procedure for
[6:03] » um I would like to see the procedure for
[6:03] that meeting actually addressed before
[6:05] >> Okay.
[6:12] » Thank you. Anything else?
[6:17] » Before moving forward, I wanted to add
[6:19] something to new business and forgot is
[6:20] it too late now.
[6:24] » You can add um whenever you want in Cal.
[6:29] >> Okay. Have fun. Okay. So, I will add
[6:31] » Okay. Have fun. Okay. So, I will add
[6:32] something to new business as well.
[6:35] Will just be comments. I guess that's
[6:38] really all it is.
[6:41] Uh, anything else on agenda review?
[6:46] » That's new business. So, that would be
[6:49] um see here 11.1.
[6:55] [clears throat]
[7:01] Nothing else moving forward. So, then we
[7:03] will go to staff reports for
[7:05] information.
[7:07] Councelor Nielsen, you are up.
[7:09] >> Thank you.
[7:15] the
[7:17] Thank you, Mr. Chair. The uh my comments
[7:20] this morning are related to uh a topic
[7:24] called inspiring governance.
[7:27] Um
[7:28] and I think it's appropriate before we
[7:30] discuss discuss council roles and
[7:32] responsibilities
[7:34] to examine a little bit this concept of
[7:37] inspiring governance.
[7:42] When we all ran for council, we did so
[7:44] with a number of, I guess, promises and
[7:47] commitments to the community. And then
[7:49] when we sat down and we
[7:52] did work on our strategic plan,
[7:57] we included the item called inspiring
[7:59] governance. And I just like to remind
[8:03] anyone who's listening of some of the
[8:05] words that we put into this particular
[8:07] document.
[8:10] It includes accountability,
[8:13] transparency,
[8:16] building public trust,
[8:19] and improving communication.
[8:23] And I kind of want to talk about those
[8:25] because they all relate to roles and
[8:27] responsibilities later on. When I first
[8:30] decided to make this commentary,
[8:34] I thought I'd maybe it best be placed in
[8:37] uh
[8:38] close session.
[8:41] But then I realized that
[8:44] often times, as we've discussed, an hour
[8:48] or two after we've
[8:51] closed our meeting, information from
[8:53] close session is on social media.
[8:57] So that's pretty transparent. So, I
[8:59] thought, well, maybe another location I
[9:01] could I could make these comments would
[9:03] be to call a press conference on the
[9:05] steps of city hall,
[9:08] but I thought that'd be maybe a little
[9:09] bit
[9:11] true, too dramatic and theatric
[9:14] and maybe even border on being
[9:19] unprofessional.
[9:21] So, I decided the only place I could
[9:23] make these comments is in this room.
[9:26] So to begin with, [clears throat] full
[9:28] disclosure,
[9:31] I'm a little bit
[9:33] angry.
[9:36] I'm somewhat frustrated, certainly
[9:38] annoyed.
[9:45] When we ran for council,
[9:49] we ran for council knowing that it was
[9:51] more than a couple of meetings a month.
[9:56] that there was other obligations tied to
[9:59] it. Some of them are identified in
[10:02] council roles and responsibilities.
[10:05] So for example,
[10:08] we were informed and we agreed to doing
[10:11] attendance reports at the end of every
[10:13] month.
[10:14] The intention of attendance reports was
[10:16] to provide transparency, something we
[10:19] see in inspiring governance,
[10:23] transparency to the public about what
[10:24] each of us is doing every month in and
[10:27] for the city. It was also intended to
[10:30] inform each of us what we're all doing
[10:33] monthly.
[10:36] So, since being elected, nine months
[10:39] have gone by.
[10:41] Each one of us should have submitted
[10:42] nine
[10:44] monthly reports indicating
[10:47] what we've done.
[10:50] Four counselors
[10:55] have hit near perfect in their
[10:57] reporting.
[11:00] We have some counselors who have not
[11:02] reported a single time in nine months. I
[11:05] have no idea what my colleagues are
[11:06] doing and nor does the public know what
[11:08] we are doing.
[11:12] So transparency seems to be lacking a
[11:14] bit.
[11:17] Most recently, we had conversations
[11:19] about business cases.
[11:22] Each year, council is invited to submit
[11:24] business cases for budget consideration.
[11:26] We've also identified budget being one
[11:28] of our most important activities as a
[11:30] council.
[11:32] This year was there was an unusually
[11:34] large number of submitted
[11:37] business cases and administration asked
[11:40] us if we could pair that down so to
[11:43] identify those that we thought were most
[11:45] important so they could do a full
[11:50] cost accounting of what it would cost to
[11:52] do any of those business cases.
[11:56] We were all supposed to give our input
[11:59] into that budgetary process by Friday,
[12:02] July 31st.
[12:05] Four counselors
[12:07] responded to that.
[12:10] Three counselors did not.
[12:16] I guess that fills in builds u public
[12:20] trust.
[12:24] Beginning of every year we are required
[12:30] to do mandatory training.
[12:34] We had wondered mandatory training was
[12:36] respectful workplace.
[12:41] Two counselors have not completed that
[12:43] mandatory training.
[12:47] We're also required to do emergency
[12:49] planning training.
[12:51] To date, three counselors have not done
[12:53] that training
[12:57] and there is training related to sitting
[12:59] on particular boards.
[13:01] Some of that training nine months later
[13:04] has not been completed.
[13:10] Accountability.
[13:14] A number of weeks ago,
[13:17] all of us received an invitation to
[13:19] participate in the Samson Pawa.
[13:25] We've all mentioned that it's important
[13:26] for us to build better relationships
[13:29] with our community neighbors.
[13:33] When
[13:35] days went by, Councelor Billingsley put
[13:37] out a request, communication request
[13:40] asking,
[13:42] "Is anyone going? Don't we need to have
[13:45] representation there? Who's attending?
[13:52] And it took almost three days before
[13:56] most everyone responded.
[13:59] We're not even communicating with
[14:00] ourselves.
[14:05] [clears throat and cough]
[14:06] This is improving communications.
[14:12] Last week I was in a grocery store and
[14:13] was approached by a gentleman who had
[14:15] said he had requested city swag
[14:18] for his group of special Olympians
[14:20] Olympians going to Medicine Hat for a
[14:23] major competition which could lead to
[14:25] inclusion in
[14:29] world special Olympics.
[14:33] He sent the communication
[14:36] and got no reply.
[14:39] sent a second one, got no reply.
[14:42] So, he asked me for some help. Our city
[14:45] manager with one day's notice was able
[14:48] to come up with some city swag so these
[14:50] athletes could take some of Watasma with
[14:52] them to this competition
[14:55] in medicine hat.
[14:59] I hope that we can agree that when we
[15:01] talk about rules and responsibilities
[15:02] later today, we can solve this kind of
[15:05] communication problem.
[15:10] I'm sorry to belabor this one.
[15:13] City council spent a significant amount
[15:15] of time this last year
[15:18] recreating
[15:21] a better evaluation document of our CEO.
[15:26] And in March, which was the deadline we
[15:27] set for ourselves,
[15:30] we completed that task.
[15:33] And based on that evaluation, we offered
[15:35] a new contract to the city manager.
[15:38] However,
[15:40] that evaluation is only complete when we
[15:45] assign goals,
[15:49] improvement goals for our CEO
[15:53] in this process.
[15:56] That's all that was missing.
[15:59] And we had two meetings
[16:03] We spent five and a half hours and
[16:06] identified goals for our CEO.
[16:11] People were tasked with setting up a
[16:13] meeting
[16:15] with the city manager to present those
[16:17] goals
[16:19] and was reminded twice.
[16:23] I guess this is the third reminder
[16:25] because in consultation with the CEO
[16:28] five months later she has not received
[16:30] goals.
[16:39] Ladies and gentlemen, we are 10 months
[16:40] into a 48-month
[16:43] term of office.
[16:49] This report is intended not to
[16:54] embarrass people.
[16:59] We've said we are the only group that
[17:01] can hold each other accountable for what
[17:04] we do around this table.
[17:08] The only other people
[17:10] are the residents and they can't hold us
[17:13] accountable for another three and a half
[17:14] years.
[17:18] But based on what I've just reported, my
[17:20] question to each of us, and I include
[17:22] myself in this conversation,
[17:27] is if this was a voting year,
[17:31] would you vote to put any of us back
[17:33] into office based on the track record
[17:35] we've demonstrated thus far?
[17:39] And my last comment is this.
[17:44] None.
[17:46] Zero of any of these activities that
[17:50] I've reported on have required us to be
[17:53] at or in city hall to do that job.
[17:59] Everyone who has completed these tasks
[18:01] have fulfilled their responsibilities
[18:03] from home.
[18:05] And even yet,
[18:07] we can't get the work done that we
[18:09] promised the community that we would do.
[18:19] When we get into the conversation on
[18:20] roles and responsibilities,
[18:30] if we aren't going to commit
[18:35] to the task that this community has
[18:36] asked us to perform,
[18:40] then I think we can skip 8.1 and simply
[18:43] move on to another agenda item. I stand
[18:45] down, Mr. Chair.
[18:49] » Any comments, questions?
[18:53] Councelor Billingsley.
[18:55] >> Thank you. Through the chair to
[18:57] » Thank you. Through the chair to
[18:57] councelor Nielsen, thank you for your
[18:59] words. I know that it was probably
[19:01] incredibly difficult to bring some of
[19:02] these things forward. Um, some of the
[19:05] things that you talked about, I think,
[19:07] as you say, mesh into the next item on
[19:10] the agenda.
[19:12] And I think that maybe some of the
[19:14] things that you spoke about then we can
[19:18] address
[19:20] in the next item in the agenda.
[19:24] Once again, thank you.
[19:30] Any questions,
[19:32] comments?
[19:37] Right. Moving on to 8.1
[19:40] roles and responsibilities.
[19:44] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um this has been a
[19:46] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um this has been a
[19:46] discussion previously in pnt uh with
[19:49] council and there was um
[19:53] we did consult uh through one of our
[19:56] municipal lawyers to get some
[19:59] information because technically uh the
[20:02] roles and responsibilities of council as
[20:04] outlined in the MGA are very high level.
[20:06] Um but there is opportunities for
[20:09] councils to set um other rules um around
[20:13] how um you show up for each other and
[20:15] you show up for the community. Um and so
[20:19] there there were some examples where
[20:22] communities got very detailed but most
[20:24] of them stay very high level. So this
[20:26] was a little bit new. So we tried to
[20:27] highlight where your mandated um roles
[20:30] and responsibilities were versus some of
[20:32] the discussion that we heard and things
[20:33] that you wanted um further flushed out.
[20:36] with things like responding to emails
[20:38] and um who does what when um that sort
[20:43] of thing. So, we've put some stuff in
[20:45] here. I I know it's not completely
[20:47] exhaustive. Um and there may be some
[20:50] examples from other communities that you
[20:52] would like us to explore. Um this would
[20:55] be I guess an agreement amongst council
[20:57] just you know there's there's not going
[21:00] to be any legislation around something
[21:02] like this but it certainly would be um
[21:05] good for everybody to know how you're
[21:06] going to show up for each other. Um at
[21:08] the end of the report we've linked in
[21:10] some existing policies um that probably
[21:13] um feed into this as well and we're
[21:17] happy to answer any questions and take
[21:19] any feedback for next steps that you
[21:21] want us to explore.
[21:24] Okay. Any questions? Councelor
[21:26] Billingsley.
[21:26] >> Thank you. Uh through the chair to
[21:28] » Thank you. Uh through the chair to
[21:28] council. Um going through this document
[21:32] over the last few days
[21:35] um and then taking a look at other
[21:37] municipalities. I'm wondering if there
[21:40] isn't
[21:42] um
[21:45] thoughts I guess of getting a little bit
[21:48] more detailed. Um and actually
[21:51] specifically saying the responsibility
[21:54] of council is this or of the mayor is
[21:58] that. Um the only problem is because
[22:01] there is no code of conduct. um there's
[22:04] not a whole lot of or else and that that
[22:08] concerns me. But if we put in what the
[22:11] responsibilities are and then once the
[22:13] code of conduct is brought forward by um
[22:17] the provincial government, it could tie
[22:19] back into there and that could be the or
[22:22] what. But I think it's really important
[22:24] because of some of the things that
[22:26] council neielsen brought up in his um
[22:29] thoughts earlier um that we write it
[22:33] down of what actually our
[22:34] responsibilities are and not just high
[22:37] level like you shall
[22:40] do a committee report you shall do
[22:43] training you shall
[22:46] and I think that that's very important
[22:48] unfortunately like I say there is no
[22:52] what happens happens if you don't. But
[22:54] that's not something we can control.
[22:57] So that's my thoughts on this.
[23:01] >> Anyone else?
[23:03] » Anyone else?
[23:03] Councelor Nielsson then councelor
[23:05] Alberly.
[23:07] >> Thank you. um to that point
[23:11] » Thank you. um to that point
[23:11] much of what I talked about in my
[23:13] soliloquy
[23:15] um spoke about communication
[23:19] and to councelor Billingsy's point I I
[23:22] think that
[23:24] we should be capturing in here some
[23:27] expectations
[23:29] relative to communication
[23:32] um
[23:34] and I don't know where it falls I don't
[23:36] know it falls under
[23:38] a separate heading.
[23:42] Um,
[23:44] but just as we as a council expect our
[23:46] city administration to be be responding
[23:49] to issues and questions and emails
[23:51] within 48 hours,
[23:54] I believe we should be holding ourselves
[23:55] to the same standard if we expect that
[23:57] from from our administration.
[24:01] I believe that we should uh respond to
[24:03] emails and texts within 48 hours.
[24:09] I'm going to change this a little bit
[24:11] and to councelor Billingsy's point about
[24:14] u expectations and maybe this is under
[24:17] mayor's responsibilities.
[24:25] I'd like to see three items added to
[24:27] under mayor's responsibilities.
[24:29] Number one is respond to emails and
[24:31] texts from the community within 48
[24:34] hours.
[24:36] with a CC to council so we know that
[24:38] it's gone.
[24:40] That does not
[24:42] take any of us off the hook from
[24:44] responding to the emails if we are
[24:46] identified in those emails, but ensures
[24:49] that
[24:51] a member of public or the a business
[24:53] person trying to reach out to the city
[24:56] will get a response from the mayor
[24:57] within 48 hours and subsequently may get
[25:00] other responses from counselors.
[25:04] Also under the same heading,
[25:07] I'd like to see that the mayor has some
[25:09] responsibility for coordinating council
[25:11] attendance at invited events
[25:15] so that when we get invited to events um
[25:18] like the pow-wow or speaking at the
[25:20] chamber meeting or any other function
[25:25] that the mayor makes sure
[25:29] that there is council representation.
[25:32] either through himself or he organizes
[25:37] to his best of his ability to ensure
[25:39] that someone will be there representing
[25:40] the city
[25:45] and also under mayor's responsibilities
[25:50] respond to council and CAO emails and
[25:52] texts also within 48 hours.
[26:04] And my last comment on communication is
[26:06] I believe
[26:10] first and third responsibility
[26:13] that I've asked to give to the mayor
[26:16] also be assigned to members of council
[26:19] that we with we respond to emails and
[26:22] texts of the committee within 48 hours
[26:24] and we also respond to emails and texts
[26:28] from our council colleagues and the CEO
[26:31] within 48 hours of receiving them.
[26:44] Yeah, sorry.
[26:45] >> Okay, councelor. Okay, go ahead.
[26:47] » Okay, councelor. Okay, go ahead.
[26:47] >> Yeah, just to um councelor Neielson
[26:50] » Yeah, just to um councelor Neielson
[26:50] talked about from uh emails and texts
[26:52] from the CEO. Could we possibly take a
[26:55] look at that being administration
[26:57] instead? Because there are times when
[26:59] some of SLT may send a direct message.
[27:02] In fact, it did happen earlier late last
[27:05] week that came from someone from SLT had
[27:09] asked uh a specific question to council
[27:13] or to the mayor.
[27:14] >> Absolutely. I you know when I say CEO, I
[27:17] » Absolutely. I you know when I say CEO, I
[27:17] guess I include leadership team, but I
[27:19] appreciate the the clarity.
[27:22] Councelor Irely then councelor Hy.
