[3:45] and welcome to the Township of

[3:46] Whitewater Region's budget committee

[3:48] meeting for Wednesday, January 14th.

[3:50] It's noon and we're going to call

[3:52] ourselves to order.

[3:54] Uh, and just before we do the, uh, land

[3:58] acknowledgement, which I was going to

[4:00] ask councelor Bell to do,

[4:03] if he's prepared to do it in a moment.

[4:05] Um, and just, uh, I just wanted to

[4:08] recognize that we have a new clerk

[4:11] filling the role today. So, Kim Balmer

[4:13] is in uh, called in just on a contract.

[4:17] Our normal clerk is just not available

[4:20] right now. Uh so in order to make sure

[4:22] that we could facilitate the meeting as

[4:24] as much as possible with the CEO's full

[4:27] attention on the um the budget

[4:30] discussion

[4:31] uh we've asked for a secondary qualified

[4:34] clerk to come in and clerk our meeting.

[4:37] So be patient if I am not giving the

[4:41] cues correctly. I'm sure Mr. Balmer here

[4:43] will just elbow me.

[4:49] » Excellent.

[4:51] Good. And with that, I will hand the

[4:53] floor over to councelor Bell for uh our

[4:55] land acknowledgement, please.

[4:57] >> As we gather, we'd like to acknowledge

[4:59] » As we gather, we'd like to acknowledge

[4:59] on behalf of the township of Whitewater

[5:00] region and our community that we are

[5:01] meeting on the traditional territory of

[5:03] the Algangquin people. We thank the

[5:05] Alongquin people and express our respect

[5:06] and support for their rich history and

[5:08] we are extremely grateful for their many

[5:09] and continued displays of friendship. We

[5:11] also thank all the generations of

[5:12] indigenous people who have taken care of

[5:14] this land for thousands of years.

[5:17] >> Thank you for that. Uh, next item on our

[5:19] » Thank you for that. Uh, next item on our

[5:19] agenda, and I'll just remind people that

[5:20] might be, you know, aware of our usual

[5:23] agenda. Because it's a committee

[5:25] meeting, our procedural bylaw has uh

[5:27] kind of an abbreviated agenda format.

[5:30] So, we go directly into the approval of

[5:32] our agenda. And I don't have a

[5:34] resolution here, but I am going to say

[5:38] uh the recommendation is that the budget

[5:40] committee approve the agenda as

[5:43] provided. Can I get a mover in a second,

[5:45] please? Moved by the deputy mayor,

[5:47] seconded by councelor Trim. Is there

[5:49] anybody who'd like to make an amendment

[5:51] or change to the agenda?

[5:54] I see none. And with that, we'll call

[5:56] for the vote. All those in favor? And

[5:58] it's carried unanimously. Thank you. The

[6:00] next is our approval of some minutes.

[6:01] And we have a number of minutes here

[6:03] from December 8th and December 11th. And

[6:05] they are enclosed and available. The

[6:08] recommendation is that the budget

[6:09] committee approve the December 8th and

[6:11] 11th, 2025 budget committee meetings

[6:13] minutes. A move in a seconder, please.

[6:16] Moved by councelor Mstead, seconded by

[6:18] councelor White.

[6:21] Uh, any errors or omissions noted by any

[6:23] member of council

[6:25] committee?

[6:27] None. We'll call for the vote. All those

[6:28] in favor? It's carried unanimously.

[6:31] Thank you. Uh, declarations. Is there

[6:33] any declarations that need to be made by

[6:35] any member of this committee?

[6:38] I see none. We'll move on to item number

[6:40] one

[6:43] which is our uh budget presentation

[6:47] and the recommendation is that the

[6:49] budget committee of the township of

[6:50] whitewater region recommends three

[6:52] things. The first one the mayor present

[6:55] the 2026 operating capital operating

[6:58] capital and user fee budgets as

[7:00] finalized by the budget committee that

[7:02] the council of the township whitewater

[7:03] region enact bylaws to adopt the mayor's

[7:05] 2026 budget as recommended. and three,

[7:08] continuing the development of a 10-year

[7:10] capital plan based on the funding based

[7:13] on funding and the 2026 asset management

[7:15] plan with the budget committee. A mover

[7:18] and a seconder, please. Okay, that's

[7:19] moved by councelor Olmstead

[7:22] and seconded by councelor Moore.

[7:27] Uh CIO, you going to provide a leadin to

[7:30] the discussion?

[7:30] >> Yeah, absolutely. So, we'll go ahead and

[7:33] » Yeah, absolutely. So, we'll go ahead and

[7:33] and commence the 2026 uh draft budget

[7:36] presentation. I think this would

[7:37] finalize the intent of today's

[7:39] presentation is to finalize

[7:41] uh the the the 2026 budget and to

[7:44] continue discussions on our on our on

[7:46] our five-year projections. Um so I just

[7:49] want to start by thanking uh the mayor

[7:51] together with council um for for the

[7:54] involvement. I think with these changes

[7:57] changes in legislation, strong mayors, I

[7:59] think that the the collaboration of all

[8:00] of council together with staff, together

[8:02] with the public, I think it demonstrates

[8:04] that we're working in this democratic

[8:06] system. I just want to recognize that

[8:09] first staff, we appreciate the

[8:11] involvement and and the inclusion of all

[8:13] members of council, staff, and the

[8:14] public in the process. Um,

[8:17] what's going to be presented today is

[8:19] sort of a refined version of our

[8:21] previous budget presentations. We've

[8:23] reduced it down to 60 I think 67 slides

[8:25] from well I think over 100. So uh we

[8:28] should be able to go through it

[8:29] relatively relatively quick. Uh noting

[8:32] that um we have sort of refined the

[8:34] presentation recognizing that based on

[8:37] our our observations that there'll be

[8:39] more deliberations on certain certain

[8:42] topics. Uh namely the capital capital

[8:45] budget I think is is one of the areas

[8:46] where there'll be sort of more

[8:48] discussion. We feel as though the

[8:50] deliberations from council were were a

[8:51] bit less on the operating and and I

[8:53] think there's we're going to go over it

[8:55] to some degree but uh but we'll we've

[8:57] refined that quite a bit. Water

[8:59] wastewater is is is shaped by our our

[9:02] financial plan and our our water

[9:04] wastewater rate study. So I mean it al

[9:06] the recommendations from staff to

[9:08] council align with that plan. So it's

[9:10] it's pretty uh pretty direct from the

[9:13] plan. Um and then the the the

[9:16] projections. So the projections is

[9:17] something we've presented to council at

[9:19] a previous budget meeting. They're

[9:21] unfunded. Uh they present a lot of

[9:24] constraints um a lot of uh competing

[9:27] priorities. Uh and I think that uh you

[9:30] know in order to progress forward we

[9:33] need to manage the 2026 budget and move

[9:35] it towards approval uh and continue the

[9:38] the conversation on these projections. I

[9:40] I don't think we're going to be able to

[9:41] complete uh this idea of 5-year

[9:43] projections uh in the time frame of

[9:45] getting this budget approved and

[9:47] approving the 2026 budget will allow

[9:49] staff to move forward with the

[9:50] implementation of the budget. So whether

[9:52] it's going to tender, whether it's

[9:54] issuing RFPs or procuring things, we can

[9:56] move forward with that and try to get in

[9:58] it uh ahead of the other communities are

[10:01] all doing the exact same thing as us. Um

[10:04] so the the we'll recap the um the the

[10:07] the uh where we stand on the percentage

[10:10] of operating in capital. I will

[10:12] highlight that we're at 1.6%

[10:16] uh increase on the levy for uh for

[10:18] operating and that's net of our growth.

[10:20] Um and that includes the the the removal

[10:23] of reserves for OP and the like. And

[10:25] then we're we're following that 4.2%

[10:28] capital which is the 4.2 2 which we've

[10:30] implemented in the last three two or

[10:32] three years uh which aligns with our

[10:34] asset management plan as it stands

[10:35] today. So uh while the mayor's direction

[10:38] um did indicate an upset limit of 7%

[10:42] we're presently sitting at 5.8% levy

[10:45] increase. So recognizing the efforts

[10:47] from staff and together with council uh

[10:49] the the efforts to try to reduce that as

[10:51] much as we can. Um so I'll go through a

[10:53] few slides if you if you'll allow me

[10:54] Curtis. So we'll just walk through it.