[27:25] >> Uh thank you Deputy Mayor Elder. Um
[27:29] » Uh thank you Deputy Mayor Elder. Um
[27:29] through the chair council I don't
[27:30] disagree with anything that councelor
[27:32] Nielsen has said and
[27:36] I'm really
[27:38] I perform much better if I have
[27:40] deadlines. So I think everything that
[27:42] you've said so far this morning um is
[27:45] good for me. My concern with
[27:50] going too non- high level, if that is
[27:53] the way I want to refer to it, is that
[27:56] at what point do we stop adding to this
[28:00] list and and that's not meant to be a
[28:03] criticism. It's just more
[28:06] a question of
[28:08] are we at a point where
[28:12] and this is to all a council. This isn't
[28:13] just councelor Nelson who has spoken.
[28:15] Are are we at a point where
[28:19] we need to pick these things out to
[28:23] provide inspiring governance for oursel
[28:25] because we're in a place that
[28:29] we're starting to flounder or not even
[28:31] starting have been flound floundering.
[28:33] And does this document
[28:37] truly need to be much longer as a
[28:40] working document for us
[28:43] or is it just these very few things that
[28:46] we want to do make sure are
[28:49] accomplished? I think that's the end of
[28:51] my comment. Thank you,
[28:53] >> Council Oily. Then Mayor Brinkle.
[28:56] » Council Oily. Then Mayor Brinkle.
[28:56] >> Um through the chair to council on
[28:58] » Um through the chair to council on
[28:58] administration. I agree with all the
[29:00] points made. I had several additions
[29:02] that would go in here as far as
[29:03] attendance reports, committee reports,
[29:05] training, and while I don't disagree
[29:07] with councelor Alberly, what I guess I
[29:10] would say is that we're already seeing
[29:13] that
[29:15] what we should be doing is not being
[29:17] done. And so
[29:20] while we cannot at this point hold um
[29:24] other
[29:26] council members to a fire of any kind
[29:29] because the MGA or the provincial
[29:31] government has taken that away from us
[29:32] in this yet to give us something new to
[29:35] go by. If it's on a piece of paper, I
[29:38] guess for me at least I can say you
[29:40] agreed to this. It went from you shall
[29:43] to you will. And if it's as simple as
[29:46] that, then I guess this document may
[29:48] have to be longer than it is because we
[29:50] are certainly missing the mark on many
[29:52] many things that we said we would do and
[29:54] we should be doing. Uh my next point is
[29:57] is this something better served in
[29:59] having a meeting where we can all sit
[30:01] down and go over this instead of trying
[30:04] to do it peace meal here in uh cow.
[30:11] Mayor Bronco.
[30:14] » Thank you, Councelor Elder. Um, I
[30:18] [clears throat] agree one. First of all,
[30:19] I agree with councelor Billingsley.
[30:22] The must believe we should have that in
[30:25] in place. We must do this
[30:28] accountability. I believe in that. I uh
[30:33] agreed to councelor Nielsen's u
[30:38] what he has brought up
[30:41] but I have a couple questions. one on a
[30:45] 48 hour response. Does that mean when
[30:47] we're on weekends? Is that 48 hours
[30:50] working days or weekends? Because some
[30:52] of us do spend our time with our
[30:55] families on weekends, tournaments,
[30:58] parties, weddings. Does that mean if we
[31:01] get something
[31:04] on uh on a Friday night, we have to have
[31:07] it done by Sunday if we're not near or
[31:10] we're on holidays. So, especially
[31:14] weekends or long weekends, are we saying
[31:17] 48 hours working days? So, so we need
[31:21] some clarification on that. And my other
[31:24] question is looking through the mayor,
[31:28] it says issue certificates for residents
[31:30] birthdays, weddings.
[31:34] Is that really part of our job to give
[31:36] certificates on birthdays and weddings?
[31:40] There's a lot of people who have
[31:41] birthdays in our community, 13,000.
[31:45] So, is that a clerical error? Should
[31:48] that be removed from there? So, some
[31:50] some u
[31:54] some stuff we should look at. I do agree
[31:57] with councelor Hoy. We need to sit down
[32:00] and really pick and choose
[32:04] what we what we want to put down on
[32:07] this. and uh
[32:10] and bring a piece of paper together that
[32:12] we agree to. Thank you,
[32:16] >> Councelor Billingsley.
[32:19] » Councelor Billingsley.
[32:19] >> Thank you. Um to the chair and I guess
[32:22] » Thank you. Um to the chair and I guess
[32:22] to council in regards to the the
[32:24] birthdays or the proclamations,
[32:26] um I'm going to guess that probably not
[32:28] all 13,000 people are going to be um
[32:30] once a year coming in and asking for a
[32:32] certificate for their birthday. I know I
[32:34] certainly won't be. Um, but I think that
[32:37] if someone's celebrating a milestone,
[32:40] whether it's a 100th birthday, whether
[32:42] it's a 50th wedding anniversary or
[32:43] anything like that, that um that we
[32:46] celebrate these things in our community.
[32:48] And I think it is important that we um
[32:51] make note of these things and like I
[32:53] say, celebrate these things. Um I really
[32:56] don't think we're going to have very
[32:57] many requests for um seventh birthdays
[33:00] or things such as that or someone's 59th
[33:03] birthday.
[33:05] So, I'm okay with leaving it in there.
[33:08] >> Any other questions? We've got uh Sue
[33:11] » Any other questions? We've got uh Sue
[33:11] and then councelor Aberly.
[33:13] >> Uh thank you. Just to clarify, that was
[33:16] » Uh thank you. Just to clarify, that was
[33:16] taken directly from an existing council
[33:18] policy. So, if you don't want that in
[33:20] the policy, it's the authority of the
[33:22] mayor. Um obviously council can bring
[33:25] that forward and make changes to it.
[33:28] >> Councelor Arley.
[33:30] » Councelor Arley.
[33:30] >> Uh thank you, sir. [clears throat]
[33:32] » Uh thank you, sir. [clears throat]
[33:32] through the chair to council.
[33:36] Two questions and the first I'm going to
[33:39] go to the announcements or the letters
[33:43] for whatever. Um
[33:48] I agree that the these are the important
[33:50] things. These are the small celebrations
[33:52] and that's part of what community is and
[33:55] building a community to which you feel
[33:58] connected.
[33:59] Uh, and then to the 48 hours return. And
[34:04] I am
[34:06] as guilty, if not guiltier, on many
[34:08] things as to whether or not I read my
[34:11] email. I'm pretty good with text, but
[34:13] email sometimes gets a little bit
[34:17] um, doesn't matter. Email isn't
[34:22] as in my face as it used to be. And I
[34:26] think that
[34:28] while
[34:29] our city administration works Monday to
[34:32] Friday weeks, we do not work Monday to
[34:34] Friday. And a request that comes in
[34:38] Friday night to be answered by Sunday
[34:40] evening is a fair ask.
[34:45] And at no different than if the city
[34:49] cannot do it, administration cannot
[34:52] answer the question or the text or the
[34:54] whatever. The person who has made the
[34:58] question or sent that is told we will
[35:01] not be able to get back to you until. So
[35:03] at least it's a 48hour
[35:05] window in which somebody has said
[35:10] I've received your message. I will get
[35:12] back to you as soon as I can or in that
[35:15] sense. So I'm game for the 48 hours.
[35:20] >> Okay. Anyone else? I do have a couple
[35:23] » Okay. Anyone else? I do have a couple
[35:23] questions.
[35:26] I agree with pretty much everything
[35:27] that's been said. I just need some
[35:29] clarity on something. But I I would like
[35:30] to
[35:32] go back to what councelor Hy said where
[35:34] we just get together as a group and and
[35:36] get this cleaned up. That would be
[35:38] great.
[35:39] My next comment or question would be
[35:42] just clarification. So we get
[35:47] emails to us. My understanding is
[35:52] we were not to respond to that. We were
[35:54] to send it to the CEO.
[35:57] So now I'm looking for
[36:00] clarification. Do you want us to respond
[36:03] or do you want us to send it and forward
[36:06] it to the CEO all the time? But that's
[36:08] where I'm looking for the clarity.
[36:13] » Uh thank you. For my part, I'm thinking
[36:16] specifically to
[36:22] when we are sent an email from somebody
[36:24] that is asking specifically for
[36:27] something. So if
[36:29] um and I'll use just because I have not
[36:33] done my emergency management training
[36:35] and so I totally feel called out and
[36:37] it's all good. Um if if I when I receive
[36:40] that email instead of thinking to
[36:42] myself, oh do it, I respond with
[36:45] received thank you within 48 hours. If a
[36:49] email comes directly to or yes, if an
[36:53] email comes to
[36:56] Mayor and counsel,
[36:58] we have 48 hours to respond as mayor and
[37:04] counsel or forward it if it is questions
[37:07] that we cannot answer if I'm being asked
[37:10] a personal question. I know if I get a
[37:13] letter sent to Karen Aberly,
[37:16] I respond to that email. Maybe it's
[37:19] having to find more information for
[37:21] them. Maybe it's directing them. I this
[37:25] is not my job and this these are the
[37:27] people who look after it. Those sorts of
[37:29] things. So that so the both
[37:31] administration or other people wanting
[37:35] to contact counselors know that we're
[37:38] getting their emails.
[37:40] and for administration when they're
[37:42] sending us things to know that we have
[37:45] received it. Does that help
[37:47] >> a little bit? Yeah, we can clarify.
[37:49] » a little bit? Yeah, we can clarify.
[37:49] Thank you, Councelor Billingsley.
[37:54] » I think that it's um
[37:57] important that um we don't just
[38:01] pass the information off for somebody
[38:03] else to respond. Um if somebody's asking
[38:06] us about a specific operation and since
[38:10] we're governance that's really not us
[38:12] that certainly would should be passed on
[38:13] to um administration. But if someone's
[38:16] saying
[38:18] my taxes are too high or I need some
[38:22] pins for um the Special Olympics, um
[38:28] that's something that we should be
[38:29] answering and it isn't passed on to
[38:31] somebody else to answer questions.
[38:37] Thank you for your email. Um I will find
[38:39] out uh who's in charge of the pins and I
[38:42] will let you know and then from there I
[38:44] mean you
[38:46] Then from there you would get a hold of
[38:47] administration, find out who is the pin
[38:49] keeper
[38:51] and then respond back to
[38:55] the person who sent the email would be
[38:57] in my opinion the proper procedure.
[39:01] >> Okay. Anything else?
[39:04] » Okay. Anything else?
[39:04] >> I do.
[39:04] » I do.
[39:04] >> Mayor Bronco,
[39:07] » Mayor Bronco,
[39:07] >> thank you. Um,
[39:09] » thank you. Um,
[39:09] still some more clarification. So on the
[39:12] 48 hours uh hypothetical question
[39:18] I go camping and I go with my family and
[39:22] I'm out of range that I can't get uh
[39:28] I can't get how would you say it?
[39:32] It won't come in till I hit the area
[39:35] with Tasco and that could be Sunday
[39:37] night.
[39:39] What do we do? And and our our policy uh
[39:43] I says that we respond,
[39:48] but our respond is to phone Sue
[39:52] on a weekend and say, "Can you look at
[39:54] this or do we do it Monday?"
[39:58] If public, if the city staff is not
[40:01] working Sunday,
[40:04] Saturday or Sunday, they work five days
[40:07] a week.
[40:09] Why would we burden more city staff and
[40:12] time and our CEO who's already got
[40:14] enough on her plate? Why would we keep
[40:17] phoning her, bombarding you with
[40:20] information until Monday?
[40:26] » Councelor Aberly, then councelor
[40:28] Nielsen.
[40:29] >> Uh, thank you through the chair to Mayor
[40:31] » Uh, thank you through the chair to Mayor
[40:31] Bronco. I appreciate that there are
[40:35] always circumstances where this
[40:39] expectation of council andor mayor is
[40:43] not feasible. So I would think sir you
[40:48] have six deputy mayors depending on
[40:51] every two months if you were going to be
[40:53] in an area where you would not be able
[40:56] to respond that is the role of the
[40:58] deputy mayor is to be able to or not be
[41:01] able to but to fulfill your duties if
[41:03] you are not around. Um,
[41:08] so that becomes that deputy mayor's job.
[41:10] And also again, I'll say back to if it
[41:13] is something that we need specifically
[41:15] from administration, that is a quick
[41:18] text or email that says, "Thank you for
[41:21] your email.
[41:23] I will get the information from you when
[41:26] administration is at work." So, it's not
[41:29] meant to be an ownorous job on us to
[41:32] find all the information immediately and
[41:36] make anybody else work when it's not
[41:38] their work hours. It's just meant to be
[41:44] it's not even common courtesy, but
[41:45] that's the only word I can think of to
[41:47] just say that yes, we've received your
[41:49] email and here is the timeline for which
[41:53] you can expect to hear back from me.
[41:58] Okay, Councelor Nielsen.
[42:01] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[42:03] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[42:03] To Jo Joe's point, I would even be
[42:06] prepared to say two business days
[42:09] because that's still a far cry better
[42:11] than how we've been performing to date.
[42:15] When I'm reporting that people aren't
[42:16] even getting any answers back within
[42:18] days or weeks or months, I guess two
[42:21] business days is a huge improvement. I
[42:24] could live with two business days.
[42:27] Okay. So, I think what I'm getting out
[42:28] of this, maybe we should have a little
[42:31] meeting at some point in time. We can
[42:33] clean this up and we can move on from
[42:35] where we are right now. Everybody okay
[42:37] with that?
[42:38] >> I I have another question.
[42:40] » I I have another question.
[42:40] >> Okay.
[42:41] » Okay.
[42:41] >> If I may to councelor
[42:44] » If I may to councelor
[42:44] Aberly, uh, so your suggestion, you keep
[42:47] saying we have time to notify council.
[42:51] So
[42:53] sometimes,
[42:56] and this is what I'm having a conflict
[42:59] with. So if I want to go camping, I have
[43:01] to notify
[43:03] the staff or
[43:06] council that I'm going away for a
[43:07] weekend camping or go someplace with my
[43:11] wife, I have to notify you that I'm
[43:13] doing that. Is that what you're asking?
[43:18] » Uh, thank you, sir. I do think that if
[43:20] you were in a position where you were
[43:23] going to be out of contact for longer
[43:25] than out of contact Yep. for longer than
[43:28] 48 hours that letting somebody know is
[43:35] reasonable. I I I'm not talking I'm
[43:38] going away for the day and there might
[43:39] not be cell service or internet service.
[43:42] It's it is the extended times where
[43:46] there could be something there could be
[43:48] an emergency even where
[43:54] the mayor may have to make an immediate
[43:56] decision. And if that is not
[44:00] if you are not accessible at the time,
[44:02] all I'm asking is that at at the very
[44:04] least your deputy mayor knows that they
[44:07] need to
[44:09] be a little extra on call and that's how
[44:12] we work together.
[44:16] » Great. Is that good?
[44:19] There's always going to be an exception
[44:20] to this, but um I think we can get
[44:23] together. We'll have a meeting and we'll
[44:26] figure this out.
[44:28] Council Nielson,
[44:30] >> just last comment. I your discretion. Go
[44:33] » just last comment. I your discretion. Go
[44:33] ahead.
[44:36] There was a comment made earlier and I
[44:38] apologize. I don't recall who made the
[44:40] comment with regard to um
[44:44] currently there's no there's no
[44:45] sanctions in place in terms of holding
[44:47] ourselves accountable. So, we have to
[44:49] hold ourselves accountable. The other
[44:51] piece of this though is there will be at
[44:53] some point I think Sue said there will
[44:56] be a code of conduct that comes from the
[44:57] government and that's also what holds us
[45:00] accountable and so some of the detail
[45:02] that we put in here allows us to hold
[45:06] each other accountable. The less the
[45:08] more ambiguous this document is
[45:12] I believe the harder it is to hold us
[45:15] accountable.
[45:18] Hey, councelor Billingsley. And then
[45:19] we're going to move on.
[45:20] >> Okay. Thank you. Um,
[45:24] » Okay. Thank you. Um,
[45:24] part of my new, I guess, responsibility
[45:26] is is MCMC, Midsize Mayor's Caucus, and
[45:31] this conversation is not totally unique
[45:33] to WTA. Um many of the um mayors have
[45:38] were talking about uh taking a look at
[45:40] the council renumeration policy which
[45:43] kind of ties back into here because
[45:45] there is no um sanctions or whatifs. Um
[45:50] they tie it to
[45:52] I won't say penalizing but not getting
[45:55] paid because you're not doing the work
[45:57] that you're been elected to fulfill. So
[46:02] that is something that we may want to
[46:04] take a look at because other
[46:05] municipalities certainly are doing that.
[46:07] They're they're holding each other
[46:10] accountable through. Okay,
[46:14] great. Thank you. 8.2 policy review.
[46:25] » There you go. Perfect.
[46:30] Hello.
[46:31] I'm always guessing if this is on.
[46:33] Hello, council. So, I'm here today
[46:36] because uh policy C 0 no co00007
[46:42] handling handling of a anonymous
[46:44] frivolous or vexacious complaints and
[46:46] inquiries was approved in 2022 and as
[46:49] per this policy its review cycle is
[46:52] every four years. So, we were we are up
[46:55] at that four years. So, I'm presenting
[46:58] it to you today to ask if council has
[47:00] any feedback on any revisions or updates
[47:03] they feel the policy needs. At this
[47:05] time, administration is not recommending
[47:09] or sees the needs for any revisions or
[47:12] updates. Um this policy was established
[47:16] um as per best uh best practices
[47:22] um with the procedures and industry
[47:24] standards. Um and it ensures that
[47:28] complaints and inquiries are handled in
[47:29] a fair and impartial manner while also
[47:32] protecting the city by limiting
[47:33] anonymous, frivolous and or vexacious
[47:35] complaints. Complaints of this nature um
[47:39] specifically need to be addressed
[47:40] because they often require
[47:42] disproportionately more resources to
[47:44] address than valid complaints or
[47:45] inquiries. Um and this can in include
[47:49] increased employee time or money for
[47:52] investigations if they are required. Um
[47:54] this is because complaints that fall
[47:56] under this policy are defined as
[47:58] complaints that [sighs]
[48:00] um
[48:02] they concern an issue which employees
[48:04] have already investigated and inter
[48:06] determined to be groundless. Um they
[48:09] bring up a issue
[48:12] repeatedly in which an investigation was
[48:15] already done and handled. Um they try to
[48:18] circumvent circumvent the standard
[48:21] handling process of complaints.
[48:24] um they try to go through multiple
[48:25] different employees to get certain
[48:27] answers or they just don't like the
[48:29] answer they received. Um so that's why
[48:31] they take up disproportionately more
[48:33] time. [sighs] Um
[48:37] yeah, so this policy in and of itself
[48:39] also has an internal procedure that also
[48:42] guides the conduct to ensure that all of
[48:44] these all all of these complaints are
[48:47] well defined in terms of what
[48:49] constitutes as a complaint under this
[48:51] policy and then also the procedure for
[48:53] dealing with it.
[48:56] >> Any councelor Nielson? Thank you.
[48:59] » Any councelor Nielson? Thank you.
[48:59] I guess the only um consideration I
[49:02] would ask and again uh it's one voice at
[49:05] the table so I'd need three friends at
[49:07] some point um
[49:12] is that often times we are in the public
[49:16] as members of council and we're and
[49:19] we're approached by somebody who wants
[49:22] to have a conversation with us about a
[49:25] concern they have with the city and
[49:26] they've sent complaints and nothing's
[49:28] happened and all the rest of it. Um,
[49:32] and my concern is
[49:35] the nonresponse could be the very person
[49:37] that I'm talking to complaining that
[49:39] they haven't received a response and me
[49:42] getting into a conversation with them.
[49:44] Whereas, if I had that information, I
[49:46] would simply say, "I'm sorry, your
[49:48] response is has not been responded to
[49:50] because it falls under this category."
[49:53] Because I've then been informed about
[49:55] it. And it would save that person some
[49:57] time. would save me time uh in terms of
[50:00] entering into a conversation that really
[50:02] isn't going to go anywhere. So, I guess
[50:05] the only provision I guess I'm saying
[50:06] here is that if our administration is is
[50:09] not responding to vexacious and
[50:13] frivolous comments that we at least be
[50:16] notified of it so we can head it off if
[50:18] we happen to be approached in the
[50:21] community.
[50:22] >> Totally. As per the internal directive,
[50:24] » Totally. As per the internal directive,
[50:24] the final step of this uh the procedure
[50:26] in terms of handling these complaints is
[50:29] that council is informed of any of these
[50:31] complaints that are received in close
[50:33] session.
[50:33] >> That's part of procedures. Yes.
[50:35] » That's part of procedures. Yes.
[50:35] >> Okay. Thank you,
[50:36] » Okay. Thank you,
[50:36] >> councelor Hy.
[50:38] » councelor Hy.
[50:38] >> Sorry, my mic just fell off. Um through
[50:41] » Sorry, my mic just fell off. Um through
[50:41] the chair, this is actually to
[50:43] administration and it's just a general
[50:44] question. We see these policies come up
[50:47] uh for review. Is there a procedure or
[50:49] process in place so we know when they're
[50:52] updated? How is that tracked?
[50:56] >> I got I got it. Um we Jackie is actually
[50:59] » I got I got it. Um we Jackie is actually
[50:59] developing out um an entire list of
[51:02] policies, bylaws, directives, and we're
[51:04] bringing them forward. Um
[51:07] several of them are well beyond when
[51:10] they should have been brought forward.
[51:11] And so, um, we've been internally
[51:14] discussing, do we bring them forward in
[51:16] batches by department or just start
[51:18] tackling the most important ones first?
[51:21] Um, Jackie's gone for a couple of weeks,
[51:22] but when she gets back, it's one of the
[51:24] things that's on her list with her team
[51:25] to prioritize to figure out how we're
[51:28] going to get the rest of these in front
[51:29] of council. And then once we have that
[51:30] schedule, there's going to be an
[51:32] automatic bring forward date that
[51:34] triggers for us so that we know we need
[51:35] to bring each one forward.
[51:37] >> Perfect. Because that's exactly what I
[51:38] » Perfect. Because that's exactly what I
[51:38] noticed that some of them are
[51:39] significantly outdated. Thank you.
[51:44] >> I guess I'd have one question.
[51:46] » I guess I'd have one question.
[51:46] [clears throat]
[51:48] You asked for any updates or changes. Is
[51:50] there anything that you see that would
[51:53] be needed to change in here? You're the
[51:55] ones that deal with this more. So,
[51:57] >> not at this time.
[51:58] » not at this time.
[51:58] >> Okay.
[52:01] » Okay.
[52:01] Any other questions?
[52:04] Thank you.
[52:09] Okay. Moving on. 8.3
[52:13] inter intergovernmental affairs policy.
[52:23] » Good morning, council. Uh my name is
[52:26] Karen Body. I'm the intergovernmental
[52:28] affairs coordinator and executive
[52:29] assistant for the city of Watasquin. Um
[52:32] I was just here in July to review um our
[52:36] policy with council. Um some of the
[52:38] discussions that we had um was adding
[52:40] the de the definition of administration.
[52:43] Uh further clarified expectations of
[52:45] procedures and we had a little bit of a
[52:47] discussion of um what it would look like
[52:50] um if we included outside agencies um in
[52:54] this policy and just kind of beef that
[52:55] up a little bit. So, um I'm working with
[52:58] our city's consultant on this item
[53:01] currently and later on when we discuss
[53:03] our government relations plan um in
[53:06] close session. Um I'll be able to get a
[53:09] little bit more into details with that
[53:11] as well. So, that is my update for this
[53:13] report at this time. Uh if you have any
[53:16] questions, I'm open to feedback.
[53:20] » Councelor Oyle.
[53:22] >> Thank you through the chair to uh
[53:24] » Thank you through the chair to uh
[53:24] Kieran. I just have one question and
[53:27] it's on page 16 2.1 and D it says inform
[53:31] CEO of meetings and all interactions. Um
[53:35] what does it exactly say here? Inform
[53:37] the city manager of meetings or
[53:39] communications with senior government
[53:40] officials to support coordination,
[53:42] briefing and follow-up.
[53:45] Are we literally talking about all? I
[53:47] just want it to be very clear. So, if I
[53:49] have a general conversation with our
[53:51] local MLA at a coffee shop and anything
[53:55] city-wise is brought up, that should be
[53:57] brought to the CEO. Am I correct?
[53:59] >> Um, through the chair to uh councelor
[54:01] » Um, through the chair to uh councelor
[54:01] Hoy, yes, that would be our preference.
[54:04] Uh, if that is possible, it is always
[54:06] nice to know when we are building uh
[54:08] relationships with our MLAs or just any
[54:11] uh members of the provincial government
[54:12] or local government. Uh it just helps us
[54:14] to keep track and and it's good to know
[54:16] that we do get to have some facetime uh
[54:18] with our MLAs. Um sometimes that's very
[54:20] rare for some municipalities and we're
[54:22] pretty lucky to have our MLA um um that
[54:27] we have. So yes, anytime that we do hear
[54:30] um that would be great. Perfect. Thank
[54:32] you so much,
[54:34] >> Councelor White.
[54:39] » Thank you. through the chair to Karen in
[54:41] the definition
[54:42] >> microphone on
[54:44] » microphone on
[54:44] >> it is sorry
[54:45] » it is sorry
[54:45] >> through the chair to Karen uh regarding
[54:48] » through the chair to Karen uh regarding
[54:48] the definitions I had a question
[54:51] regarding the term council
[54:55] what's written says means a duly elected
[54:59] member of the city of council but as I
[55:03] read the policy it generally is looks
[55:07] like it's referring to council as a
[55:09] whole
[55:10] >> is is the intention in the definition to
[55:14] » is is the intention in the definition to
[55:14] be individual counselors or council as a
[55:17] whole.
[55:19] >> That's an excellent question.
[55:21] » That's an excellent question.
[55:21] >> Maybe maybe it could be both. Maybe both
[55:23] » Maybe maybe it could be both. Maybe both
[55:23] could be defined or or the definition
[55:26] could be refined to clarify.
[55:27] >> Okay, I can I'll take this back and take
[55:29] » Okay, I can I'll take this back and take
[55:30] a look and see what the other policies
[55:32] uh say if it's repetitive throughout all
[55:34] or if it's just for this one. I can make
[55:36] sure it's uh at least standardized
[55:38] across all of our policies.
[55:48] » Any other questions?
[55:53] » Thank you. Appreciate that.
[55:59] » So 8.4 Four, quarterly financial report
[56:02] as of June 2026.
[56:15] » Good morning, council. My name is BC.
[56:17] I'm the acting finance manager and I'm
[56:21] here to present the quarter 2 update,
[56:24] financial update. Um, and this report
[56:27] provides a media overview of the city's
[56:30] 2026 operating results by comparing the
[56:33] approved operating budget with actual
[56:36] activity from January 1 to June 30.
[56:40] Because June 30 marks the halfway point
[56:42] of the year, the 50%
[56:45] benchmark would be a useful reference.
[56:48] However, some revenues and expenses are
[56:50] timing related and will be recorded
[56:52] later in the year. As of June 30, the
[56:56] city reported an overall net operating
[56:59] surplus of approximately $13.5 million.
[57:04] Revenues totaled approximately $33
[57:06] million, which is 65% of the budget,
[57:10] while expenses totaled approximately
[57:14] $19.5 million, which is equivalent to
[57:17] 38.4% of the budget. Overall, the city
[57:21] is in a favorable position at the end of
[57:23] the second quarter.
[57:26] Revenue exceeds the midyear benchmark
[57:28] largely because the 2026 property taxes
[57:31] were levied in June. other revenues such
[57:34] as the LG FF operating grant, annual
[57:38] enforcement grant, intermunicipal
[57:40] collaboration framework with the county
[57:42] of wet screen and the return on
[57:45] investment from PIS utilities are
[57:47] expected to be recorded between Q3 and
[57:50] Q4.
[57:52] I also want to highlight some variances
[57:54] relating to expenses. Contracted
[57:56] services budgeted approved for several
[57:59] operating budgets projects rather are
[58:01] ongoing and the expenses will be
[58:04] recorded as it went due. RCMP are 21% of
[58:09] the budget primarily because the Q2
[58:12] invoice is yet to be received.
[58:15] City administration has spent 73% of its
[58:18] budget due to legal expenses. Archives
[58:21] are at 83% of budget due to heritage
[58:24] museum and the annual insurance payment.
[58:27] All other departments are trending as
[58:30] expected.
[58:31] The market value of the city's
[58:33] investment is approximately $13.8
[58:36] million. This includes $4.4 4 million
[58:40] committed to future liability on wet
[58:43] wetin sanitary landfill and $9.3 million
[58:48] in general investments with CIBC. The
[58:51] total interest earned to date is about
[58:54] $218,000.
[58:57] The city received $48,974
[59:01] for body one cameras and $5,764
[59:07] for the fire services training program.
[59:10] Administration also reviewed the
[59:12] building building community strong fund
[59:16] during the quarter. As of June 2026, the
[59:20] total reserve balance is $27.6 million.
[59:25] Of this amount, $4 million has
[59:28] previously been committed to existing
[59:30] projects, leaving $23.6 million
[59:33] currently uncommitted.
[59:36] The city remains on track with its
[59:38] approved 2026 operating budget as of
[59:41] June 30 and administration will continue
[59:44] to monitor key revenue and expense
[59:46] areas. Thank you. And I'll be happy to
[59:49] answer any questions.
[59:51] >> Any questions? Councelor Hoy, then
[59:53] » Any questions? Councelor Hoy, then
[59:53] councelor Nielsen.
[59:55] Um, good morning. Thank you for your
[59:56] report. I have a few. Uh, I'll just
[59:59] start at the top and this may be for
[1:00:01] administration generally. I'm not really
[1:00:03] sure. You state that city administ spent
[1:00:05] 73% of its legal budget which trending
[1:00:08] would mean we are going to be 46% over
[1:00:10] our legal budget. What does that look
[1:00:13] like going forward and why I guess and
[1:00:16] what's going to happen?
[1:00:20] >> Uh, through the chair to Oh, sorry. It's
[1:00:22] » Uh, through the chair to Oh, sorry. It's
[1:00:22] cow. We don't need to be formal. I keep
[1:00:24] forgetting. Um we we are over on our
[1:00:28] legal budget right now because of a um
[1:00:32] case that was unexpected and we are
[1:00:35] looking at options for that to
[1:00:37] potentially be covered now through
[1:00:38] insurance.
[1:00:39] >> Kate, thank you. Um investments. Can you
[1:00:42] » Kate, thank you. Um investments. Can you
[1:00:42] explain to me the investments? Um who
[1:00:45] decides where they invest and who
[1:00:46] monitors that? I'm assuming that they
[1:00:49] are uh operating budget capital budget
[1:00:52] that don't aren't needed till later in
[1:00:54] the year. But who monitors that and how
[1:00:57] does that work?
[1:00:58] >> Through the chair to councelor Hy. Um
[1:01:02] » Through the chair to councelor Hy. Um
[1:01:02] finance monitors our investments. Um we
[1:01:06] have investments currently with CIBC
[1:01:08] Wood Gandhi. Um and the goal ideally is
[1:01:12] to ensure that our total amount invested
[1:01:15] aligns with our reserves. We're not
[1:01:18] there yet. Um we do invest to ensure we
[1:01:20] get the best interest
[1:01:23] um interest revenue and we do budget for
[1:01:26] the interest revenue in our operating
[1:01:28] budget as well. We also report on our
[1:01:31] investments quarterly in our quarterly
[1:01:33] financial updates to council.
[1:01:36] >> Thank you. So then Tulu do you monitor
[1:01:39] » Thank you. So then Tulu do you monitor
[1:01:39] that or do you and your team how does I
[1:01:41] guess the monitoring who looks at um
[1:01:44] where to move them where to put them
[1:01:45] where return on investment I guess is
[1:01:47] what I'm looking for more so who
[1:01:49] actually does that
[1:01:51] >> so in terms of monitoring I do that my
[1:01:55] » so in terms of monitoring I do that my
[1:01:55] our team the finance team does that in
[1:01:57] terms of the decision making that's
[1:01:59] actually part of the city manager's
[1:02:01] bylaw Sue has the um so say we wanted to
[1:02:04] sell an investment and reinvest it. Um
[1:02:07] Sue gives the say um on you can go
[1:02:10] ahead. We do look at recommendations. I
[1:02:12] give her the explanations and the
[1:02:13] background and she um then says you can
[1:02:16] go ahead or um hold off. We need to
[1:02:18] review.
[1:02:19] >> Perfect. Um another question. The
[1:02:21] » Perfect. Um another question. The
[1:02:21] landfill. Um so we have a $4 million uh
[1:02:27] where does that say? I can't. So there's
[1:02:30] an investment amount. Oh, here we go.
[1:02:32] 4.4 million. Is that over and above the
[1:02:35] 1.38 in reserves
[1:02:39] for the landfill? It's under investment
[1:02:41] balance. So, we've got 4.48 committed
[1:02:45] towards paying off future liability for
[1:02:47] this landfill.
[1:02:51] It is the the it's a portion thereof.