[10:56] So again, our we we've we've kept this

[10:58] mission vision uh from our strategic

[10:59] plan in in our slide deck. Uh so noting

[11:02] that the township delivers municipal

[11:04] services to a welcoming community and

[11:06] that uh we maintain a rural quality of

[11:08] life by balancing sustainability and

[11:10] growth. And then our strategic uh

[11:13] strategic plan identifies sort of five

[11:15] areas infrastructure, environment,

[11:18] economic development, recreation, and

[11:19] corporate performance. So these are the

[11:21] areas of focus in our the the 10-year

[11:24] strategic plan. It was adopted by uh the

[11:26] previous council. I think it may have

[11:28] been two councils ago. And then our our

[11:30] our current council uh adopted the

[11:33] strategic direction which is kind of a

[11:34] supplement to our strategic plan. And

[11:37] then these are the areas of focus.

[11:39] long-term financial planning,

[11:40] sustainability, which aligns with this

[11:41] 5-year projection, facility direction,

[11:44] which again

[11:46] will transpire as part of these these uh

[11:49] uh financial planning uh discussions,

[11:52] service levels, staffing, culture,

[11:54] growth, and economic development. So,

[11:55] these are the strategic directions from

[11:57] the current council. Our budget schedule

[11:59] is outlined here. So, we started back in

[12:01] September 16th um where the mayor gave

[12:04] direction to the CEO to sort of prepare

[12:06] the budget subject to about seven or

[12:08] eight bullets and we feel as though

[12:10] what's being presented today sort of

[12:12] aligns with those bullets. Um we had all

[12:15] day staff budget two I think one all day

[12:19] staff one all day budget meeting. We

[12:22] held the public meeting. Um we sort of

[12:24] consolidated that all back into today's

[12:26] meeting. So we've met how many times

[12:27] Curtis? Is it five or six? five five

[12:29] meetings with members of council

[12:30] together with public.

[12:32] Uh so again here's the mayor direction

[12:34] that was provided back in September. So

[12:36] the first three bullets here refer to

[12:38] these projections. So projections with

[12:39] respect to the budget forecast

[12:42] recognizing inflation, cost of living,

[12:45] the asset management plan, our

[12:46] contributions or allocations from the

[12:48] province OCIF.

[12:50] Um and then also recognizing that uh the

[12:53] county of Renfruit, the ministry of

[12:55] education also play a part in our in our

[12:58] actual tax rate or tax collected. Uh

[13:01] five-year projections with respect to

[13:02] capital and without water wastewater.

[13:04] But then again, five-year rated

[13:06] projections based on uh for water and

[13:08] wastewater.

[13:10] And then the next four bullets sort of

[13:12] primarily align with the um the 2026

[13:16] budget. So just uh um

[13:20] recognizing that the the first bullet

[13:22] recognizing that the growth shall be

[13:24] included in the 2026 operating budget uh

[13:26] that user fees shall align with

[13:28] inflation. Um

[13:31] and also recognizing that they should be

[13:33] contributing to capital reinvestment

[13:34] needs. Uh bullet six that uh the 2026

[13:39] consider feedback from the community

[13:40] council members uh following the

[13:42] direction from the mayor prior to the

[13:44] end of 2025. and that number seven that

[13:47] the proposed change in the budget aligns

[13:48] with the overall objective of inflation.

[13:51] Um and also noting here is the 7%

[13:54] maximum tax requirement together with

[13:56] the 3.4 affordability

[13:58] uh measure that we've been using which

[14:00] I'll speak to very shortly. So I think

[14:02] that what's being presented to council

[14:03] now and together with the subsequent

[14:05] council uh council meeting which this is

[14:08] a committee we're going to recommend to

[14:09] council all aligns with with with this

[14:12] marial direction. But it also we're not

[14:14] done I don't think. I think there's

[14:15] still some work to be done on the

[14:16] five-year fin five five-year plan. Yeah.

[14:19] Go ahead.

[14:21] Uh so the affordability component. So

[14:23] the this whole question of

[14:24] affordability, how do we assess

[14:26] affordability? How do we develop metrics

[14:28] on affordability? So just reiterating, I

[14:30] mean the members of council have heard

[14:31] me say this before. This probably be the

[14:33] third time that you hear it. uh but the

[14:35] affordability component essentially

[14:38] limits our property taxes uh on the

[14:42] median household income to 3.4%. So if

[14:46] we take the uh median assessment

[14:49] determine the property residential

[14:51] property tax accorded to that that

[14:53] should not be greater than 3.4%. I think

[14:55] currently uh with the the present budget

[14:58] not knowing what the county is going to

[14:59] do uh we're probably sitting around 3

[15:03] 3.23 23, two decimal points. Great,

[15:05] Curtis. 3.23. Uh, so we're not quite

[15:08] there, but again, it's there's variables

[15:10] there, right? It's dependent on what the

[15:11] county does. Um, and uh, and, um, this,

[15:15] I think, is one of the one of the

[15:17] constraints. If we look at our 5-year

[15:18] projection, and if we're going to limit

[15:20] ourselves to 3.4, and I'm not saying we

[15:21] have to, uh, that will provide a

[15:24] constraint for the amount of revenue

[15:26] generated for capital investment to name

[15:28] one one area. Uh, so this 3.4% 4% is

[15:31] established in the BMA uh consulting inc

[15:34] it's a report that's prepared uh

[15:36] comparing over 100 municipalities and

[15:39] they determine benchmarks for socio so

[15:41] socioeconomic financial and service

[15:43] delivery indicators so this is one way

[15:45] of uh looking at affordability in your

[15:48] community there are other ways I think

[15:50] one of the things I'd like to do is just

[15:51] to see where other communities in run

[15:53] county align get their median assessment

[15:55] get their median uh or their property

[15:58] taxes on that median assessment and see

[16:00] what percentages they are. I think that

[16:01] it'd be an interesting exercise to see

[16:03] where we align with our partners uh or

[16:05] our neighbors. Uh so so this is

[16:07] something that we need to keep looking

[16:08] at as we move into the projection

[16:10] component of it. But we are aligning at

[16:13] 3.32 you said Curtis

[16:14] >> 3.3

[16:15] » 3.3

[16:15] >> 3.23 uh percentage. Uh so again that 1%

[16:18] » 3.23 uh percentage. Uh so again that 1%

[16:18] levy increase it represents 77,485.

[16:22] So where when I noted the 5.8%

[16:26] increase 5.8% is where we stand today.

[16:30] Yep.

[16:30] >> Uh so it would be 5.8*

[16:33] » Uh so it would be 5.8*

[16:33] 77,485.

[16:35] So that's the additional levy money

[16:37] we're generating from property taxes and

[16:40] 4.2% of that is uh is going to capital

[16:43] and the other portion is going to

[16:45] operate.

[16:47] And then the breakdown of every dollar

[16:48] based on the 2025 is uh so we we hold

[16:52] the the lion share recognizing that um

[16:55] we're at 40% uh the county are at 31%

[17:00] education at uh

[17:03] 13% and police at 9. So this circular

[17:06] table will change. I mean once the

[17:08] county adopts their budget it might

[17:10] represent a greater percentage might

[17:11] represent less but we'll update council

[17:13] when that becomes available. Typically,

[17:14] we would do that as part of the tax rate

[17:16] adoption bylaw. So, we'll present a new

[17:18] circular uh graph when uh when we get to

[17:20] that, which will be in April, Mayish.

[17:22] >> Mayish.

[17:23] » Mayish.

[17:23] >> May. Yeah. Thanks.

[17:26] » May. Yeah. Thanks.

[17:26] And then uh this is just a table chart

[17:29] rep uh just recognizing the current uh

[17:32] countywide property taxation and rate

[17:34] increases from 2025. So where we sit is

[17:36] kind of in that middle of the pack which

[17:37] I think is based on the deliberations

[17:40] from council that's kind of where we

[17:41] want to be um throughout the county. And

[17:44] then that red line were the increases in

[17:46] 2025. And the next slide uh is examining

[17:50] sort of a greater compare comparator

[17:53] municipalities based on services water

[17:56] wastewater recreation to name sort of

[17:58] three areas of service. Um and then so

[18:01] it sort of narrows down the

[18:02] municipalities that are included. And

[18:03] again, we're kind of in the in the

[18:05] middle of the pack there. Um

[18:08] recognizing that

[18:10] our communities are different than sort

[18:12] of Renfruit and Pemrook, but again,

[18:13] here's a comparator as a way to to see

[18:16] how we fit into the whole regional

[18:18] approach.