[1:02:55] So, it's that 4.4 for is specifically
[1:02:57] for the landfill liability which we we
[1:03:00] have a liability on our financial
[1:03:02] statements for landfill liability. The
[1:03:05] reserves amount that you have is not a
[1:03:08] part of that.
[1:03:09] >> So then so then this liability is a
[1:03:11] » So then so then this liability is a
[1:03:11] future liability or a current
[1:03:13] >> through the chair to councelor. Oh sorry
[1:03:16] » through the chair to councelor. Oh sorry
[1:03:16] >> no worries.
[1:03:16] » no worries.
[1:03:16] >> That is correct.
[1:03:17] » That is correct.
[1:03:17] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:03:18] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:03:18] >> It is future liability.
[1:03:20] » It is future liability.
[1:03:20] >> So that is independent of the reserve
[1:03:22] » So that is independent of the reserve
[1:03:22] then. Correct.
[1:03:23] >> That's correct.
[1:03:24] » That's correct.
[1:03:24] >> Okay. I think I have one more question.
[1:03:26] » Okay. I think I have one more question.
[1:03:26] Um, taxation and grants, it's minus 3%.
[1:03:29] Am I to assume that's because we haven't
[1:03:31] collected all that tax yet?
[1:03:34] >> Um,
[1:03:35] » Um,
[1:03:35] >> page 24.
[1:03:37] » page 24.
[1:03:37] >> We've collected more. We've in the
[1:03:40] » We've collected more. We've in the
[1:03:40] revenue amount exceeds the budget
[1:03:43] >> minus 3%.
[1:03:45] » minus 3%.
[1:03:45] >> Yeah, this has not this does not have
[1:03:47] » Yeah, this has not this does not have
[1:03:47] anything to do with actually collected.
[1:03:49] >> And one more quick question. So also
[1:03:52] » And one more quick question. So also
[1:03:52] under
[1:03:53] uh let me just find it so I know what
[1:03:55] I'm talking about. It's under expenses
[1:03:57] and under a variance of analysis it
[1:03:58] talks about annual insurance payment.
[1:04:01] This is due to an annual transfer
[1:04:03] relating to heritage festival and annual
[1:04:05] insurance payment.
[1:04:07] Whose annual insurance payment is that
[1:04:09] for? in the context of what you've
[1:04:12] referred to that was for archives but as
[1:04:15] a whole we pay our entire insurance for
[1:04:17] the whole year upfront in
[1:04:19] >> but it's just in reference to archives
[1:04:21] » but it's just in reference to archives
[1:04:21] not the museum
[1:04:22] >> in in that in in that context I
[1:04:25] » in in that in in that context I
[1:04:25] >> perfect thank you thank you so much to
[1:04:27] » perfect thank you thank you so much to
[1:04:27] welcome
[1:04:27] >> councelor Nielson
[1:04:29] » councelor Nielson
[1:04:29] >> and mayor Bronco
[1:04:32] » and mayor Bronco
[1:04:32] >> through the chair BC um first off thank
[1:04:36] » through the chair BC um first off thank
[1:04:36] you for the report this is uh one of the
[1:04:42] complete ones I've seen in some time.
[1:04:44] So, thank you for that. My questions are
[1:04:47] related to the variance analysis. Um,
[1:04:50] and I'm I'm I'm curious about a couple
[1:04:53] things here. Number one is under
[1:04:54] archives. Um, I'm looking at 83% of the
[1:04:58] budget spent. So, do we give them a lump
[1:05:00] sum of dollars then?
[1:05:02] >> Yes, that's
[1:05:04] » Yes, that's
[1:05:04] >> okay. And we give it's all upfront
[1:05:05] » okay. And we give it's all upfront
[1:05:05] money, so to speak.
[1:05:07] >> Okay. Thank you. Um the other one is in
[1:05:09] » Okay. Thank you. Um the other one is in
[1:05:09] the area of airport and
[1:05:13] utilities. Airport uh representing we
[1:05:16] spent uh 16% of the budget and utilities
[1:05:20] 1% and help me understand those two if
[1:05:24] you could please.
[1:05:25] >> Okay.
[1:05:27] » Okay.
[1:05:27] Throw the chair to councelor Wilson.
[1:05:29] Okay. So for airports it's basically
[1:05:32] transfers for tangible capital assets
[1:05:36] which will be recorded at year end. So
[1:05:39] they are not actual expenses.
[1:05:41] >> Thank you.
[1:05:44] » Thank you.
[1:05:44] >> For for did you say utilities?
[1:05:47] » For for did you say utilities?
[1:05:47] >> Utilities.
[1:05:48] » Utilities.
[1:05:48] >> Yeah. The same thing for utilities.
[1:05:50] » Yeah. The same thing for utilities.
[1:05:50] >> Same thing.
[1:05:51] » Same thing.
[1:05:51] >> Yes.
[1:05:53] » Yes.
[1:05:53] >> TCAs.
[1:05:54] » TCAs.
[1:05:54] >> Yes.
[1:05:54] » Yes.
[1:05:54] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:05:59] That's it for me. Thank you,
[1:06:00] >> Mayor Bronco.
[1:06:02] » Mayor Bronco.
[1:06:02] >> Thank you to the chair to obvious
[1:06:06] » Thank you to the chair to obvious
[1:06:06] um
[1:06:09] revenue and expenses. Does grants go
[1:06:13] under the heading revenue? Does that
[1:06:16] include say we were to get $5 million
[1:06:20] uh grant would that be under revenue or
[1:06:23] is that a special different?
[1:06:26] >> That's correct. it's under revenue then
[1:06:29] » That's correct. it's under revenue then
[1:06:29] again it depends if the grant is a
[1:06:32] conditional grant or unconditional
[1:06:34] grant. So if it's a conditional grant it
[1:06:37] will reflect in a revenue when it is
[1:06:39] spent. But if it's unconditional
[1:06:42] regardless of it being spent or not it
[1:06:44] will be recorded as revenue.
[1:06:47] >> Thank you.
[1:06:49] » Thank you.
[1:06:49] >> Any further questions?
[1:06:53] » Great. Thank you very much.
[1:06:56] Thank you.
[1:07:02] » 8.5 corporate business plan.
[1:07:08] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:07:11] Uh so on March 26th of this year,
[1:07:13] council approved the 2026 to 2029
[1:07:16] strategic plan. Uh within that plan,
[1:07:19] there were four pillars and each pillar
[1:07:21] has three goals. Uh and then there are
[1:07:25] nine indicators of success for each of
[1:07:27] the pillars as well. Uh my team sat down
[1:07:30] with uh the consultant that worked with
[1:07:32] council to develop out the strategic
[1:07:34] plan and we took those indicators of
[1:07:37] success and developed out 15 initiatives
[1:07:40] that are now going to become a part of
[1:07:42] the corporate business plan. Um the
[1:07:46] first thing I want to do in your package
[1:07:48] um is the old corporate business plan. I
[1:07:51] just want to go through that really
[1:07:52] quickly high level. So there were 28
[1:07:55] projects that were identified within the
[1:07:57] last um corporate business plan. 10 of
[1:08:00] those have been completed. Uh 14 were
[1:08:03] ongoing or have become a part of our
[1:08:05] operations um and will continue to be
[1:08:07] ongoing. One of them was cancelled and
[1:08:10] three have been moved to our new um
[1:08:12] corporate business plan.
[1:08:15] We are doing it a little bit differently
[1:08:17] this year. I am going to share my
[1:08:21] screen
[1:08:24] so that I can walk you through
[1:08:28] what the new corporate business plan
[1:08:31] looks like. So this is our online system
[1:08:34] with clearoint strategies. You've seen
[1:08:37] the reports that come out of this system
[1:08:40] um for the capital updates and operating
[1:08:42] updates, but this is specific to the
[1:08:44] corporate business plan. So, we have um
[1:08:48] sorry, I'm just moving my screen around.
[1:08:51] Um we have copied over council's mission
[1:08:53] and vision and your values
[1:08:56] um from your plan
[1:08:59] and then we have looked at each of your
[1:09:01] goals and then um your indicators of
[1:09:05] success and then we have what we've
[1:09:07] called administrative tactics. we've
[1:09:10] come up with. There's usually three, but
[1:09:12] in some there are four um initiatives
[1:09:15] that we think are going to help um
[1:09:19] achieve your goals. And some of these
[1:09:21] initiatives uh cross pillars. So, we do
[1:09:25] believe that some of these um items that
[1:09:28] we're going to take on uh will serve
[1:09:30] more than one purpose. uh we've gone in
[1:09:32] and and initially looked at some of
[1:09:34] these things uh like I said were carried
[1:09:36] from the old plan or or are things that
[1:09:38] we've already started on. Um and I've
[1:09:41] gone in and done a quick update on um
[1:09:44] what that looks like. So um this is also
[1:09:47] going to be available on our website so
[1:09:49] the public can access at any time and
[1:09:51] council can access at any time as well.
[1:09:54] We would be looking for feedback from
[1:09:56] council although the corporate business
[1:09:58] plan isn't something that council
[1:10:00] approves. is we do want to make sure
[1:10:01] that we're um we're hitting your
[1:10:05] thoughts on how we're going to be
[1:10:06] successful, what those indicators of
[1:10:08] success are. So, in your area of
[1:10:11] economic prosperity, we've said that um
[1:10:14] we need to build out a land strategy
[1:10:17] that supports um development that is one
[1:10:20] that was in our old corporate business
[1:10:21] plan and we've moved that forward. Um
[1:10:25] [clears throat]
[1:10:26] we've talked about creating an
[1:10:27] investment and attraction plan. uh
[1:10:30] reducing barriers to development,
[1:10:32] improving processes, enabling investment
[1:10:34] momentum and then updating the tax
[1:10:36] strategy that was also from our previous
[1:10:38] plan. So the tax strategy model was
[1:10:42] completed but with the changes to the
[1:10:44] reserve policy we have to rerun the
[1:10:46] model with the new policy before we can
[1:10:48] um present any of that to council. So as
[1:10:51] soon as that reserve policy is finalized
[1:10:53] uh finance will be bringing that back
[1:10:56] in environment and infrastructure. Uh
[1:10:59] we've talked about our asset management
[1:11:01] which was a huge discussion with council
[1:11:02] during your corporate or sorry during
[1:11:04] your uh strategic goals planning
[1:11:06] session. Increased participation through
[1:11:09] citizen-led initiatives and campaigns
[1:11:11] and then increase community standards um
[1:11:14] cleanliness um through education etc.
[1:11:17] I'm just going to click on one of them
[1:11:18] so that you can see what you would find
[1:11:21] if you were to click into this
[1:11:22] particular one. So the description is
[1:11:25] carried forward. Um,
[1:11:29] and then
[1:11:31] I don't know why. Oh, I think we put
[1:11:32] Ryan on that because it it has to do
[1:11:34] with garbage cans. And then if you
[1:11:36] scroll down, you can see what our
[1:11:37] progress to date is. So, we have a draft
[1:11:41] um bench and trash policy that we're
[1:11:44] looking at internally that'll hopefully
[1:11:46] be presented to council at some point.
[1:11:48] Um, part of what we're thinking is that
[1:11:50] we have a lot of garbage cans and and
[1:11:52] things that are along um, Main Street
[1:11:54] and in our parks, but we have none on
[1:11:56] the auto mile or anywhere else in the
[1:11:58] community. And so, if we can come up
[1:12:00] with a strategy, I think in the draft
[1:12:02] policy, we have something like every 400
[1:12:04] meters there will be a garbage can and a
[1:12:06] and a bench. Um, then we can place them
[1:12:09] strategically where uh, people won't
[1:12:11] have to walk miles before they find a
[1:12:13] garbage can. um
[1:12:16] we talk about um efficiencies and how
[1:12:20] we're doing things. So um I've had a
[1:12:22] recent discussion with um the operations
[1:12:25] crew.
[1:12:27] We used to load the lawnmowers and drive
[1:12:30] to places and we thought that wasn't
[1:12:32] very efficient. So we had them driving
[1:12:34] in the lawnmowers to the places. The
[1:12:36] teams reviewed the GPS and said it's
[1:12:38] actually more efficient to load them
[1:12:39] onto the trailers and drag them around.
[1:12:41] So, we're using the technology that we
[1:12:43] have to look for efficiencies and how we
[1:12:45] can get to the parks quicker and and
[1:12:47] keep them maintained better. Um, and
[1:12:49] then of course we have our cultivate our
[1:12:51] community program in place. So, that's
[1:12:52] like a partners and park thing that
[1:12:54] we're going to be uh pushing out a lot
[1:12:56] more. Uh, we talk about what the next
[1:12:58] steps are and then um how much of this
[1:13:01] we've completed. So each of these items
[1:13:04] um you can click into and um and get a
[1:13:09] real-time update. So
[1:13:14] um
[1:13:15] yeah, and it that that has happened for
[1:13:17] all four pillars and all of the
[1:13:19] initiatives. Um I won't go through each
[1:13:21] one of them. Um I'm sure those of you
[1:13:23] that clicked into it had a good look
[1:13:25] around and I'd be happy to answer any
[1:13:26] questions that you might have or take
[1:13:27] any feedback.
[1:13:31] Any questions?
[1:13:33] Councelor Nielsen,
[1:13:36] then councelor White.
[1:13:40] Um
[1:13:43] my first comment will be my last note.
[1:13:47] Um
[1:13:53] and it has to do with metrics, Sue. Um
[1:13:56] and um I'd like some of my other
[1:13:59] colleagues spend an awful lot of time
[1:14:00] looking last year's strategic plan
[1:14:02] instead of this year's strategic plan.
[1:14:04] But uh aside from that, I did finally
[1:14:06] get caught up. Um but what I noticed in
[1:14:10] the metrics and um
[1:14:14] in in the last metrics um they were a
[1:14:19] lot of them were very uh subjective in
[1:14:22] nature. Uh the public will feel better.
[1:14:25] uh the city will believes it's doing
[1:14:29] this a lot a lot of that and I guess
[1:14:33] what I would like to do is I would like
[1:14:35] to challenge administration
[1:14:37] to start building more objective
[1:14:40] measures into their document. Um
[1:14:44] and to that end
[1:14:48] I'm not saying that everything has to be
[1:14:51] uh objective in nature
[1:14:54] but I think uh having objective measures
[1:14:57] or metrics uh
[1:15:01] provides a clearer picture of
[1:15:05] rates of success or nonsuccess. So, as I
[1:15:08] say, I'm I would simply challenge some
[1:15:11] of those metrics to be more objective
[1:15:14] and less subjective. Um,
[1:15:19] and I'm really slow to the race because
[1:15:22] um I read the document. I didn't I
[1:15:26] didn't notice that I could click in and
[1:15:27] go down two or three levels to get more
[1:15:30] data. So, some of my notes um
[1:15:35] some of my questions may be answered by
[1:15:37] going deeper into the document you
[1:15:40] provided and I'll have to go back and do
[1:15:42] some further homework. But, um
[1:15:48] I'm
[1:15:50] interested in
[1:15:52] inspiring governance. I spoke about it
[1:15:54] earlier today
[1:15:57] and
[1:15:59] within the
[1:16:01] document itself
[1:16:04] there are no actions. It says council
[1:16:05] demonstrates professional, respectful,
[1:16:07] accountable leadership. Um so is that
[1:16:10] something
[1:16:12] that
[1:16:14] you're leaving totally in our hands?
[1:16:19] That's a bit loaded. I'm sorry, but
[1:16:21] that's the only way I think you can put
[1:16:22] it. It's an interesting one because when
[1:16:25] I originally went through inspiring
[1:16:26] governance, I'm like, "Oh, this is all
[1:16:28] council." Um, but really when we took a
[1:16:31] little bit of a deeper dive, there's
[1:16:33] there's not like there's some corporate
[1:16:34] business plan, maybe some um operating
[1:16:36] business cases that we could put
[1:16:38] through. Um, we've had
[1:16:43] while I do think that council is
[1:16:44] responsible for the direction that is
[1:16:46] set, I think there's a lot that we can
[1:16:48] do in here. So, we talked about um try
[1:16:51] and pick one that I've got a bit more
[1:16:53] done on. [snorts] Um
[1:16:57] the establish clear communication um
[1:17:00] routines that reduce confusion and
[1:17:02] improve transparency was one of those.
[1:17:05] So within that, we've looked at update
[1:17:08] the city website for ease of access by
[1:17:10] residents and businesses with key
[1:17:12] information, draft communication
[1:17:14] strategies to deal with miss and
[1:17:15] disinformation,
[1:17:17] increase budget engagement
[1:17:18] opportunities, and ensure consistency
[1:17:20] and language is used across engagement
[1:17:22] and communications. We talked about some
[1:17:25] of the next steps that we need to do. So
[1:17:27] adding the customer service matrix to
[1:17:29] our city website so that everybody can
[1:17:31] really serve themselves rather than
[1:17:33] trying to wait to get through to someone
[1:17:34] to answer their questions. Um develop
[1:17:37] communication protocols for all
[1:17:39] employees once gaps are identified and
[1:17:41] filled. Um and then create a continuous
[1:17:44] improvement plan um for this strategy.
[1:17:47] So, we've dug in a bit deeper and I can
[1:17:50] understand I probably should have
[1:17:51] clarified that um when I said just click
[1:17:54] on the link that you could have gone a
[1:17:56] little bit deeper in this. So, while a
[1:17:57] lot of it does
[1:18:00] call for council's leadership, I do
[1:18:02] think there's a lot of things that we
[1:18:03] can do within here including like a
[1:18:05] citizen satisfaction survey which we're
[1:18:07] putting through an operating business
[1:18:08] case on. So, um, and and even updating
[1:18:12] our RFDs so that we can show you if the
[1:18:16] RFD that you're talking about that day
[1:18:18] actually has a link to your strategic
[1:18:20] plan. Not just a weak link, but is it
[1:18:23] actually identified um, within your plan
[1:18:25] so that you can start to tailor your
[1:18:28] conversations to make sure that we're
[1:18:29] only talking about the things that are
[1:18:30] most important to council most of the
[1:18:33] time.
[1:18:34] >> Does that answer your question?
[1:18:37] » Does that answer your question?
[1:18:37] Um,
[1:18:39] >> yeah, for the most part I I think it
[1:18:42] » yeah, for the most part I I think it
[1:18:42] does. Um, obviously I've got to go back
[1:18:44] and do a deeper dive into this document
[1:18:47] than I than I did initially.
[1:18:49] >> We could we could bring this back again
[1:18:51] » We could we could bring this back again
[1:18:51] if council wants to look like go into
[1:18:53] each of those and have a look and then
[1:18:54] just say, "Yeah, I agree with these, but
[1:18:56] how how are you going to actually
[1:18:58] achieve this?" Am
[1:18:59] >> I the only [snorts] one that didn't do
[1:19:00] » I the only [snorts] one that didn't do
[1:19:00] the deeper dive that
[1:19:03] >> I kind of did, but
[1:19:04] » I kind of did, but
[1:19:04] >> Oh, I asked
[1:19:09] I couldn't connect and see the whole
[1:19:10] thing.
[1:19:12] >> So,
[1:19:12] » So,
[1:19:12] >> I needed the piece of paper,
[1:19:14] » I needed the piece of paper,
[1:19:14] >> right? And so, you haven't had the
[1:19:16] » right? And so, you haven't had the
[1:19:16] opportunity then to get behind the
[1:19:17] scenes or did you get all the back
[1:19:19] documentation?
[1:19:22] » Does this piece of paper include
[1:19:24] everything that's in the linky linky
[1:19:26] stuff?
[1:19:27] >> I actually didn't look at it. Um, Nicole
[1:19:29] » I actually didn't look at it. Um, Nicole
[1:19:29] was the one that printed it, so I'm not
[1:19:30] sure if it actually includes the
[1:19:31] background stuff. I kind of think so
[1:19:33] because clicking around I haven't found
[1:19:35] more than what's printed on the paper.
[1:19:37] >> Okay. What I can do too is actually get
[1:19:40] » Okay. What I can do too is actually get
[1:19:40] the reports open so that everything gets
[1:19:42] and I can get it into a PDF and send it
[1:19:44] to you if you don't want to click
[1:19:45] around.
[1:19:46] >> Yes, please.
[1:19:46] » Yes, please.
[1:19:46] >> Please. [laughter]
[1:19:49] » Please. [laughter]
[1:19:49] Um, and at the risk of maybe
[1:19:53] um
[1:19:56] jumping the gun here a little bit in
[1:19:58] terms of
[1:20:00] I want to spend a couple minutes in
[1:20:02] social and cultural life if I could.
[1:20:05] Um, my notes
[1:20:08] was I think more specificity is needed
[1:20:10] here, but maybe it is behind all of
[1:20:13] these levels.
[1:20:15] um
[1:20:18] when we're talking about community
[1:20:19] safety and when I first looked at this
[1:20:21] Sue I have to admit that I I thought
[1:20:24] that given the
[1:20:27] discussion and
[1:20:30] concern expressed by the community
[1:20:32] related to safety that
[1:20:35] we didn't put you didn't put enough in
[1:20:37] your document and I stand corrected
[1:20:40] because I I don't know yet whether you
[1:20:42] did or you didn't. Um
[1:20:47] the tactic that was written here was
[1:20:49] support community safety planning and I
[1:20:52] wrote only support it. Are we actually
[1:20:54] planning to commit and do something and
[1:20:57] implement actions and strategies that
[1:20:59] are uh fiscally realistic and feasible
[1:21:02] and support of businesses and residents
[1:21:04] and I wanted to speak specifically about
[1:21:06] the businesses. Um
[1:21:11] and then there was another statement in
[1:21:12] there uh and I thought it should be
[1:21:15] broken out that it says here strength
[1:21:18] and coordination for supports of
[1:21:20] residents during emergencies and extreme
[1:21:22] weather and um I wanted to speak to
[1:21:26] ensure that we are talking about all
[1:21:28] residents
[1:21:29] um not just the unhoused or precariously
[1:21:32] housed. I'm I'm thinking back to when he
[1:21:35] had in u really horrific heat in our
[1:21:40] something we haven't seen this summer
[1:21:41] but previously and we were dealing with
[1:21:44] seniors and and cooling centers and all
[1:21:46] the rest of it. We weren't we weren't
[1:21:49] talking targeting a specific
[1:21:53] group in our community. And I want to
[1:21:55] make sure that as we talk about supports
[1:21:57] for our our residents, we're talking
[1:21:59] about all of them. Um
[1:22:05] and then there was a bullet in there
[1:22:07] about improving supports
[1:22:10] um
[1:22:13] to other entities
[1:22:15] and I don't know how we improve supports
[1:22:16] to other entities. I I think we can
[1:22:18] improve uh
[1:22:22] I don't know how we can provide supports
[1:22:24] of of non city entities. I think we can
[1:22:26] only improve coordination coordination
[1:22:28] of the supports. Um,
[1:22:32] I don't believe we can we can uh
[1:22:36] increase the capacity of mental health
[1:22:38] and or mental health supports, but I
[1:22:41] think we can
[1:22:44] >> work to help improve those supports. You
[1:22:46] » work to help improve those supports. You
[1:22:46] know what I'm getting at here a little
[1:22:48] bit?
[1:22:48] >> Um,
[1:22:48] » Um,
[1:22:48] >> yeah.
[1:22:49] » yeah.
[1:22:49] >> And I I'm going to stand down because I
[1:22:51] » And I I'm going to stand down because I
[1:22:51] just I've got to do more work on this
[1:22:53] for sure.
[1:22:54] >> I I do. Um, the one thing that I should
[1:22:57] » I I do. Um, the one thing that I should
[1:22:57] note too is that this is like a live
[1:22:59] document. So, just yesterday I had some
[1:23:01] meetings with the library and FCSS and
[1:23:04] those meetings actually um gave me some
[1:23:07] information that I'm going to update
[1:23:08] this document with. So, as I go in and
[1:23:10] update those, you'll get to see that in
[1:23:12] real time, not on the printed copy, but
[1:23:15] um through the the website. But, for
[1:23:17] example, if we look at support community
[1:23:19] safety planning through structured
[1:23:20] partnerships, etc., etc. When I click
[1:23:23] into that, there's a description here
[1:23:25] that says the project will strengthen
[1:23:26] collaboration among municipal partners,
[1:23:29] sorry, municipal departments, emergency
[1:23:30] responders, and social service agencies,
[1:23:33] indigenous communities, healthcare
[1:23:34] providers, school divisions, nonprofit
[1:23:36] organizations. So, it goes on and on
[1:23:39] about what it is that we're going to do
[1:23:41] within here. Um, and then the only note
[1:23:45] that I had put in because Jackie um,
[1:23:48] orientated me with to this last week and
[1:23:50] I thought it was really great. I know
[1:23:52] that enforcement services is reviewing
[1:23:54] options and opportunities to collaborate
[1:23:56] regionally right now and we're looking
[1:23:58] at in um, sorry I should say protective
[1:24:01] services. Um, we are looking at
[1:24:04] emergency management and that sort of
[1:24:06] stuff. And we are when we think about
[1:24:08] emergencies. I had this discussion with
[1:24:10] Emily from FCSS yesterday. Council was
[1:24:13] not specific on unhoused. You said
[1:24:16] vulnerable residents. And so we're
[1:24:17] including seniors, children, um, people
[1:24:20] that are precariously housed or or one
[1:24:24] paycheck away from being unhoused. So
[1:24:26] we're not focusing on one group when we
[1:24:29] think about this area. We're looking at
[1:24:31] everyone in the community that might be
[1:24:32] vulnerable. Um, so I think we've hit
[1:24:36] some of that, but again, once you dig
[1:24:38] through, we'll probably have a better
[1:24:40] discussion.
[1:24:43] >> Thank you for that. and and obviously
[1:24:45] » Thank you for that. and and obviously
[1:24:46] more digging to a deeper level needs to
[1:24:48] be done, but I I language is really
[1:24:51] important and
[1:24:55] how we interpret vulnerable population
[1:24:59] or how you're interpreting vulnerable
[1:25:00] population and how the public may be
[1:25:04] interpreting that
[1:25:06] um might be quite quite different. And
[1:25:11] uh
[1:25:13] and that's why I talked about all
[1:25:14] residents. And again, I'm not trying to
[1:25:16] advocate for one over the other, but um
[1:25:20] if the vulnerable population is is as
[1:25:23] you've described the then I think we
[1:25:25] need to be clear to the public
[1:25:28] what we're actually saying.
[1:25:32] Okay. Councelor White.
[1:25:37] » Thank you. Deputy Mayor Elder through
[1:25:39] the chair to administration. Um Sue, can
[1:25:42] you ex expand on the conversation that I
[1:25:47] had regarding an inquiry from a group of
[1:25:50] seniors who asked me about the city's
[1:25:54] emergency prepared plan and I know that
[1:25:57] some work is being done. Can you and can
[1:25:59] you tie what's being what you found
[1:26:02] what's being done and tie it to what
[1:26:04] you've included in the corporate plan?
[1:26:06] >> Sure. So, um, when I spoke to Matt about
[1:26:11] » Sure. So, um, when I spoke to Matt about
[1:26:11] this, we did find, so annually we are to
[1:26:14] update our emergency management plan and
[1:26:17] we have annual meetings with the
[1:26:18] province as well to go over and make
[1:26:20] sure that we've um, covered everything
[1:26:22] and that we're doing all the things that
[1:26:23] we need to do like live exercises and
[1:26:25] mock scenarios, etc.
[1:26:28] Um Matt's team is doing a lot right now
[1:26:31] to kind of reestablish those
[1:26:33] relationships with the province and our
[1:26:36] um neighboring communities to make sure
[1:26:38] that we're hitting those targets where
[1:26:40] we need to. But one of the areas that
[1:26:42] we've lacked in is actually keeping the
[1:26:44] documentation up to date. And so there's
[1:26:46] a lot of outdated information. Um we
[1:26:48] were going to load the old one on, but
[1:26:51] we figured it would cause more confusion
[1:26:52] because there's people and numbers that
[1:26:54] are not current anymore. And so Matt's
[1:26:57] team is going to be going through and
[1:26:59] updating this um as soon as we can. And
[1:27:01] it it deals it follows kind of the
[1:27:03] template of the province. So it looks at
[1:27:05] every possible emergency scenario that
[1:27:08] could happen. I can tell you cuz I've
[1:27:09] been through this several times in our
[1:27:11] community. Um weather, flooding, and
[1:27:15] train derailment are our biggest um
[1:27:17] concerns that we have in this community.
[1:27:19] Um, and so once Matt's team gets through
[1:27:22] and updates that, uh, we will be sharing
[1:27:25] it with council and, um, on our city
[1:27:27] website and then we'll be able to, um,
[1:27:29] work with the community groups so that
[1:27:31] they understand, um, what their roles
[1:27:33] are in this and how we how we notify the
[1:27:35] community of emergencies. Um
[1:27:39] there's a lot of work to be done around
[1:27:40] this and I think it's been done off the
[1:27:42] side of people's desks and so I can tell
[1:27:44] you that we do have an operating
[1:27:45] business case in to help um staff
[1:27:48] emergency management although we are
[1:27:50] looking at what contracted help we might
[1:27:52] be able to get and or what we can share
[1:27:56] from other communities um that is more
[1:27:59] templateish and not specific to
[1:28:01] Watasquin. Um, so there's a lot of work
[1:28:04] that needs to be done, but we're we're
[1:28:06] beginning that and as soon as we get
[1:28:07] that update for people, we will have
[1:28:09] that out. One of the big, um, gaps that
[1:28:12] we're having right now, and I haven't
[1:28:13] had this discussion with Emily. Um,
[1:28:15] hopefully she's not watching and
[1:28:16] surprised. Um, FCSS is usually a a city
[1:28:21] department, and so they do handle the
[1:28:23] community services section when we stand
[1:28:26] up um, and our um, EOCC.
[1:28:29] Um but because they're an outside
[1:28:31] agency, we really haven't had that
[1:28:33] discussion with them about what role
[1:28:35] they play in an emergency and they have
[1:28:37] all the contacts. So um we will be
[1:28:40] working with them to see how we can make
[1:28:42] this work for everybody uh moving
[1:28:44] forward. But there's just some
[1:28:46] identified gaps that we have that we'll
[1:28:47] we'll work on. Um and then one of the
[1:28:49] discussions that councelor White and I
[1:28:51] had was do we have a system to let
[1:28:53] people know if there's an emergency? And
[1:28:55] we did. In the old city hall, there was
[1:28:57] an air horn on top of the building. I'm
[1:28:59] sure Ruben would give it to us if
[1:29:01] council wanted to figure out how to make
[1:29:02] that happen. Um, but there is a new
[1:29:06] system that most of you are probably
[1:29:08] aware that comes across your phone
[1:29:10] through the province. And so, we are um
[1:29:12] hooked up to that system and if there is
[1:29:14] an emergency, we would go to that
[1:29:16] website. There's two buttons in there.
[1:29:18] There's one that's like, "Hey, there's a
[1:29:19] warning." And there's another one like,
[1:29:20] "Hey, we have a huge issue here and
[1:29:22] everybody needs to pay attention."
[1:29:24] um and and people get notified through
[1:29:26] that system. Um unfortunately, if you
[1:29:29] don't have a cell phone, there could be
[1:29:31] gaps that way. So, um something that
[1:29:35] we'll keep our eye on how we we may be
[1:29:37] able to help in those situations, but
[1:29:39] right now, that's the system that
[1:29:40] everybody works off of.
[1:29:43] Thank you for that. I know I'm not the
[1:29:45] only one that looks forward to having
[1:29:47] those uh gaps tightened up.
[1:29:52] taking a turn um back to the pillar of
[1:29:56] economic prosperity. I
[1:29:59] I
[1:30:00] did quite a bit of I'll say clicking
[1:30:03] around, but I really appreciated the
[1:30:04] printed copy. Helped me think through
[1:30:06] some of this. Um in the economic area,
[1:30:10] there's
[1:30:11] uh one of the goals says maximize
[1:30:13] economic value of key municipal assets.
[1:30:16] And that's taken straight from council's
[1:30:19] strategic plan. and council's indicators
[1:30:22] of success say key municipal assets
[1:30:26] contribute measurably to the city's
[1:30:28] business attraction, retention, and or
[1:30:30] expansion. And municipal assets are
[1:30:34] positioned to support regional economic
[1:30:36] development.
[1:30:38] When I look at then the tactic that's
[1:30:42] listed in the corporate plan, which is
[1:30:45] reduce barriers to development by
[1:30:47] improving processes and enabling
[1:30:49] investment momentum.
[1:30:52] I favor that. I I'm not opposed to
[1:30:55] reducing barriers, but I'm not it isn't
[1:30:58] readily obvious to me how that is
[1:31:02] setting up our [snorts] municipal assets
[1:31:05] to contribute. seemed really broad and
[1:31:08] and the the goal is pretty specifically
[1:31:11] related to municipal assets. Can you
[1:31:13] either draw a correlation or help me
[1:31:16] understand why
[1:31:18] the pivot away from specifically key
[1:31:20] assets?