[18:21] >> Um I'll pass it over to you, Curtis.

[18:24] » Um I'll pass it over to you, Curtis.

[18:24] Keep looking.

[18:26] >> Thank you. Um so Ivan has already kind

[18:28] » Thank you. Um so Ivan has already kind

[18:28] of mentioned this part um that the

[18:30] operating still sits at 1.6%.

[18:33] Um that's including the inflation

[18:35] pressures uh the uh final billing for OP

[18:40] um and our actual insurance uh

[18:42] allocations. Uh there's been no changes

[18:44] to the overall operating budget since

[18:46] the last two presentations. I will note

[18:48] that and that's why we are able to uh

[18:50] kind of condense that operating portion

[18:52] and have uh less overall time spent on

[18:55] that and more focus on the capital side.

[18:58] Uh so the public comments uh so at the

[19:00] meeting on the 11th uh we both received

[19:04] uh verbal comments as well as uh since

[19:06] that meeting uh some uh via email uh

[19:10] they were all distributed to council uh

[19:12] via the clerk. Um so one of the ones was

[19:15] uh talking about taxation increases that

[19:17] have happened over the number of years

[19:19] and the thought of using uh shared

[19:21] services. Uh one that was noted was the

[19:24] county uh as the to eliminate in-house

[19:26] services. Uh I'm sure you've all seen

[19:28] that that email. Uh another comment was

[19:31] about OP. Um the main question was how

[19:34] it was built to the township and the

[19:35] overall cost of it. Uh it's something

[19:37] that uh I know the mayor and the and the

[19:40] CEO are bringing to different uh pieces

[19:42] about believe Roma as a delegation to

[19:46] talk about that cost. Uh the other one

[19:48] was what is the increases changing the

[19:50] condition of gravel roads. Um that was a

[19:53] comment that or a question that had

[19:54] already been brought up before and we

[19:56] had included it in the alakart piece um

[19:59] talking about bringing the roads from a

[20:01] 15-year cycle when by the time we're

[20:03] able to come back to it to actually a

[20:05] 10ear cycle what the cost for that would

[20:07] be and we'll talk more about that when I

[20:09] get to the transportation section.

[20:12] Uh the overall cost of consultants to

[20:14] the township which was answered at that

[20:15] at that time for the specific question

[20:17] that was asked uh but it was just a note

[20:18] that was brought up. uh solar panels and

[20:20] their revenue. Uh sub subsidize

[20:22] non-resident costs at the Pemrook pool

[20:24] and then consider change of use uh

[20:26] change of area space at the uh yearround

[20:29] sports besides uh ice hockey and

[20:31] skating.

[20:34] Uh then we look at the key highlights

[20:35] for capital. So again there's no change

[20:37] here uh from what has always been

[20:39] presented is the 4.2 which is based on

[20:42] the 2022 asset management plan. Um still

[20:45] holding strong. Uh the public comments

[20:47] for capital uh again you vote these were

[20:51] were all received uh verbally and uh

[20:54] additionally some in written but from

[20:56] the same uh same residents. So why was

[20:58] the Zion line not included for the 2026

[21:00] budget and the question came of the

[21:02] history of the road. Uh that was a

[21:04] request by council. So we provide some

[21:05] information that's on the next slide and

[21:07] uh there's a a leaflet in front of you.

[21:09] Uh why does the township need five fire

[21:11] halls and equipment and is there

[21:13] efficiencies to be found? Uh, can

[21:15] services be contracted out to extend the

[21:17] life of equipment, i.e. hauling of

[21:19] gravel? And does the township meet

[21:21] indoor arenas or could be switched to uh

[21:23] could a switch be made to outdoor rinks?

[21:26] These were all comments that were

[21:28] received either verbally or or uh in

[21:30] writing and all been uh disseminated to

[21:32] council. Uh so the first uh slide kind

[21:36] of to answer one of the questions

[21:38] because it was asked by council was what

[21:39] was the history of Zion Line? um and

[21:42] it's on the leaflet in front of you if

[21:43] it's too hard to see on the actual uh

[21:45] PowerPoint. So the green line furthest

[21:49] to the um to the left is that's the

[21:53] chunk between Hila Road and Beachburg

[21:55] Road. Uh you'll notice it has it's noted

[21:57] as DST is 2023 is when it was just

[21:59] redone. Uh the place between Sturgeon

[22:02] Mountain and Beachburg Road was 2014. Uh

[22:05] had a single surface treatment attach

[22:06] applied to the top of it. Originally the

[22:08] road was done 2006.

[22:11] Uh same thing with from Sturgeon

[22:13] Mountain to Papen Road. Uh 2014 was

[22:16] whenever a single service was applied to

[22:18] that. So that's the third lift. Uh then

[22:20] from uh Papen Road to um West Ross Road,

[22:25] uh 2009 is when it received its third

[22:27] lift. And then DST, if it was done in

[22:30] 2010 on the uh chunk of road from West

[22:32] Ross Road to um to Fortress Falls Road.

[22:36] Uh I'll actually pass it over to the

[22:38] manager of public works if he wants to

[22:39] make any comment at this point in time

[22:40] uh just about that before uh the

[22:42] council.

[22:45] » I have no comments.

[22:48] >> Perfect. Um the other piece that was

[22:50] » Perfect. Um the other piece that was

[22:50] noted on the slide uh too because there

[22:52] was a question about per kilometer cost

[22:55] for ashvault uh with active

[22:57] transportation without active

[22:58] transportation per kilometer cost of

[23:01] double surface treatment and single

[23:02] surface treatment. So those have all

[23:03] been noted on that slide. uh ashvalt

[23:06] single lift 200,000 per kilometer. Uh I

[23:08] will note uh from the public

[23:10] presentation that there was an amount uh

[23:14] that was uh indicated by one of the

[23:16] residents that made the comment uh for

[23:18] pavement and this is uh higher than that

[23:21] amount but it it also involves the

[23:23] subgrade work uh because we believe the

[23:26] amount he was referencing was just the

[23:28] actual pavement itself which does align

[23:30] uh but there's all the subgrade work of

[23:32] culverts billing the road all that type

[23:35] of other construction work that needs to

[23:36] be done when you're when you're

[23:37] rehabilitating a road before pavement um

[23:40] not just the ashalt surface itself. Um

[23:42] so that's why these amounts are are

[23:44] listed the way they are.

[23:48] Uh the next one to that we left in was

[23:51] just to to illustrate that the township

[23:52] itself uh between the 25 budget to 2026

[23:56] budget uh proposed shows a decrease of

[24:00] overall staff at the township of 1.5. Um

[24:03] so we went from 37.27 27 um full-time

[24:07] equivalent staff down to 35.71.

[24:12] Uh so then we just roll into the general

[24:14] operating. Uh we've left in here the

[24:16] budget categories. Uh and these are the

[24:18] the ones that come from the FIR. So it's

[24:20] your general government, your protective

[24:21] services, transportation services,

[24:23] environmental, recreation and culture

[24:26] and then planning and development. And

[24:27] these are all the subcategories that

[24:29] fall under those main headings. Um

[24:31] general government seen no changes from

[24:33] the last presentation. So it was removed

[24:35] uh from this presentation. Protective

[24:37] services again seen no change. Uh we

[24:39] left transportation services in uh just

[24:42] a quick slide as well as environmental

[24:44] services and I'll get to those now. And

[24:46] then planning and development recreation

[24:47] culture also were removed.

[24:50] So under the transportation uh the only

[24:52] reason we brought this back is just to

[24:54] ill illustrate what gravel roads are

[24:56] planned for the 2026 year uh to include

[24:58] that map. Um, so you'll notice it's in

[25:01] red and not real easy to see on that

[25:04] screen I see. But, um, so the the roads

[25:08] that are planning to be done is Acres

[25:10] Road, so Mine View Road to Homestead

[25:12] Jeffrey Lake. Uh, Garden of Eden Road,

[25:14] so it's Godfrey Road to of the gravel

[25:16] section and then remove the DST portion.