[1:31:21] >> Yeah, so I should have been clearer. Um
[1:31:24] » Yeah, so I should have been clearer. Um
[1:31:24] they there is not a direct correlation
[1:31:26] between your indicator of success and
[1:31:28] our administrative tactics. So the three
[1:31:31] indicators of success that you have
[1:31:33] under there, we're saying these other
[1:31:35] four things are going to feed into all
[1:31:37] of these or some of these. And I also
[1:31:40] mentioned earlier that some categories
[1:31:43] cross over. So if you look at
[1:31:45] environmental and infrastructure
[1:31:47] sustainability, one of the first
[1:31:48] administrative tactics we have is
[1:31:50] maintain a multi-year asset management
[1:31:52] strategy and capital plan. That also
[1:31:54] ties into that. So some of these are
[1:31:56] cross like when we looked at the 15
[1:31:59] initiatives that we have. We tried to
[1:32:01] maximize them to say can these hit more
[1:32:03] than one council indicator for success
[1:32:06] and where they could. We put them where
[1:32:08] we thought they made the most sense but
[1:32:10] they actually go across pillars if that
[1:32:13] makes sense.
[1:32:17] It does when when this comes back to us
[1:32:20] again in
[1:32:23] when we're more ready to to read it and
[1:32:25] absorb it as well as have a a method of
[1:32:29] absorbing it. I I still look forward to
[1:32:33] some tie to how
[1:32:37] key municipal assets are going to be
[1:32:40] maximized economically.
[1:32:45] » Okay. One of the things that I had
[1:32:48] Jackie do because I thought that it was
[1:32:49] confusing, we had the goals and then the
[1:32:53] pillars or the categories as they're
[1:32:54] called in here. And then there was
[1:32:56] another column in between that and
[1:32:59] administrative tactics that actually had
[1:33:03] um
[1:33:05] not just your goals, but the indicators
[1:33:07] of success that you had under each one.
[1:33:10] And I was worried that there was going
[1:33:11] to be a direct correlation to those. And
[1:33:14] so I asked her to actually hide it. It's
[1:33:16] in there and I could get her to unhide
[1:33:19] it. Um so that you can see your goal and
[1:33:23] your indicators of success. But then
[1:33:25] just remember that the administrative
[1:33:27] tactics don't directly line up.
[1:33:32] um does and maybe we need to position it
[1:33:35] differently where I have your goals,
[1:33:36] your indicators of success, and then
[1:33:38] maybe along the bottom we could have our
[1:33:41] administrative tactics so that it
[1:33:43] doesn't look like there's a direct
[1:33:44] correlation with each one if that makes
[1:33:46] it might make it a little bit easier to
[1:33:48] look at that way. I was worried about
[1:33:51] having too much information on this page
[1:33:53] that would make things confusing.
[1:33:56] Um, but it is in there because we we
[1:33:58] took the goals and the indicators of
[1:34:01] success directly from your plan and then
[1:34:03] the only thing we've done is create
[1:34:05] those administrative tactics. And maybe
[1:34:07] what we could do is even maybe identify
[1:34:09] them through colors so that you could
[1:34:11] see some relate to more than one pillar.
[1:34:18] I will leave that as an operational
[1:34:21] activity of administration and I look
[1:34:23] forward to finding out how
[1:34:25] administration plans to maximize the
[1:34:27] economic value of our key municipal
[1:34:29] assets.
[1:34:33] » Councelor Nielsen,
[1:34:36] >> thanks. I'm I'm I'm glad councelor White
[1:34:39] » thanks. I'm I'm I'm glad councelor White
[1:34:39] you went there. I had it on mine as
[1:34:42] well. Um, but was reluctant to comment
[1:34:45] because I hadn't dived deep enough. But
[1:34:50] part of part of my my issue here is not
[1:34:54] unlike yours,
[1:34:56] but
[1:34:58] I wonder
[1:35:01] what is our role as council in
[1:35:04] identifying what we think are the
[1:35:07] um
[1:35:11] key municipal assets.
[1:35:14] Is that admin team identifying the
[1:35:17] city's key municipal assets or is it our
[1:35:21] role to identify those assets? Um
[1:35:26] because I wrote I wrote down some things
[1:35:29] here um
[1:35:32] that I guess I would question. I might
[1:35:34] think that it's a key municipal asset,
[1:35:37] but it would never be considered.
[1:35:39] And so, for example, I wrote down names
[1:35:41] down of some core major businesses in
[1:35:44] the airport. I also wrote down the topic
[1:35:47] tourism. I also wrote down the top the
[1:35:50] the item of proximity to our First
[1:35:52] Nations neighbors. That could tie into
[1:35:54] tourism. That could tie into a number of
[1:35:56] different elements. But who's to say
[1:35:59] what are the key
[1:36:02] municipal assets that we're actually
[1:36:04] asking somebody to do some work on? And
[1:36:08] should it be us that identifies it or
[1:36:10] should it be economic development who
[1:36:13] identifies it? Um I just wonder if there
[1:36:16] doesn't need to be more of a
[1:36:17] conversation about what that it might
[1:36:18] be.
[1:36:20] >> Councelor Nielsen, I support what you
[1:36:23] » Councelor Nielsen, I support what you
[1:36:23] what you're taking on there.
[1:36:26] I would like to leave it to
[1:36:27] administration. I want to see what they
[1:36:29] come back with and they've given us
[1:36:32] opportunity to feed into it. So bring
[1:36:35] back and tell me what they think and
[1:36:37] then we will confirm or redirect as we
[1:36:41] see fit.
[1:36:44] I do see this as an administrative task
[1:36:47] and I can link it to some of the
[1:36:50] discussions that we've had around asset
[1:36:52] management and um one of the task forces
[1:36:55] that I sit on with municipal affairs
[1:36:57] right now we're looking at uh viability
[1:37:00] reviews and CAO codes of conduct and
[1:37:02] that sort of thing and I can tell you
[1:37:04] that one of the topics that we've talked
[1:37:06] about are the um the indicators that the
[1:37:09] province tracks with respect to asset
[1:37:12] management and there's already an
[1:37:14] established
[1:37:16] um kind of protocol around what should
[1:37:18] be included. Um, so we would follow
[1:37:22] the legislation and um, and a lot of
[1:37:26] that ties into grants. And so part of
[1:37:28] the discussion that we're having right
[1:37:29] now through the province is um, how we
[1:37:33] relate grant funding from the province
[1:37:36] to the municipalities based on key asset
[1:37:39] infrastructure rather than nice to
[1:37:41] haves. So I think there's enough there
[1:37:45] that we that we need to follow best
[1:37:48] practices. we need to follow uh what the
[1:37:50] government has already set out because
[1:37:52] that's what we're reporting on. Um so I
[1:37:54] I do totally see this as an
[1:37:56] administrative um function, but we can
[1:38:00] certainly explain that to you what that
[1:38:02] looks like. Um and then if there is
[1:38:05] disagreement around that, there's
[1:38:06] obviously a lobbying opportunity with
[1:38:09] the province.
[1:38:13] » Any other questions?
[1:38:16] We want to break for five minutes or
[1:38:18] carry on. What do you What's everybody's
[1:38:21] Okay, let's have a break Four. Five.
[1:48:30] That may take
[1:48:35] some people
[1:48:37] might take two
[1:48:54] Welcome back everybody. Uh
[1:48:58] if there was any other there was no
[1:48:59] other questions there. So we're going to
[1:49:00] go to 8.6 local improvement policy.
[1:49:05] >> Good morning committee. Um I just wanted
[1:49:08] » Good morning committee. Um I just wanted
[1:49:08] to I guess bring this back in front of
[1:49:10] council um prior to discussing the
[1:49:13] reserve policy um at a future meeting.
[1:49:16] And so just in general, a local
[1:49:18] improvement tax is essentially a tax
[1:49:20] that can be imposed on a piece of
[1:49:24] infrastructure or um or an improvement
[1:49:27] in a neighborhood or an area that is
[1:49:30] been clearly defined as a benefit to
[1:49:32] that particular area over benefiting the
[1:49:36] entire municipality.
[1:49:38] And so local improvements are taxes that
[1:49:41] are applied to the land, not to an
[1:49:42] individual person. Uh and so our local
[1:49:45] improvement policy currently um allows
[1:49:48] for sidewalks, curbon gutter, uh asphalt
[1:49:51] paving um to be included in that. Um the
[1:49:54] municipal government act does legislate
[1:49:56] how municipalities can impose a local
[1:49:59] improvement tax.
[1:50:01] The current policy that you have in
[1:50:03] front of you today uh was introduced in
[1:50:06] and approved by council in 2018 um and
[1:50:09] has not been re well it has been
[1:50:11] reviewed. it just has not been in front
[1:50:12] of council since that date. Uh and so
[1:50:14] administration just wants to uh get
[1:50:17] feedback from council on um what they
[1:50:20] would like to see in the local
[1:50:21] improvement policy. Um, as part of the
[1:50:24] current policy, uh, it also allows for
[1:50:26] property owners to have their lanes
[1:50:28] paved, uh, to put median cuts in, uh, do
[1:50:32] decorative street lighting into their
[1:50:34] added to their neighbors. But that is
[1:50:36] the cost is borne solely by the property
[1:50:38] owners and is not split by the
[1:50:40] municipality as is the curb and gutter
[1:50:42] asphalt paving and uh, sidewalks that
[1:50:45] currently exists there. So, in other
[1:50:47] communities, things like lane paving,
[1:50:50] lane lighting, um our decorative
[1:50:52] lighting, those are included in their
[1:50:54] local improvement policies just as ours
[1:50:56] is. But in consideration of that reserve
[1:50:58] policy and the discussions that have
[1:50:59] been had, does council want to consider
[1:51:02] removing the sidewalks, curbon gutter,
[1:51:04] and asphalt paving from the local
[1:51:06] improvement policy and just keep items
[1:51:09] that would be requested by community
[1:51:11] members that would be uh paid for
[1:51:14] typically solely by the the uh property
[1:51:17] owners. Uh so that's an option that we
[1:51:19] can look at if uh council wants uh to go
[1:51:22] that route. And if anyone has any
[1:51:24] questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
[1:51:27] >> Councelor White,
[1:51:29] » Councelor White,
[1:51:29] then councelor or mayor Bronco.
[1:51:32] >> Easy question. What's a median cut?
[1:51:36] » Easy question. What's a median cut?
[1:51:36] [laughter]
[1:51:37] >> Uh through the I guess through to
[1:51:39] » Uh through the I guess through to
[1:51:39] councelor White. Uh, a median cut is
[1:51:42] essentially, so if you had a sidewalk in
[1:51:44] front of your home, for example, and you
[1:51:46] were going to put in um a driveway, we
[1:51:49] would we would allow you to pay to get
[1:51:52] the sidewalk dropped so you didn't have
[1:51:54] to jump up and over a curb to get onto
[1:51:55] your driveway.
[1:51:58] >> So, it's about a sidewalk. I I was
[1:52:00] » So, it's about a sidewalk. I I was
[1:52:00] thinking median like something in the
[1:52:02] middle of a road, not that.
[1:52:03] >> And it could be as well. So, if we had a
[1:52:05] » And it could be as well. So, if we had a
[1:52:06] median um I'm just going to give an
[1:52:08] example. Say 40th Avenue. Let's say we
[1:52:10] put a median all the way across and you
[1:52:12] had a driveway on the north side of the
[1:52:15] avenue and we you had to get through. We
[1:52:17] would allow you to cut that at your cost
[1:52:19] so that you could access your driveway
[1:52:20] from either direction. Yeah.
[1:52:23] >> Thank you.
[1:52:24] » Thank you.
[1:52:24] >> You're welcome.
[1:52:25] » You're welcome.
[1:52:25] >> Uh Mayor Bronco,
[1:52:27] » Uh Mayor Bronco,
[1:52:27] >> thank you. Mark, I'm sorry. I'm trying
[1:52:29] » thank you. Mark, I'm sorry. I'm trying
[1:52:29] to get on here. I touched something
[1:52:31] here. Uh
[1:52:35] » what what I'm asked can you hear me?
[1:52:37] >> We can't see. Yep, we can hear and see.
[1:52:39] » We can't see. Yep, we can hear and see.
[1:52:39] >> I I am against uh local improvement. I
[1:52:42] » I I am against uh local improvement. I
[1:52:42] think uh Watasquin the whole city,
[1:52:45] everybody should pay for that. I do
[1:52:46] agree that if citizens want their back
[1:52:49] alley paved, that's something that's
[1:52:52] used totally by the back alley or street
[1:52:55] lights, but I am totally against local
[1:52:58] improvements. Uh the whole city of
[1:53:00] Watascoin uses the roads.
[1:53:03] Why not everybody pace?
[1:53:06] So, I am against uh I would like it
[1:53:09] local improvements removed. Thank you.
[1:53:12] >> Councelor Billingsley, then councelor
[1:53:14] » Councelor Billingsley, then councelor
[1:53:14] Nielsen, then councelor White.
[1:53:17] >> Um
[1:53:19] » Um
[1:53:19] first I'll I'll
[1:53:22] mayor, are you talking like completely
[1:53:25] gone? So then if if four curb cuts or
[1:53:29] whatever then
[1:53:30] >> No, no, no, no, no, no. That's a
[1:53:32] » No, no, no, no, no, no. That's a
[1:53:32] different that's a different item.
[1:53:34] >> That's different then. Okay. And I think
[1:53:36] » That's different then. Okay. And I think
[1:53:36] what administration is bringing back is
[1:53:38] to say um sidewalks and overlays be
[1:53:42] taken out of local improvement. Um and
[1:53:44] that would come out of um
[1:53:48] the residential tax portion. Um
[1:53:51] >> yes.
[1:53:51] » yes.
[1:53:51] >> Okay. Just want clarification on that. I
[1:53:55] » Okay. Just want clarification on that. I
[1:53:55] did ask and this is more of a comment. I
[1:53:57] asked uh administration through finance
[1:53:59] to find out um what the tax implications
[1:54:03] are going to be if we go to this model.
[1:54:07] Um over the last 5 years um the
[1:54:10] residents had contributed approximately
[1:54:12] $500,000
[1:54:14] um to this. So, you're looking or we are
[1:54:17] looking at um about a $100,000 shortfall
[1:54:21] that would then have to be
[1:54:24] um instead of coming from the local
[1:54:26] residents, it would be coming through
[1:54:28] the tax base. So, we would be looking if
[1:54:31] products projects were the same same
[1:54:33] location today's dollars of about a half
[1:54:36] a percent tax increase to do this just
[1:54:40] for us to know. Councelor Nielsen.
[1:54:46] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:54:47] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:54:47] [clears throat and cough]
[1:54:48] Excuse me. Uh,
[1:54:51] I want to be
[1:54:53] I want to understand, Joe, what what
[1:54:54] your position is in in relation to this
[1:54:56] because before I can say I agree with
[1:54:59] Joe, I want to make sure I agree with
[1:55:00] Joe. Um,
[1:55:03] so
[1:55:06] >> I'm of I I'm of the I'm of the opinion
[1:55:10] » I'm of I I'm of the I'm of the opinion
[1:55:10] that I would like to see
[1:55:15] local improvements dropped with the
[1:55:18] exception of
[1:55:20] backlane, decorative,
[1:55:23] um, lighting, all that kind of stuff.
[1:55:26] Um, is that where you're at, Joe, or are
[1:55:29] do you have more qualifications than
[1:55:30] that? No, no, Wayne, that's exactly what
[1:55:33] I'm saying. So, to me, a local
[1:55:35] improvement is uh I'll use for example
[1:55:37] your area, Parkside. I think Parkside
[1:55:42] uh should not be left only to the people
[1:55:45] of Parkside. I think should be left to
[1:55:46] the people with Tasco because,
[1:55:49] you know, you get a frustrated
[1:55:52] residences. Hey, these guys are driving
[1:55:54] up and down my street. Why aren't they
[1:55:56] paying for it? So, uh, back alleys,
[1:56:00] street lights. If the residents wanted
[1:56:02] it, that's different. It's no different
[1:56:04] than if a resident wants in the old part
[1:56:07] of town, his side's fallen apart, and he
[1:56:10] wants to do a curb cut, he pays the
[1:56:12] contractor, the city, gets a permit or
[1:56:15] rip rips out percentage of his front of
[1:56:17] his sidewalk. Uh, that's a different
[1:56:19] issue. local improvements it means is
[1:56:22] redoing your whole sidewalk in that
[1:56:24] subdivision
[1:56:25] underground
[1:56:27] ashalt
[1:56:29] and and that's what I that's what I
[1:56:31] assume local improvements but curb cuts
[1:56:33] that's not local improvements that's
[1:56:35] individual request okay thank you so to
[1:56:39] that extent then um I have a question
[1:56:42] through the chair to administration so
[1:56:45] Sue if we were to eliminate um local
[1:56:49] improvements
[1:56:50] What happens to all those folks that now
[1:56:53] are paying double because to Dean's
[1:56:55] point, they have to pay the an increased
[1:56:58] tax to support
[1:57:01] paving roads and sidewalks across the
[1:57:03] city while at the same time they're also
[1:57:05] paying because they had theirs done at a
[1:57:08] time when this was in place. So, what
[1:57:11] happens to them? Do they end up getting
[1:57:13] caught and we're we're double dipping
[1:57:15] with them or what? H how?