[25:19] Uh, Broom Road, Almac Road, Dejarta

[25:22] Road, which goes from Lookout Road to

[25:23] Pleasant Valley and then from Pleasant

[25:24] Valley to Hawthorne. Uh, Nangor Trail

[25:27] and Point Trail.

[25:31] under environmental services, uh there's

[25:33] only a slight change to the recycling

[25:35] program. Uh and that's due to the ICI.

[25:38] Uh so public works staff did a review of

[25:40] the uh number of properties that will

[25:42] actually be qualifying for the ICI. Uh

[25:44] and that has actually increased to 153.

[25:47] Uh it was originally 129. Um through

[25:50] that review, it was just as to what

[25:51] businesses would classify for that and

[25:53] what would qualify for that that charge.

[25:55] So the slight change has been made to

[25:57] that the recycling. However, the revenue

[26:00] offsets the exact expense. So it doesn't

[26:01] change anything on the budget. It's just

[26:02] to be noted here.

[26:05] Um so then on the waste user fees, this

[26:08] is the only part of the user fees that

[26:09] you'll actually see here today. Um is

[26:12] the garbage collection because that was

[26:13] a question that was brought up. Um it is

[26:15] still recommended by staff side to leave

[26:18] the piece as uh the garbage collection

[26:20] fee is 168 for residential properties

[26:22] and then the ICI properties uh would

[26:24] have the billing of 446.

[26:27] Um to put where that cost come from.

[26:30] It's designed to go from the low side of

[26:32] the estimate uh due to the fact that we

[26:34] don't know what the uh total tipping

[26:36] fees could come in for as to how much

[26:38] recycling will actually come through or

[26:40] how many times we'll have to uh tip the

[26:42] bins. So, you'll see that the curbside

[26:44] collection cost, which is the contract

[26:46] to the uh contractor, is $357 per stop.

[26:50] Uh the the tipping fees for the blue box

[26:52] program that's collected, uh would be

[26:54] the low estimate of $59 per stop. And

[26:57] then the landfill ICI ICI bluebox

[27:00] hauling and tipping. So, that's the

[27:01] actual bin from the uh uh option two,

[27:05] which was chosen for the ICI collection,

[27:07] is $30 per stop. Um, so it works out to

[27:10] be $446 per stop.

[27:16] The this slide has not changed just due

[27:19] to the fact that the uh it's in and out

[27:22] for that that revenue portion due to the

[27:24] user fee portion of it. So it still

[27:26] comes to the 1.6

[27:28] and this is where I'll pause for

[27:29] questions.

[27:37] » Thank you treasure. So what we'll do is

[27:40] is uh you basically at this point you

[27:43] can ask questions in any portion between

[27:45] slide 1 to 28. Uh and it's important uh

[27:49] we'll come back depending on what the

[27:51] questions are. We'll come back and just

[27:52] make sure that we acknowledge that

[27:54] public uh those public questions at the

[27:56] end if it's not part of anybody else's

[27:58] questions. So councelor White you're up

[28:00] first.

[28:02] >> Thank you. Um, what is the on page 25 or

[28:06] » Thank you. Um, what is the on page 25 or

[28:06] in slide 25 you're talking about

[28:08] landfill ICI bluebox hauling and tipping

[28:10] fees $30 per stops. I'm not

[28:13] understanding how many stops we have

[28:15] then if it's just from the landfill.

[28:18] It's only one stop then.

[28:19] >> No. So those are the ICI. So the overall

[28:21] » No. So those are the ICI. So the overall

[28:21] ICI is charged based on the 153 stops.

[28:25] So the total cost would be about $4,500.

[28:28] It's divided by the 153. So it comes

[28:30] into $30 per stop. it's what the uh

[28:32] averaged out cost is. So having the bin

[28:35] at the landfill, there's still no

[28:38] funding for that to be at a landfill

[28:39] site. So by having it included with the

[28:42] ICI cost whenever the if whether a

[28:44] business takes has their for cycling

[28:46] picked up at the at their curb or brings

[28:48] it to the landfill, this co this charge

[28:50] is still covering the cost of that

[28:52] material to be taken and processed.

[28:58] » I can pass it to the environmental

[29:00] secretary. You lost me on that one, too.

[29:03] >> So, uh, so what it is is, um, there's,

[29:06] » So, uh, so what it is is, um, there's,

[29:06] uh, a there's a total cost for the

[29:08] curbside collection. There's a total

[29:10] cost for that for the tonnage that's

[29:12] collected at the curbside. And then, so

[29:15] if you imagine the amount of material

[29:16] that uh, they that we collect, there is

[29:19] a a tipping fee that we pay for that. So

[29:22] there's, say they collect 1,000 tons, it

[29:24] costs us $107 or about $300, sorry, per

[29:28] ton. So that's the second one. They've

[29:30] taken the total and they've divided it

[29:32] by we've taken the total of that cost

[29:34] that's estimated for the year and

[29:36] divided amongst the 153 stops and that

[29:39] gives us sort of a an estimate of that's

[29:41] what the cost for the tipping fees would

[29:43] be um from the curbside material. And

[29:47] then the third piece is uh if we still

[29:49] allow uh permit the ICI businesses to um

[29:53] bring bluebox waste also at the landfill

[29:56] there uh those costs would also have to

[29:58] be um recovered if you if you follow me

[30:01] because the uh any material that a

[30:03] business brings to the landfill is not

[30:05] covered by um uh the the CMO funding

[30:09] that we would receive. So, uh, this is

[30:11] just basically showing all the cost to

[30:14] allow, um, blue box material either at

[30:16] the curbside or at the landfill and then

[30:19] just sort of them broken out by piece by

[30:20] piece, what that sort of represents. And

[30:22] then the total coming in at um, 446 per

[30:25] stop. Does that clarify things?

[30:29] >> I'll throw one more just if councelor

[30:31] » I'll throw one more just if councelor

[30:31] White will allow me, I'll just uh, if I

[30:33] was to add up one, two, and three, it it

[30:36] comes to your estimate at 446 on a low

[30:39] side.

[30:39] >> That's correct. And um so it the 46

[30:43] » That's correct. And um so it the 46

[30:43] uh would be 1 and then 2 a and three. So

[30:47] we've because the the tonnage is sort of

[30:50] an estimate, we've given a high and a

[30:52] low uh estimate. So the the lower

[30:54] estimate which we're a bit more

[30:55] comfortable with is the 446.

[30:58] >> Good.

[31:01] » Good.

[31:01] >> Thank you.

[31:02] » Thank you.

[31:02] >> Excellent. Thank you councelor Trim.

[31:06] » Excellent. Thank you councelor Trim.

[31:06] If I may on this Mr. mayor on the same

[31:08] topic through you to the director. Um

[31:14] does that mean then that u u or the um

[31:20] residents not ICI but residents will no

[31:24] longer be permitted to bring recycling

[31:26] to the landfill site.

[31:29] uh residents will be able to bring

[31:32] recycling to the landfill site and that

[31:34] is being um covered by uh Circular

[31:37] Materials Ontario. So the cost for that

[31:39] is covered by Circular Materials

[31:40] Ontario. So essentially what they're

[31:42] what the CMO is covering is they've

[31:46] established a certain tonnage that

[31:48] represents that's representative of of

[31:50] um the residents which is I think it was

[31:53] 20.4

[31:55] four tons and then any tonnage over and

[31:58] above that that we collect um that would

[32:01] be assumed to be the commercial

[32:03] material. So looking at um our previous

[32:07] year the 2025 we looked at the total

[32:10] tonnage that we received which was about

[32:11] 24 tons. Uh circular materials Ontario

[32:15] is going to essentially pay and cover

[32:17] for 20 tons. So we would be responsible

[32:20] for four tons which is essentially what

[32:22] they're saying is due to the commercial

[32:25] businesses. So that is what that uh

[32:28] number third line represents. Uh partly

[32:31] is the tonnage and the hauling of that

[32:33] material

[32:35] >> and so at the landfill site there will

[32:37] » and so at the landfill site there will

[32:37] be no

[32:39] >> there will be no it will not be

[32:40] » there will be no it will not be

[32:40] distinguished between there will not be

[32:42] separate bins. It's all one bin and we

[32:44] are co-mingling.

[32:46] Yeah. So everything can go in one bin.

[32:48] both residential and commercial and

[32:50] they've said they'll essentially haul

[32:52] the CMO will cover a set number of bins

[32:54] per year that they will haul and there

[32:56] will be no cost to us. Anything over and

[32:59] above that is what comes back as and and

[33:01] the the the

[33:03] municipality will be responsible for

[33:05] covering.

[33:07] >> That's clear. Thank you.

[33:11] » That's clear. Thank you.

[33:11] >> Good. For some reason, that's a very

[33:13] » Good. For some reason, that's a very

[33:13] logical approach.

[33:15] Uh, I wish they would do it the other

[33:17] way, too. Anyway, uh, councelor Moore,

[33:21] >> maybe not a good time to bring this up,

[33:22] » maybe not a good time to bring this up,

[33:22] and I think I may have already. Um, what

[33:25] happens with the, uh, businesses ICI out

[33:27] there that never put out a blue box, but

[33:29] yet they have to pay the fee. I'm

[33:32] specifically looking at churches who

[33:34] only have Sunday service and don't put

[33:36] out any blue boxes, and all of a sudden,

[33:40] they have to pay this $400 and some

[33:41] dollars a year. And uh also then there's

[33:44] the fair boards, what are they going to

[33:46] do, etc. So there's a lot of questions

[33:49] to ask, but um there are groups out

[33:52] there like the churches that never put

[33:53] out a blue box.

[33:56] >> Is there a staff response? Yeah.

[33:58] » Is there a staff response? Yeah.

[33:58] >> Yeah. So, um, uh, staff are, um, in the

[34:01] » Yeah. So, um, uh, staff are, um, in the

[34:01] process of putting together a waste

[34:03] management bylaw that would, essentially

[34:06] set out all of the rules on which

[34:08] properties, um, uh, are uh, paying the

[34:12] ICI uh, collection fee. Um, and, uh,

[34:17] staff are discussing and proposing that

[34:20] there would be some opt out um,

[34:22] provisions in the bylaw. Um, we know

[34:24] that there are some uh businesses

[34:26] already that have um uh larger um um

[34:31] like sixyard bins at their businesses

[34:33] for collecting things like cardboard and

[34:36] and such. And um sort of the intention

[34:39] that we're talking through is whether or

[34:41] not uh a business could uh apply to opt

[34:44] out because they have an alternate

[34:45] service in place. Um another thing we

[34:47] were discussing is exactly that. How

[34:49] would the um the churches be handled?

[34:51] Would that be something that council

[34:53] would um um would choose to like let

[34:56] them opt in if they want or um or would

[35:00] they be opt out and then have to apply?

[35:02] So, those are things to be worked

[35:03] through and the churches we looked there

[35:05] was about 10 properties that um we want

[35:09] to bring staff want to bring back that

[35:11] and and and really get into the weeds on

[35:13] exactly how we allow optin and opt out.

[35:16] That's clear.

[35:17] >> Perfect. So just to highlight that we

[35:20] » Perfect. So just to highlight that we

[35:20] recognize those questions. They aren't

[35:22] something that we need to solve as part

[35:24] of the budget. Really the question from

[35:25] a budget perspective is this is what the

[35:27] cost will be. How are we going to raise

[35:30] the funds to cover the cost and then the

[35:32] subsequent questions will have to get

[35:35] answered as part of that bylaw review.

[35:37] >> Understand. Thank you.

[35:39] » Understand. Thank you.

[35:39] >> Good. And I'm going to go to councelor

[35:40] » Good. And I'm going to go to councelor

[35:40] Bell. So, just to confirm on the

[35:44] interimm tax bills that come out, these

[35:46] ICI properties won't be receiving an

[35:48] extra $446 charge for the first half of

[35:52] the year until this bylaw gets

[35:53] confirmed,

[35:57] » treasure,

[35:57] >> that's correct. So, the interim bylaw is

[35:59] » that's correct. So, the interim bylaw is

[35:59] based on 50% of last year's taxes. So,

[36:02] no changes that we make here today will

[36:04] be seen on that interim tax bill until

[36:06] the final tax bill goes out in August.

[36:08] So until August happens, nothing of

[36:10] these user fees that are based on the

[36:13] taxation or based into taxation will be

[36:15] seen yet. Uh no revenue is generated

[36:17] from any of that type of stuff. It's

[36:18] just based on 50% of last year. So

[36:20] whatever they had bit were build in

[36:22] 2025, we they see automatically 50% of

[36:25] that.

[36:29] » Good. And councelor trim.

[36:31] >> Yes. And I understand that these rates

[36:34] » Yes. And I understand that these rates

[36:34] are based on the fact that we are uh

[36:39] tendering, I guess the correct word

[36:41] would be, with six or seven other

[36:43] municipalities

[36:45] and that this is um we're going to be in

[36:48] some kind of a trial period uh to see

[36:51] how this works out. Uh am I correct on

[36:54] thinking that?

[36:55] >> Uh yes. So it's not a tender. It is it

[36:57] » Uh yes. So it's not a tender. It is it

[36:57] is um essentially soul sourced uh

[37:00] because of the timelines on this but uh

[37:03] there are uh nine of us in total and the

[37:07] pricing that we were provided was

[37:08] contingent on uh all of the

[37:11] municipalities that have committed to uh

[37:13] working together and um uh the contract

[37:18] as we understand it will say that it's

[37:20] for one year and there will add there

[37:22] they will also includes potentially

[37:23] there will include provisions for we

[37:27] believe two one-year extensions. So I

[37:29] think the intention of what we've heard

[37:31] from uh most of the municip or some of

[37:33] the municipalities is that they just

[37:34] want to do it for one year and see how

[37:35] it goes and then uh at the end of the

[37:38] first year re-evaluate where things sit.

[37:40] Um and then uh if we all want to extend

[37:43] um the pricing presumably would stay the

[37:45] same. If some drop out there might be

[37:47] some negotiation again for a second year

[37:49] but this is being taken as a one-year

[37:51] see how it works first.

[37:55] Go ahead, Council Homestead, please.

[37:57] >> Um, so just just to be clear on the two

[38:00] » Um, so just just to be clear on the two

[38:00] lines, the garbage collection fee and

[38:02] the recycling collection fee, the $168

[38:05] fee is for both recycling and garbage,

[38:08] right, for for households.

[38:11] >> So the 168 um is for garbage collection.

[38:15] » So the 168 um is for garbage collection.

[38:15] Um, and it, uh, dare I say this, carries

[38:17] some of the costs for like the household

[38:19] hazards waste depot. Um, uh, some of the

[38:22] costs for the landfill. So that's that's

[38:25] the essentially it's mostly the two bags

[38:27] you put out for garbage and then access

[38:29] to the landfill for garbage. The second

[38:32] line is just recycling. So if you recall

[38:35] the 168, the garbage collection fee, um,

[38:38] the township is no longer responsible

[38:40] for delivering recycling for for

[38:44] residents. So that is not a part of

[38:45] that. No.

[38:47] >> Okay. And um so on the second line,

[38:50] » Okay. And um so on the second line,

[38:50] they're not going to be paying the 446

[38:52] plus the 168. It's just the straight

[38:54] 446. Correct.

[38:56] >> It would be um 168 for garbage and

[39:00] » It would be um 168 for garbage and

[39:00] access to the landfill. And the four

[39:05] sorry 446 is just recycling and

[39:08] recycling access to the landfill. So on

[39:11] their tax bill, they're going to see

[39:13] >> two lines, 168 and 446.

[39:16] » two lines, 168 and 446.

[39:16] >> Correct.

[39:17] » Correct.

[39:17] >> Thank you.

[39:20] » Thank you.

[39:20] >> Any other questions on this single

[39:22] » Any other questions on this single

[39:22] slide?

[39:24] No, I I I just want to make sure that we

[39:26] are clear on the funding of this because

[39:29] we haven't spoken about that yet. There

[39:31] was a proposal uh I think councelor Bell

[39:34] put it forward to see whether or not we

[39:36] could take that 446 and distribute it in

[39:38] a different way.

[39:40] um that has not proven to be an option

[39:44] for us based on some legal advice. Uh so

[39:49] from a council perspective, what's back

[39:50] on the floor is this as what council

[39:52] Mstead just said, each business, each

[39:55] church, each each of these 153 places

[39:59] will receive both of these charges as

[40:02] part of their tax bill. Now, they won't

[40:03] see it until August, according to the

[40:05] treasurer, even though we're going to

[40:08] start to incur those costs last week.