[1:57:19] Yeah. Um,
[1:57:20] it's no different than when any other
[1:57:22] rule changes. So, you could look at
[1:57:25] grandfathering, although I hate that.
[1:57:28] Um, but you could look at, and I' I'd
[1:57:31] have to talk to Tuloo to make sure that
[1:57:32] this is actually something we could do
[1:57:34] where you could reimburse that portion
[1:57:36] of
[1:57:39] what they're already paying. There's
[1:57:41] very few local improvements in the city
[1:57:42] right now. Most of them are paid off.
[1:57:45] Um,
[1:57:46] >> okay. So, we could look at at an
[1:57:48] » okay. So, we could look at at an
[1:57:48] alternative, but um my standard response
[1:57:52] to this is the rules change all the time
[1:57:54] and we don't go back. So, it should just
[1:57:57] be the rule for everybody moving forward
[1:57:58] and that's that's just the way it is. I
[1:58:00] think there's only
[1:58:02] I think there's only two or three in
[1:58:04] town right now.
[1:58:05] >> So, while this is before us then
[1:58:10] if there is a strong enough position
[1:58:13] amongst council to actually
[1:58:17] restrict it or change it um and move
[1:58:21] away from um
[1:58:25] is this what we do now in in terms of
[1:58:27] the recommendations or
[1:58:30] I'm I'm trying so if I'm if I'm
[1:58:34] if I'm a friend of Joe's on this
[1:58:36] particular issue and we get two other
[1:58:38] friends does that mean we just don't
[1:58:40] deal with this particular policy
[1:58:43] >> so Yeah, this was the discussion that we
[1:58:46] » so Yeah, this was the discussion that we
[1:58:46] had around the reserve policy. So,
[1:58:48] administration is recommending that we
[1:58:50] remove the road renewal from local
[1:58:52] improvement. We're not saying throw out
[1:58:54] local improvement because there are
[1:58:55] valid opportunities for citizens to come
[1:58:58] forward. Um, what we are saying is that
[1:59:00] if you remove that risk around allowing
[1:59:03] them to vote it down and then they
[1:59:04] complain about the state of the road and
[1:59:07] you put it on taxes, we're going to have
[1:59:08] a much better asset management system.
[1:59:11] Um but we need you to make that decision
[1:59:14] on this before you can finalize your
[1:59:17] reserve policy discussion around the
[1:59:19] infrastructure tax. So yes, we do need
[1:59:22] you to
[1:59:25] find three people that support whatever
[1:59:28] direction you want us to take.
[1:59:30] >> Okay. So from that perspective then
[1:59:34] » Okay. So from that perspective then
[1:59:34] [clears throat]
[1:59:36] and I think I'm I'm interpreting
[1:59:38] correctly
[1:59:42] I would like to see
[1:59:46] roads and sidewalks
[1:59:49] be removed or sorry asphalting and
[1:59:52] paving um be removed from
[1:59:57] this policy which would then allow
[1:59:59] people who wanted
[2:00:01] other stuff to line up and be able to go
[2:00:05] through it and pay for it. Did that make
[2:00:07] sense?
[2:00:10] Sorry, it does. Um, I would maybe reward
[2:00:13] it. Um, that I think Ryan used some good
[2:00:16] language before standard
[2:00:19] because someone could come in and say we
[2:00:21] want a decorative sidewalk in here and
[2:00:23] we should allow them to petition for
[2:00:24] that. Um, but if they want the standard
[2:00:27] that the city does, um, then we can we
[2:00:31] can work around some wording so that it
[2:00:33] doesn't remove that opportunity for
[2:00:34] citizens to come forward and get
[2:00:36] something different in their
[2:00:36] neighborhood.
[2:00:37] >> Okay. So, I think Joel and I
[2:00:43] » Okay. So, I think Joel and I
[2:00:43] want to see roads and sidewalks,
[2:00:46] standard roads and sidewalks be the
[2:00:49] responsibility of all rateayers.
[2:00:53] Would you say that's right, Joe? That is
[2:00:55] correct. Blank.
[2:00:56] >> Okay.
[2:00:58] » Okay.
[2:00:58] >> Councelor [clears throat] White, Mayor
[2:00:59] » Councelor [clears throat] White, Mayor
[2:00:59] Bronco, then Councelor Aberly.
[2:01:03] >> I think you have a third friend,
[2:01:10] » Mayor Bronco.
[2:01:12] Uh, thank you. through a chair to
[2:01:14] clarification suit. the the the the
[2:01:18] policy we have now when we do a local
[2:01:21] improvement, we assess their frontage
[2:01:24] and we charge them, let's say, for
[2:01:25] example, the average home pays $3,000.
[2:01:29] But once we're doing that project and
[2:01:32] for unforeseen conditions,
[2:01:36] there's $100,000 extra. Who pays for
[2:01:38] that? Does that get divided between
[2:01:42] the residents or is that become part of
[2:01:45] the local the whole community
[2:01:49] because because when we give them a
[2:01:51] price we say for the next 10 years if we
[2:01:54] do a local improvement you're going to
[2:01:57] pay let's say $500 for the next 10 years
[2:02:00] that's based on that project cost. But
[2:02:03] if there's an overseen
[2:02:06] uh extras, let's say $100,000 on that
[2:02:09] road, who pays for that? Is that all
[2:02:12] citizens of Watasan or is that that
[2:02:15] devel or that
[2:02:18] project
[2:02:23] » uh through to Mayor Bronco. So in that
[2:02:25] case, so if if the bylaw was approved by
[2:02:28] council and it said that each property
[2:02:30] is uh saying $3,000
[2:02:33] for the next 10 years and the project is
[2:02:36] concluded and we do have some issue and
[2:02:38] it's an extra $100,000, then the bylaw
[2:02:41] would have to be amended or proposed to
[2:02:44] be amended and council could amend the
[2:02:45] bylaw to increase each of the properties
[2:02:49] by splitting that 100,000 between the
[2:02:52] city 50% and the residents 50%. % or
[2:02:55] council could say, "Nope, that's okay."
[2:02:57] Um, the city will pay for it. That's
[2:02:59] that's up to council.
[2:03:02] >> Thank you,
[2:03:04] » Thank you,
[2:03:04] councelor Averly. Then councelor
[2:03:06] Billingsley.
[2:03:06] >> Uh, thank you. We don't have to say
[2:03:09] » Uh, thank you. We don't have to say
[2:03:09] through the chair, but I'm going to uh
[2:03:12] through the chair to administration. I
[2:03:13] just want to make sure I understand
[2:03:15] fully what this discussion is. So
[2:03:18] currently uh
[2:03:21] correct me if I anything I say is wrong.
[2:03:24] Currently we have a I'm going to say
[2:03:27] long list of areas where we see our
[2:03:32] equipment and our analysis has seen
[2:03:34] these are the areas
[2:03:37] where road work, sidewalk work in
[2:03:41] neighborhoods is required.
[2:03:43] And I remember a couple years ago
[2:03:46] looking at it, right? Like this year
[2:03:49] we're hoping to do X, like the plan is
[2:03:51] to do XY Z.
[2:03:53] And I was looking at it really carefully
[2:03:55] because my block is um coming soon. And
[2:03:58] I was like, oo, uh, my taxes are about
[2:04:02] to go up.
[2:04:05] So my first So so far I'm right. So we
[2:04:08] just go down that line of that's how we
[2:04:11] do that is
[2:04:14] this and then if the neighborhood who
[2:04:19] will have or the people who live along
[2:04:21] that stretch
[2:04:24] where the work's going to get done if
[2:04:26] the majority does not want to pay the
[2:04:28] local improvement it gets put down to
[2:04:31] the bottom and their
[2:04:34] road sidewalk whatever doesn't get done
[2:04:36] so I understand the process as more or
[2:04:38] less before I ask my question.
[2:04:40] >> Councelor Ably, you have it correct.
[2:04:42] » Councelor Ably, you have it correct.
[2:04:42] >> Okay.
[2:04:44] » Okay.
[2:04:44] So, the first question is if we get rid
[2:04:47] of the local improvement levy on those
[2:04:51] individual people and we spread it out
[2:04:54] to the community, do we foresee,
[2:05:00] for example, because I think that my
[2:05:02] road and it's not really about me. It's
[2:05:03] just how I can organize my road will
[2:05:07] still 100% be done when it was planned
[2:05:10] to or now that
[2:05:13] we are looking at everything that
[2:05:16] timeline's going to be shorter or
[2:05:18] longer,
[2:05:20] would it impact that at all? And I I
[2:05:22] know that's sort of we don't know the
[2:05:25] answer 100% but
[2:05:27] >> uh so there is a potential that it might
[2:05:30] » uh so there is a potential that it might
[2:05:30] be delayed a year or two depending on
[2:05:32] priorities. Um obviously grant funding
[2:05:34] impacts that uh reserve funding will
[2:05:37] impact that um council's decisions on
[2:05:40] you know instead of spending $2 million
[2:05:43] on roads this year we're going to spend
[2:05:44] it here. So that could impact the
[2:05:46] priorities. But if your road was
[2:05:49] scheduled for 2028 uh reconstruction, we
[2:05:53] would follow that schedule as close as
[2:05:54] possible.
[2:05:55] >> And either having the levy or not having
[2:05:58] » And either having the levy or not having
[2:05:58] the levy is not going to impact that
[2:06:01] schedule.
[2:06:03] The only thing that would impact that
[2:06:05] would be if the levy still exists and
[2:06:08] it's petitioned against then obviously
[2:06:11] the schedule changes but otherwise the
[2:06:14] schedule shouldn't be affected
[2:06:16] by more than a year or two in my
[2:06:19] opinion.
[2:06:19] >> Okay. So when I look at when I think
[2:06:22] » Okay. So when I look at when I think
[2:06:22] about the levy and I'm this is where I
[2:06:25] was like wait to my question until
[2:06:27] everybody agrees because I need I need
[2:06:30] to just maybe have council
[2:06:36] argue this in my head for me as to
[2:06:38] whether or not you have a fourth friend.
[2:06:40] Um,
[2:06:45] initially I believe that yes, 100%
[2:06:49] we should be spreading this across the
[2:06:52] community in the sense that we are one
[2:06:55] community and let's um spread the cost
[2:06:59] of everybody's roads.
[2:07:04] But then I wonder I get where Sue you
[2:07:08] were saying if they want a decorative
[2:07:09] sidewalk or they they want these special
[2:07:11] things they can
[2:07:14] apply for it. But if there is a group of
[2:07:16] people that
[2:07:19] have the money and want to expedite
[2:07:24] their roads that now takes a cost off
[2:07:29] the rest of us. And so where I'm not I
[2:07:33] think fundamentally I don't agree with
[2:07:34] that because I don't agree with that
[2:07:36] with healthare but then when I think
[2:07:38] about it with um the roads I'm sort of
[2:07:41] like how much of a communist am I? uh
[2:07:45] right is [laughter] I don't
[2:07:51] basically that's what we're saying now
[2:07:53] is that if you can afford it
[2:07:56] you can have it quicker and maybe we're
[2:07:58] getting more work done in the year
[2:08:00] because people are being able to put in
[2:08:03] more work towards it. So I just if
[2:08:06] anybody can help me make my mind up
[2:08:08] because I'm I'm totally on the fence.
[2:08:12] Councelor Billingsley, maybe you can
[2:08:15] help her.
[2:08:18] >> I don't know if I'm going to be able to
[2:08:20] » I don't know if I'm going to be able to
[2:08:20] be much help. I think you have a friend
[2:08:21] in me as [laughter] well. Part of the um
[2:08:26] consideration though is um we will have
[2:08:31] a shortfall of revenue compared to if we
[2:08:34] had local improvement. Like I say, about
[2:08:36] a half a percent of of of taxation lost.
[2:08:39] Um, part of the problem that we ran into
[2:08:41] with this is that we had um I'll use the
[2:08:46] Parkside Drive. Is that the the really
[2:08:48] bad street? Um, it was scheduled
[2:08:52] >> to be fixed
[2:08:54] » to be fixed
[2:08:54] few years ago and they petitioned and
[2:08:56] and did not want to do the local
[2:08:58] improvement. So
[2:09:02] it becomes a problem in the sense of
[2:09:07] they are the ones who said no thank you
[2:09:09] we'll move it to the bottom of the pile
[2:09:13] and I could understand why because their
[2:09:14] their taxes were going to go up more
[2:09:17] than if it was shared among the entire
[2:09:19] community. Um, so that's one thing to um
[2:09:26] have in your mind when you decide
[2:09:28] whether or not this is the right way to
[2:09:30] go or not. Um,
[2:09:33] but I think that um having things moved
[2:09:36] to the bottom of the pile, if we if we
[2:09:39] lose having u sidewalks and overlays
[2:09:42] removed from this list, um then things
[2:09:47] wouldn't be moved to the end of the p or
[2:09:48] to the bottom of the pile. that um
[2:09:51] parkside drive would have been taken
[2:09:52] care of three four years ago or whenever
[2:09:54] it was scheduled. So um for that reason
[2:09:57] I'm will support removing those.
[2:10:02] >> Mayor Bronco,
[2:10:04] » Mayor Bronco,
[2:10:04] thank you. Uh just a question. I know we
[2:10:08] have we have a tax for roads and
[2:10:11] infrastructure. So if I were to look at
[2:10:14] the other aspect is residents, let's say
[2:10:18] we're going to go to a 2% infrastructure
[2:10:21] tax.
[2:10:24] And I would feel real guilty myself if I
[2:10:26] were was to pay 2%
[2:10:29] tax for infrastructure and then when it
[2:10:31] came to building my road that I'd have
[2:10:35] to pay the whole thing when I'm already
[2:10:39] paying
[2:10:40] a road tax. So, it's almost like to me I
[2:10:43] see it as uh double taxing the residents
[2:10:47] for that for that lot for that road
[2:10:51] because I am once once you raise a road
[2:10:55] tax to everybody in our community that
[2:10:58] means we're paying for everybody's road.
[2:11:00] We're collecting money from everybody to
[2:11:02] pay for everybody's road.
[2:11:05] So just just a thought.
[2:11:10] » Councelor Oil.
[2:11:19] » Mike, please.
[2:11:21] >> Oh, I turned it off. Thanks, Joe. Um,
[2:11:24] » Oh, I turned it off. Thanks, Joe. Um,
[2:11:24] thanks, Mayor Branco.
[2:11:27] Would it be fair to say or is it is it
[2:11:30] if we remove this then there is no
[2:11:32] choice to have your road and your
[2:11:35] sidewalks done or do they still have a
[2:11:38] choice to pay for it I guess would be my
[2:11:40] question because if they did not we have
[2:11:44] standard roads we have standard
[2:11:45] sidewalks that's what you get it's paid
[2:11:47] for in your taxes we wouldn't have to
[2:11:49] worry about what councelor Averly was
[2:11:51] saying correct
[2:11:53] [clears throat]
[2:11:55] Um, yeah, that's correct. If the if the
[2:11:58] local improvement levy was removed,
[2:12:01] everyone would get
[2:12:03] standard road, standard curb and gutter,
[2:12:05] standard sidewalk, um, they couldn't
[2:12:08] vote against it. Um, it would all it
[2:12:10] would just get done in the order of our
[2:12:14] infrastructure maintenance plan.
[2:12:16] >> Thank you,
[2:12:20] » Councelor Aberly.
[2:12:23] This is it's so funny. So
[2:12:29] for me it's funny as I work it through
[2:12:31] that we are there are certain areas
[2:12:34] where people want to call for plebites.
[2:12:37] They want to do all of these things as a
[2:12:39] representative government and this has
[2:12:43] just made up my mind is that I believe
[2:12:45] that we are elected to make these
[2:12:46] decisions and you have a friend. Thank
[2:12:50] you.
[2:12:53] Any further questions?