[40:13] From a council perspective, what are

[40:15] your thoughts on how we manage this new

[40:18] expense?

[40:31] » Council Bell, please. So, we spoke to

[40:33] increasing that garbage collection fee

[40:36] 168. It would would have ended up to be

[40:40] 187 or something if I remember that

[40:42] correctly. Um,

[40:45] that's what you're speaking to is it's

[40:47] proven through legal advice that's that

[40:49] that's probably not the right avenue.

[40:51] Um, what about would there be a way to

[40:55] add

[40:59] not that I want to increase the fees at

[41:02] the landfill, but would there be a way

[41:04] to do

[41:07] a portion of a fee whenever you go into

[41:10] the landfill as a means of collecting

[41:12] revenue to pay for this program on an

[41:16] annual basis? And what I mean by that is

[41:20] would we be able to look at the revenue

[41:21] generated from the landfill

[41:24] as look at what percentage increase we

[41:28] would need for every user that goes in

[41:32] there on a every Wednesday and Saturday

[41:35] to make up the difference of that 446

[41:38] per ICI property. So it this wouldn't

[41:42] just as a you wouldn't be seeing this as

[41:45] an increase on a on the 168, but we pay

[41:49] a fee whenever we go to the dump and

[41:52] dump a half ton, dump a trailer. Would

[41:55] there be a way to add a small percentage

[41:57] onto each one of those loads as a means

[42:00] of collecting revenue to pay for this

[42:02] specific fee?

[42:06] staff.

[42:09] >> It kind of would fall into the same type

[42:11] » It kind of would fall into the same type

[42:12] of thought process or same

[42:14] recommendation of legal as the original

[42:17] thought of putting it onto the garbage

[42:18] collection fee because it's not just

[42:22] residential properties or not just

[42:24] commercial properties that are coming in

[42:25] there. the the the the fee itself.

[42:29] That's the challenge of of putting it

[42:30] onto to to adding it to different fees

[42:33] because the the we'd have to review

[42:35] again whether the recycling cost itself

[42:38] could be attributed into the cost of the

[42:40] landfill. Potentially it could, but that

[42:42] would be my initial thought would be it

[42:44] would fall similar to the original

[42:46] recommendation from legal

[42:49] >> councelor bill.

[42:52] » councelor bill.

[42:52] So, I just keep cycling back to this

[42:55] because I I don't want to see our small

[42:56] businesses and our churches pay an

[42:59] additional user fee tax if we can avoid

[43:02] it by small some percentage by raising

[43:05] the revenue in a small percentage

[43:07] somewhere else. Um,

[43:13] correct me if

[43:15] I'm looking at this as if the township

[43:20] collects revenue to pay for this, even

[43:23] if it's not if if if by through the

[43:26] budget discussions today, we decided as

[43:29] a council that Whitewater region as a

[43:33] corporation is just going to take care

[43:34] of this fee, this $446,

[43:37] not necessarily stating where where it's

[43:40] coming from, but recognizing that we

[43:43] need to generate that 446*

[43:47] 159 properties for 2026 to pay for this

[43:51] for for the ICI,

[43:54] increasing the user fee at our landfill,

[43:57] not necessarily with a special

[43:59] assessment to go towards that, but

[44:02] recognizing that to make up for this

[44:04] shortfall of 446* 159 9. We look at that

[44:09] by increasing our our landfill charges

[44:12] by x percentage to generate that revenue

[44:15] without without account not putting a

[44:18] specific line for accounting for that.

[44:22] Is that not a way that we could like we

[44:25] we adjust user fees based on you know

[44:31] based on a bunch of different decisions

[44:33] every year.

[44:35] Could we not just adjust that user fee

[44:38] recognizing that we just need to collect

[44:39] that that extra percentage this year to

[44:42] to pay for that program?

[44:45] >> If you'll allow me, I think I think the

[44:47] » If you'll allow me, I think I think the

[44:47] um so the first thing is is that um the

[44:51] the actual cost of this won't be

[44:55] implemented until the final billion as

[44:57] treasur noted. So there's a bit of time

[44:59] to look at different options. So I would

[45:01] just say that uh the discussion with the

[45:03] the superintendent is that the

[45:05] strategies to come back with a bylaw to

[45:07] determine whether or not you could opt

[45:08] in, opt out. So there's some time to

[45:10] work through things. Um uh so I think

[45:13] that is one way that we could look at to

[45:16] see how we could generate more revenue

[45:17] cost per visit $1 or something like that

[45:20] generate that into the and then vet that

[45:23] with legal to see if it would make

[45:24] sense. So noteed I would say um as an

[45:28] alternative way to fund it. Um you think

[45:30] of like uh we we I wasn't in the call

[45:32] but I was talking to the treasure

[45:34] McGonagal before today's meeting about

[45:36] this discussion. I said what about the

[45:38] arenas? You know arenas you pay $143 for

[45:41] your hour and taxation pays for the

[45:43] other proportional cost of that arena.

[45:46] And the there was a the the lawyer kind

[45:49] of had the sense well the the arena's

[45:51] accessible by all population all of the

[45:53] population. So I think we just need to

[45:55] look at it a bit more but this is a a

[45:57] mechanism by which we could generate

[45:58] revenue. Let's look into it in greater

[46:00] depth and see if it's an alternative and

[46:01] how would you actually implement

[46:02] implement that? Is it a dollar per

[46:04] visit? Is it a cost additional cost on

[46:05] tonnage? There's a few ways to do it. So

[46:08] if that if that's okay, we could

[46:09] continue to investigate that

[46:11] >> followup. Yeah. Sorry if I may, mayor.

[46:13] » followup. Yeah. Sorry if I may, mayor.

[46:13] Um and that that's my only concern is

[46:15] that we're discussing this right now

[46:17] recognizing that we need to like we're

[46:20] going to pay for this no matter what,

[46:21] but I just want to make sure by the

[46:24] sounds of it that the bylaw is coming.

[46:26] We can we can discuss this further. Like

[46:28] this isn't set in stone that that all

[46:30] ICI properties are getting a $446 extra

[46:33] fee on their bill come October whatever

[46:37] the

[46:38] >> the present fees and charges bylaw

[46:40] » the present fees and charges bylaw

[46:40] that's attached to the council agenda

[46:41] has no amount in it for this. So it's

[46:44] blank at present moment and it will

[46:47] amend that fees and charges bylaw when

[46:49] we make a decision on the how we're

[46:50] going to fund this.

[46:52] >> I'm just going to jump in before I give

[46:54] » I'm just going to jump in before I give

[46:54] the floor to councelor Trim. Um, from a

[46:57] council perspective, could the argument

[46:59] be we have made the decision to provide

[47:01] this level of service to our ICI

[47:05] residents?

[47:06] We're not sure how that's going to jig

[47:08] out for another 6 months. Could we make

[47:11] the commitment to cover it with general

[47:13] taxation

[47:14] until we sort it out

[47:18] at uh the the time that the bylaw is

[47:20] presented whether or not there's another

[47:22] source of revenue?

[47:26] I would say it's possible. Um the piece

[47:28] that would be noted would be is if

[47:30] because technically taxation can pay for

[47:32] any service that the township deems to

[47:34] provide. Um, so then the taxation piece

[47:37] would the total cost was around 63,000 I

[47:40] believe if memory serves. Um, so let's

[47:43] say we're in March or so whenever it

[47:45] happens. So one quarter of that. So

[47:47] you'd see about a

[47:50] quarter of a percent not quite of a

[47:52] overall increase to the to the overall

[47:54] levy instead of the 5.8 it would have to

[47:56] be added in to bring us closer six 6.05

[47:59] somewhere in that range. Mhm.

[48:02] And and the argument being that we're

[48:03] trying to make sure that we divert

[48:05] recycling away from the landfill, which

[48:06] is a benefit to all residents.

[48:08] >> Correct.

[48:09] » Correct.

[48:09] >> Yeah. Uh council, it puts it in it puts

[48:12] » Yeah. Uh council, it puts it in it puts

[48:12] its in a little bit of a gray area, but

[48:14] at least we are acknowledging that yes,

[48:16] we are accepting the cost. We are not

[48:19] directing that it be uh put on the ICI

[48:23] identified users at this point in time

[48:25] and we'll make that final decision as

[48:26] part of the bylaw. Good. And I'll go to

[48:29] Sorry, CO. Do you want to counter first?

[48:30] >> I could just to the treasur ask the

[48:32] » I could just to the treasur ask the

[48:32] question is can we leave it unfinanced

[48:35] and deal with it at the tax rate in May.

[48:38] That was kind of be the so we're not

[48:40] actually going to present that we're

[48:41] increasing the levy by another.3% now

[48:43] when we

[48:45] >> communicate this to the public the

[48:46] » communicate this to the public the

[48:46] budget to the public it would be dealt

[48:48] with at a tax rate time

[48:49] >> in May. Thanks.

[48:50] » in May. Thanks.

[48:50] >> Good.

[48:53] » Good.

[48:53] Thank you councelor Trim.

[48:55] >> Yes. Uh, that's all fine and I certainly

[49:00] » Yes. Uh, that's all fine and I certainly

[49:00] am not disagreeing with it, but I'm

[49:02] reminded that the philosophy of the

[49:04] province, they did this on purpose. They

[49:07] want this the the ICIs to contribute to

[49:12] the cost of recycling. That's what they

[49:14] want. Uh, it's it's not an accident.

[49:16] It's their philosophy, their plan.

[49:19] What's unfair about it is that everybody

[49:22] gets charged the same rate whether

[49:23] you're a a big business or a small

[49:26] business or a a little church or a big

[49:29] church.

[49:30] That's the unfair part about it. But the

[49:33] philosophy it it the province is very

[49:36] clear on it. They do want the businesses

[49:39] to contributing to the cost of

[49:41] recycling. So I don't know how we we

[49:45] squiggle and squeeze around that. Uh but

[49:48] we need to be what I'm want is to be

[49:52] very very transparent with the people

[49:54] who are actually going to pay for it the

[49:56] taxes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.

[49:59] >> No and again that's the process by which

[50:02] » No and again that's the process by which

[50:02] we make that that implement that bylaw

[50:05] will is it one price for everyone? Is

[50:08] there opt out? Is there opt in? There's

[50:11] a there's a whole bunch of things that I

[50:12] think will have to get ironed out as

[50:13] part of that bylaw will help answer that

[50:16] that point that you've raised.

[50:18] >> Anything CEO?

[50:19] » Anything CEO?

[50:19] >> Yeah. And maybe the strategies to fund

[50:21] » Yeah. And maybe the strategies to fund

[50:21] it from revenue from elsewhere is like a

[50:24] you know you you do that over three

[50:26] years and then they'll pay you know 75%

[50:28] of that and 85% and then you could you

[50:30] know you could we'll look at those

[50:32] options if you

[50:33] >> Yeah. So I think it's great discussion

[50:35] » Yeah. So I think it's great discussion

[50:35] because I think it's given staff some

[50:36] perspective as to our viewpoint on the

[50:38] problem. Good. Are we good to carry on

[50:41] past this? Oh, councelor Homestead.

[50:44] >> No, just a sticky point. Um, I'm again

[50:46] » No, just a sticky point. Um, I'm again

[50:46] trying to understand coming from a

[50:48] business side as well. Is it accurate to

[50:50] say that it was legal

[50:54] before the new laws come out to share it

[50:57] across because everybody paid the 168

[51:00] and now due to the new changes it

[51:03] they've made it illegal. Is that what

[51:05] advice we're receiving from our from our

[51:08] legal team?

[51:12] >> Which staff?

[51:13] » Which staff?

[51:13] >> I treasur I can. So the the issue was is

[51:17] » I treasur I can. So the the issue was is

[51:17] that before recycling was provided by

[51:20] the township because we were the actual

[51:21] payer of the contract to every property.

[51:24] So that cost was disseminated to all

[51:27] properties that benefited from the

[51:28] service. We were providing recycling. We

[51:30] were providing garbage. We were

[51:32] providing uh the actual contractor that

[51:33] picked it up. What is and but in it the

[51:37] other side of it was the government was

[51:38] providing us a grant to help us do the

[51:40] recycling piece. Now it is switched

[51:42] around that we are not receiving money

[51:44] from the government as a grant because

[51:46] they've removed themselves removed us

[51:48] completely from the recycling equation.

[51:51] So since we're not doing that service

[51:52] for all 3,800 or 780 properties anymore,

[51:57] we're only going to do recycling for

[51:59] these 153. That's where it becomes

[52:01] challenging because it's no longer a

[52:04] majority of seeing it or of incurring

[52:06] these costs. That's where the issue

[52:08] comes in is the the fee for service

[52:10] through the municipal act is it's a fee

[52:12] for the service of the people who

[52:14] benefit from that service. So if you're

[52:16] not receiving the service or Q can't

[52:18] receive the service, there's no need for

[52:19] the for a resident to receive recycling

[52:21] from us. They're already getting it from

[52:23] the province. So it's not a service that

[52:24] the municipality needs to provide to

[52:26] them. We're only providing it to these

[52:29] 153. That's where the the issue comes in

[52:31] is we're it's not part of the overall

[52:34] collection cost anymore. It's a we're

[52:36] doing a separate collection because it's

[52:37] even a separate truck that goes out on a

[52:38] Friday to pick up your your commercial

[52:40] stuff now. It's not even with your

[52:42] garbage the way it used to be.

[52:45] I hope that

[52:46] >> Yeah, that that's clear. Thank you.

[52:48] » Yeah, that that's clear. Thank you.

[52:48] >> Good. And when we come back to talk

[52:50] » Good. And when we come back to talk

[52:50] about this bylaw, we're going to have to

[52:52] make sure there's a legal component to

[52:53] that discussion.

[52:56] >> Good. Councelor Trim.

[52:58] » Good. Councelor Trim.

[52:58] >> Yes. And I asked that very question of

[53:03] » Yes. And I asked that very question of

[53:03] the minister in a workshop

[53:05] at AMO

[53:07] and Minister Flax's answer was we never

[53:11] paid for the commercial garbage pickup.

[53:15] Uh and I don't I didn't get an

[53:19] explanation of that because I understood

[53:22] it was the way the grant was structured.

[53:25] And so uh as far as the ministry is

[53:27] concerned, there's no change. Um it's

[53:31] just the administration of it and what

[53:34] people see uh is is definitely a big

[53:37] change. So that's the answer I got for

[53:40] the question that councelor Mstead is

[53:43] asking.

[53:45] >> No. Great points. Good. Have we got

[53:48] » No. Great points. Good. Have we got

[53:48] enough on this point from a staff

[53:49] perspective?

[53:51] I just want to make sure. Okay. We have

[53:53] to I want to be able to move this budget

[53:56] on. Okay, good. So, that we are going to

[53:59] be coming back to that is a great big

[54:01] placeholder for that discussion in the

[54:03] future. So, are there any other

[54:04] questions before I go to the specific

[54:06] slides here? Any other general questions

[54:08] on slides 1 to 28?

[54:15] Okay, I'm going to go to slide 14,

[54:20] which is the the public comments on

[54:22] operating. And um I just wanted to make

[54:27] sure that we as a council publicly

[54:28] acknowledge this feedback that we've

[54:30] received from a number of different

[54:32] residents. And is there anything like

[54:35] the treasur has already articulated, we

[54:38] are investigating the op billing as part

[54:40] of uh advocacy through Roma and AMO.

[54:44] Uh we have a continued effort to look at

[54:48] shared services and fee for services

[54:50] from the county and other agencies.

[54:54] Point number one there.

[54:57] Is there any other direction or

[54:59] questions or comments from members of

[55:01] council and any other public feedback?

[55:10] Good. Councelor Moore,

[55:13] um, can somebody refresh my memory of

[55:15] what we decided about funding Penrook

[55:18] Pool? Did we ever have an have a talk

[55:21] about that or was it just sort of put

[55:22] off till another meeting and we never we

[55:24] never did it?

[55:27] Yeah,

[55:28] >> I would just say the the the staff are

[55:30] » I would just say the the the staff are

[55:30] continuing to engage together with the

[55:31] city of Pemrook and the town of Renfruit

[55:33] of recreational services and I think our

[55:35] our manager spoke to the city of Pemrook

[55:38] as recently as this week or late last

[55:40] week. Maybe you could provide an update.