[2:13:00] Good. We don't need a motion on this, do
[2:13:02] we? No. Okay. Oh, councelor Nielson.
[2:13:07] So,
[2:13:11] four or more friends means
[2:13:14] a [clears throat] recommendation going
[2:13:15] to administration to pull
[2:13:18] standard
[2:13:21] curbs and gutters and sidewalks out of
[2:13:24] this proposal.
[2:13:26] It doesn't
[2:13:29] restrict a neighborhood
[2:13:31] from asking
[2:13:34] and paying for
[2:13:38] upgrades.
[2:13:40] Would that be a safe statement?
[2:13:43] >> That's correct.
[2:13:46] » That's correct.
[2:13:46] >> So my question would be this.
[2:13:49] » So my question would be this.
[2:13:49] I want to guard against
[2:13:52] a really rich neighborhood Wataswin and
[2:14:00] they want to tear the road up every
[2:14:03] every 5 years to make sure their
[2:14:05] neighborhood is maintained.
[2:14:08] Um, do they pay 50% and we're on the
[2:14:12] other hook for the 50 or do they pay for
[2:14:14] the whole enchilada?
[2:14:18] In other words, if we wipe this out, are
[2:14:20] we wiping out our contribution to
[2:14:22] upgrades?
[2:14:27] » If somebody, a neighborhood, wanted to
[2:14:30] do something over and above the city's
[2:14:34] maintenance and engineering standards,
[2:14:37] that would be at their cost. So, if they
[2:14:39] wanted to pave their street in gold,
[2:14:41] that would not be the city's
[2:14:42] responsibility. I'd just like to point
[2:14:45] out too that I think people who have
[2:14:46] money don't like wasting money.
[2:14:50] >> No, be I I asked the question only
[2:14:52] » No, be I I asked the question only
[2:14:52] because we have if we simply pull out
[2:14:57] roads and sidewalks and we leave the
[2:14:59] rest of this here so people can make
[2:15:01] application.
[2:15:03] We would also have to pull out number
[2:15:05] four which says the property owner's
[2:15:08] allocation is 25% and 50%. Right? We'd
[2:15:11] have to make changes to that. So we are
[2:15:13] on the hook for paying for their
[2:15:15] decorative upgrade.
[2:15:18] >> Yeah. Basically, so again, the municipal
[2:15:20] » Yeah. Basically, so again, the municipal
[2:15:20] government act legislates how we can
[2:15:22] impose a t local improvement. So, but
[2:15:25] we'll make sure that obviously follows
[2:15:27] that legislation. So I'll bring back an
[2:15:29] amendment to the local improvement
[2:15:31] policy with the recommendations that we
[2:15:33] heard today. Um I guess just um in my
[2:15:37] previous life um I did local
[2:15:40] improvements in another community um
[2:15:42] much larger community and it was even
[2:15:46] the rich folk did not want to pay for
[2:15:47] that. Most of those got petitioned
[2:15:50] against even if they were in the
[2:15:52] million-dollar houses.
[2:15:55] >> Thank you. Councelor Aberly.
[2:15:57] » Thank you. Councelor Aberly.
[2:15:58] >> Thank you. I think the last comment by
[2:15:59] » Thank you. I think the last comment by
[2:16:00] Kathy helped my question a little bit,
[2:16:02] but I'm in the sense of gold roads
[2:16:05] everywhere. [gasps]
[2:16:07] Could these improvements only happen
[2:16:09] when said neighborhood is scheduled for
[2:16:16] improvement?
[2:16:20] If a neighborhood petitioned to get a
[2:16:23] local improvement completed in their
[2:16:24] area, if it was a successful petition
[2:16:27] and it met the city's schedule, I guess
[2:16:30] for construction, um because we'd
[2:16:32] obviously have to tender the project and
[2:16:34] so on, um then it could advance. So, if
[2:16:37] someone petitioned to say, "I want my
[2:16:39] road done next year." And 100% of the of
[2:16:42] the uh residents or the property owners
[2:16:46] said, "Yep," then we could put it on the
[2:16:48] list. And if it's not funded by the
[2:16:50] city, it really doesn't matter. It
[2:16:52] wouldn't impact the taxes or anything.
[2:16:54] It would just impact
[2:16:56] us scheduling it with a contractor.
[2:17:01] Kathy, just so I make sure just so I I
[2:17:04] think what I've heard is that the city
[2:17:09] would not be doing that road anymore.
[2:17:11] That wouldn't be coming out of So, we're
[2:17:15] going to go back to my street. My
[2:17:16] street's going to get fixed in two years
[2:17:20] regardless of how many people want and
[2:17:22] pay for their own lo local improvement
[2:17:25] because that's going to be on the city
[2:17:26] dime.
[2:17:28] And you are just
[2:17:30] working with that neighborhood to get
[2:17:32] the proper contractors in to do that
[2:17:35] road properly. It's not the city doing
[2:17:37] the work.
[2:17:38] >> That's correct. Thank you.
[2:17:41] » That's correct. Thank you.
[2:17:41] >> Any further questions?
[2:17:44] » Any further questions?
[2:17:44] >> Moving on.
[2:17:46] » Moving on.
[2:17:46] >> Hallelu.
[2:17:49] » Hallelu.
[2:17:49] My apologies.
[2:17:50] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question to
[2:17:53] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question to
[2:17:53] Kathy or Sue.
[2:17:56] Let's say we have
[2:18:00] uh we have a list of five streets.
[2:18:03] Does council get to choose which street
[2:18:05] is more uh
[2:18:09] goes first priority? Let's say we drive
[2:18:12] oh this is terrible.
[2:18:14] Do we have a choice? Does council have a
[2:18:17] choice to put uh uh select, you know,
[2:18:21] one, two, three or four or is that
[2:18:24] engineering department
[2:18:26] cuz some municipalities
[2:18:28] council decides?
[2:18:31] Uh, Mayor Broncos, so we did a road
[2:18:34] assessment a number of years ago and so
[2:18:37] anytime we bring a project forward for
[2:18:39] council's consideration, it is because
[2:18:41] it is the most a highest priority for
[2:18:45] administration to complete for that
[2:18:47] maintenance schedule. So, um, the items
[2:18:51] that will come forward for the 2027
[2:18:53] construction, those have been
[2:18:55] prioritized uh as number one uh being
[2:18:58] the most important thing that has to get
[2:19:00] done next. And so the list is there. Uh
[2:19:03] if council chooses to um fund something
[2:19:06] different, that's that's up to council
[2:19:08] to decide.
[2:19:12] » Okay. Any further questions?
[2:19:16] Great. Moving on. Council reports for
[2:19:19] information.
[2:19:22] Anything there? Closed sessions. Is
[2:19:25] there anything on closed?
[2:19:28] There is. Okay. So, we will go to close
[2:19:30] session at 11, looks like 19.
[2:19:37] >> Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. For this, we do
[2:19:39] » Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. For this, we do
[2:19:40] need a vote on it and a motion.
[2:19:42] >> Okay.
[2:19:44] » Okay.
[2:19:44] >> All of those in favor, moving into close
[2:19:46] » All of those in favor, moving into close
[2:19:46] session.
[2:19:49] All those in favor? Favor.
[2:19:51] >> Thank you.
[2:19:54] » Thank you.
[2:19:54] Love it.
[4:23:18] Okay, welcome back everybody. Just need
[4:23:20] a motion to come out of close session,
[4:23:22] please. So,
[4:23:25] all in favor?
[4:23:28] Done.
[4:23:30] Okay. Um, going to new business. Does
[4:23:34] anybody else have any or is it just
[4:23:35] myself?
[4:23:38] Okay.
[4:23:42] So, I'm going to read this. This is uh
[4:23:45] I'll leave it for some questions
[4:23:46] afterwards, but this is just how how I'm
[4:23:50] feeling right now. So,
[4:23:52] uh, so I'm going to be direct. Enough is
[4:23:55] enough. The matter involving the mayor
[4:23:57] has gone too far, lasted too long, and
[4:24:00] cost the taxpayers too much money.
[4:24:04] The legal bills continue to increase.
[4:24:07] Council continues spending time on this.
[4:24:10] Administration continues spending time
[4:24:13] on this. And ultimately, the taxpayers
[4:24:16] continue paying for it.
[4:24:19] My position is simple.
[4:24:22] Let's resolve the matter. Bring the
[4:24:24] mayor back. No new conditions, no
[4:24:27] replacement conditions, no further
[4:24:29] restrictions.
[4:24:32] We also need to look seriously at the
[4:24:34] process that brought us here.
[4:24:37] Council was asked to make decisions
[4:24:39] affecting the elected mayor without all
[4:24:41] members having complete information
[4:24:43] regarding the conditions associated with
[4:24:45] his return. council did not know any of
[4:24:49] those conditions. Some council did not
[4:24:51] want to know any of them. I continue to
[4:24:55] have serious problems with that. We had
[4:24:57] a responsibility to know what we are
[4:24:59] voting for.
[4:25:01] We have a responsibility to ask
[4:25:03] questions.
[4:25:05] We have a responsibility to understand
[4:25:08] the circumstances.
[4:25:13] Then we have a responsibility to take
[4:25:15] ownership of our votes.
[4:25:18] If we do not know the conditions, did
[4:25:21] not know whether they were reasonable
[4:25:23] and did not know whether they were
[4:25:25] achievable, then we should ask ourselves
[4:25:28] what information supported the decision
[4:25:29] that was made.
[4:25:32] This is a governance question to me.
[4:25:37] It is a question council should be
[4:25:39] willing to examine.
[4:25:41] There are also serious questions about
[4:25:43] the conditions that were developed, how
[4:25:46] authority was exercised throughout the
[4:25:48] process, how compliance and determined
[4:25:51] and whether council retained enough
[4:25:53] oversight over decisions affecting the
[4:25:55] elected member of council.
[4:25:58] I am deliberately not assigning
[4:26:00] responsibility for those matters in open
[4:26:02] session.
[4:26:04] There are issues associated with this
[4:26:06] matter and deserve a more detailed
[4:26:08] discussion in proper confidential
[4:26:10] session.
[4:26:12] That discussion should happen.
[4:26:15] But the public should know this much.
[4:26:19] Council has a responsibility to satisfy
[4:26:21] itself that our processes were fair,
[4:26:24] properly authorized, supported by
[4:26:27] adequate information, and applied
[4:26:30] consistently.
[4:26:32] That brings me to another principle.
[4:26:35] If council establishes a standard of
[4:26:38] conduct for elected official, then we
[4:26:41] must be prepared to apply comparable
[4:26:43] standards consistently.
[4:26:46] I am aware of other comments and conduct
[4:26:48] involving individuals within the
[4:26:50] municipal organization that in my view
[4:26:52] raise serious questions when compared
[4:26:55] with the standard applied to the mayor.
[4:26:57] I am intentionally not naming
[4:26:59] individuals or discussing the details
[4:27:01] publicly. Those matters belong in an
[4:27:04] appropriate setting, but council and the
[4:27:07] public should understand where I stand.
[4:27:10] I will not support selective
[4:27:12] accountability. If we determine that
[4:27:15] certain conduct warrants investigations,
[4:27:17] restrictions, sanctions, or other
[4:27:19] consequences, then we need to be
[4:27:21] prepared to apply our standards
[4:27:23] consistently.
[4:27:25] Position
[4:27:27] should not determine the standard.
[4:27:30] Personal relationships should not
[4:27:32] determine the standard. The individual
[4:27:35] involved should not determine the
[4:27:37] standard.
[4:27:39] The standard should determine the
[4:27:41] standard. If council continues down this
[4:27:44] path, then I am prepared to pursue the
[4:27:47] other concerns through appropriate
[4:27:48] processes.
[4:27:51] That is a conversation we should
[4:27:53] continue in close session. Before we get
[4:27:56] there though, I want council to think
[4:27:58] about what continuing this conflict
[4:28:01] means to this city.
[4:28:04] More legal expense,
[4:28:06] more council time,
[4:28:08] more administrative time, more internal
[4:28:12] division,
[4:28:14] more attention taken away from the re
[4:28:16] residents and city priorities.
[4:28:20] At what point do we say enough?
[4:28:24] The public would expect everything
[4:28:26] required for August 18th to be ready to
[4:28:28] avoid expensive ongoing legal bills. No
[4:28:31] unnecessary delays, no incomplete
[4:28:34] information, no avoiding a decision
[4:28:36] because another opinion is being sought.
[4:28:39] Legal counsel advises us. Council
[4:28:43] ultimately has to make council's
[4:28:45] decisions. We were elected to govern.
[4:28:53] There is still time to do that. Well,
[4:28:56] we have more than three years left in
[4:28:58] this term. Three years to improve
[4:29:00] infrastructure. Three years to improve
[4:29:02] finances.
[4:29:05] Three years to improve services,
[4:29:08] attract development and investment.
[4:29:11] Three years to rebuild confidence in
[4:29:13] council.
[4:29:14] Three years to leave a legacy that
[4:29:16] people
[4:29:23] of this city will be proud of.
[4:29:32] There is uh in my opinion far too much
[4:29:35] work ahead of us to spend the rest of
[4:29:37] this term consumed by internal conflict.
[4:29:42] bring the mayor back, end the matter,
[4:29:46] and then let us continue the
[4:29:47] confidential discussion that council
[4:29:49] needs to have.
[4:29:54] Let us get back to governing the city.
[4:30:00] So, if you have any questions, I've got
[4:30:02] a few, but if you have any questions,
[4:30:03] please feel free right now.
[4:30:10] answer.
[4:30:15] » Mine is not a question.
[4:30:17] Mine is a comment.
[4:30:27] You use the word in your presentation
[4:30:31] about being principled
[4:30:33] as a council. [cough and clears throat]
[4:30:35] >> I don't think I used the word principal,
[4:30:37] » I don't think I used the word principal,
[4:30:37] but okay.
[4:30:40] And I am personally confident
[4:30:43] [clears throat]
[4:30:44] that I have been principled
[4:30:50] in the entire process
[4:30:54] and I have ultimate confidence that the
[4:30:56] information we receive from from
[4:30:58] administration and legal was principled
[4:31:07] and I will not make any further comments
[4:31:09] because it's before the courts.
[4:31:12] Okay. Anyone else?
[4:31:17] I don't think I used the word principal,
[4:31:19] but where I'm ref referring there is I
[4:31:22] asked multiple times after hearing that
[4:31:25] he was being able to be brought back in
[4:31:27] May. I just asked for terms and
[4:31:30] conditions to see it.
[4:31:33] It was not provided
[4:31:35] was not provided to myself. I assume not
[4:31:38] provided to everybody else yet. We're
[4:31:40] asked to vote in support without knowing
[4:31:44] what we're supporting. So that's where
[4:31:46] I'm going.
[4:31:47] >> Are you not disclosing confidential
[4:31:50] » Are you not disclosing confidential
[4:31:50] information?
[4:31:50] >> No, I'm repeating what happened out in
[4:31:53] » No, I'm repeating what happened out in
[4:31:53] front of
[4:31:53] >> in close session.
[4:31:54] » in close session.
[4:31:54] >> No, in front of global news
[4:31:59] » No, in front of global news
[4:31:59] was all reported.
[4:32:03] I'm not repeating anything here.
[4:32:06] that the public isn't aware of.
[4:32:13] I I I I'd like to know and maybe you
[4:32:16] can't answer it. So far, what's it cost
[4:32:18] the city in this?
[4:32:22] You might not be able to disclose that.
[4:32:25] And that's that's an answer.
[4:32:32] uh under legal advice administration
[4:32:34] will not take part in this conversation.
[4:32:37] >> Okay. Then the rest of my questions um
[4:32:45] I don't have any other questions because
[4:32:47] it's going to go that direction. So I'm
[4:32:50] just going to pass on those questions.
[4:32:52] But that's just where I stand.
[4:32:55] I I I find the city is in big unrest
[4:32:59] right now. And this is a big
[4:33:03] a big portion of it.
[4:33:07] And I just think we've got to come and
[4:33:09] solve this quickly. I don't I don't want
[4:33:12] to see this dragging out for years and
[4:33:14] costing who knows I don't know what
[4:33:15] lawyers charge but um
[4:33:21] somehow we've got to get back and and
[4:33:26] solve this issue sooner than later.
[4:33:30] So that's where I stand. So no more
[4:33:32] questions from me. Anyone else have
[4:33:34] questions?
[4:33:39] Then I uh am going to adjourn this
[4:33:41] meeting at 1:31.
[4:33:45] Thank you for your time.
[4:33:50] » I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I almost called
[4:33:53] you Tracy.