[55:44] » So, the city of Pemrook is interested in

[55:47] pursuing a type of agreement for this

[55:49] summer. Um, and uh we would look forward

[55:51] to see what we can put forward. Um, it

[55:54] sounds like it's going to probably be a

[55:55] matter of us coordinating more and uh

[55:58] them providing confirmation of the

[56:00] registrations, but uh we would look

[56:03] forward to that in the budget.

[56:04] >> And will it be annual or just summer um

[56:07] » And will it be annual or just summer um

[56:07] um learning how to swim type thing?

[56:09] >> Summer, the same type of program that

[56:11] » Summer, the same type of program that

[56:11] ran in 2023.

[56:12] >> Okay. Thank you.

[56:17] » Okay. Okay, if there's no other

[56:18] questions or comments, then I I can say

[56:20] that we have duly acknowledged the

[56:22] public input into the operating

[56:24] component of the budget. Thank you,

[56:26] treasurer, for doing that. The next

[56:28] slide I would like to go to is slide

[56:30] number 16, which is the public comments

[56:33] that we received from capital

[56:36] and the associated response from staff

[56:38] on slide 17. Is there any comments,

[56:42] questions or points that council wants

[56:44] to make on this public comment, these

[56:46] public comments?

[56:51] Yes, sorry. Councelor White.

[56:53] >> Yes. Um, regarding Zion Line, excuse me,

[56:57] » Yes. Um, regarding Zion Line, excuse me,

[56:57] and Government Road. So, in this year's

[57:00] budget, we're proposing $660,000

[57:03] for Government Road and nothing for Zion

[57:06] Line. Correct.

[57:08] >> That's correct.

[57:09] » That's correct.

[57:09] >> Okay. So, um, for Zion Line, if I add up

[57:13] » Okay. So, um, for Zion Line, if I add up

[57:13] these three numbers, we have spent $2.3

[57:15] million on Zion Line. And in that same

[57:18] amount of time, how much money have we

[57:20] spent on government road? Do we know?

[57:23] >> I'm sorry. The Are you talking the

[57:26] » I'm sorry. The Are you talking the

[57:26] sheets that I handed out?

[57:28] >> So, it's not an addup.

[57:30] » So, it's not an addup.

[57:30] >> Um, so it's different costings. So the

[57:32] » Um, so it's different costings. So the

[57:32] top one is costing of a million dollars

[57:34] ashfalt if the road was widened to meet

[57:36] the act of transportation for the same

[57:39] chunk of road. It's Fortress Fault to

[57:41] West Ross. Same chunk of road if we were

[57:43] to do just ashvault and not widen the

[57:46] road $700,000 which is unwidened and

[57:48] wouldn't meet the uh active

[57:50] transportation plan. And then if we were

[57:52] to just do ashvault from Papen Road or

[57:55] sorry DST from Papen Road to Forers

[57:57] Falls Road be 660,000. They're

[57:58] individual costs. They're not added up.

[58:00] That would be the cost if we were to do

[58:02] that road over government road this

[58:03] year.

[58:07] » Okay.

[58:09] >> So, we've done work on Zion line in 200

[58:14] » So, we've done work on Zion line in 200

[58:14] since early 2000 since 2006.

[58:17] >> You got it. Yeah.

[58:18] » You got it. Yeah.

[58:18] >> Okay. What about government road? What

[58:20] » Okay. What about government road? What

[58:20] have we done on government road in

[58:22] between 2006 and now?

[58:24] >> I'll pass that to the manager public

[58:26] » I'll pass that to the manager public

[58:26] works.

[58:27] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, Government Road, uh,

[58:29] » Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, Government Road, uh,

[58:29] sorry, in 2016,

[58:32] um, they did a DST and then they, uh,

[58:34] surfaced, uh, portion of the road, but

[58:37] all done in one year in 2016.

[58:42] » So, DST and

[58:44] >> and and a a a single surface all in one

[58:48] » and and a a a single surface all in one

[58:48] year.

[58:48] >> Do we know the cost of what that was

[58:51] » Do we know the cost of what that was

[58:51] roughly?

[58:53] >> Not total cost. I have the cost just for

[58:55] » Not total cost. I have the cost just for

[58:55] what what they paid for the contractor,

[58:56] but I didn't have the cost for the

[58:58] gravel, anything else.

[58:59] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[59:04] » Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[59:04] >> Any other comments from members of

[59:05] » Any other comments from members of

[59:05] council?

[59:08] >> Yeah, councelor Trim.

[59:11] » Yeah, councelor Trim.

[59:11] >> I I'm just wondering at is this the time

[59:14] » I I'm just wondering at is this the time

[59:14] that we're going to be deciding

[59:17] uh uh with respect to uh these two

[59:21] roads? Is this is this the point where

[59:24] we're going to be having the discussion

[59:26] to decide as it is now? Um the uh uh the

[59:32] recommendation is government road but I

[59:35] don't want to be

[59:38] interfering with what you have planned

[59:39] Mr. Mayor.

[59:41] >> No, this is the point in time that we

[59:43] » No, this is the point in time that we

[59:43] want to discuss this and it rolls up

[59:44] into the the resolution that we have at

[59:46] the end of the meeting. So yes, if you

[59:49] want to discuss this road Zion line

[59:52] versus what's been proposed in the

[59:54] budget, this is the time to do it.

[59:56] >> May I continue then?

[59:57] » May I continue then?

[59:57] >> Yes, please.

[1:00:00] » Yes, please.

[1:00:00] >> Okay. To prepare myself for this

[1:00:03] » Okay. To prepare myself for this

[1:00:03] meeting, I did have a chat with the

[1:00:05] director of public works and but I was

[1:00:09] I've know much of this information

[1:00:11] that's being presented today. Uh, also

[1:00:14] that isn't included here is is the um uh

[1:00:18] the the traffic count and uh and so

[1:00:23] personally I need to make a decision on

[1:00:27] some some facts. It I I know that there

[1:00:31] are probably people living on government

[1:00:33] road that could come and make an

[1:00:36] impassion plea for us to do that road.

[1:00:39] According to the director, both roads

[1:00:42] are in similar disrepair. Uh we can't

[1:00:46] say one is uh significantly worse than

[1:00:50] the other. And so I'm not prepared to

[1:00:52] flip a coin here. I I want to base my

[1:00:56] decision on other facts. Uh the traffic

[1:00:59] count is somewhat more on ZIL. Uh, I'm

[1:01:06] not going to say twice as much, but it

[1:01:08] is considerably more. The um

[1:01:11] >> Sorry to interrupt, but it is on this

[1:01:12] » Sorry to interrupt, but it is on this

[1:01:12] sheet.

[1:01:13] >> Oh, sorry. I missed it. I I was told it,

[1:01:16] » Oh, sorry. I missed it. I I was told it,

[1:01:16] but I'm not. Okay. And and the the um

[1:01:19] dates of um

[1:01:23] rehabilitation

[1:01:25] are older for the Z line. So, based on

[1:01:30] um all of those facts, uh Mr. Mayor, I'm

[1:01:34] going to say now before you ask me that

[1:01:37] I'm going to recommend that we do spend

[1:01:40] our

[1:01:42] uh budget money this year on um the

[1:01:46] rehabilitation of the Zel line, whatever

[1:01:49] that means. And uh because I know that

[1:01:52] included there could be some culvert

[1:01:54] work. I know the brushing has been done,

[1:01:56] but there could be some culvert work and

[1:01:58] some gravel. And so whatever it means is

[1:02:02] what I'm going to be voting for. Thank

[1:02:06] you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:02:11] » Any other comments on timeline? Sorry.

[1:02:13] And I've seen you already, so I'll go to

[1:02:14] other people. Councelor Moore,

[1:02:18] >> I know it was discussed at the time that

[1:02:20] » I know it was discussed at the time that

[1:02:20] um um Government Road was the older of

[1:02:23] the two and that we had thought maybe um

[1:02:27] we would continue with doing that road

[1:02:29] and then we had the delegation of design

[1:02:32] line. I'm sure we could get another

[1:02:33] delegation from Government Road to say

[1:02:36] the same thing. Um, and it's not to to

[1:02:39] pick a fight between the the two, but

[1:02:41] we've we found this in many years of

[1:02:43] council, whether it be Sturgeon Mountain

[1:02:46] Road or whatever, um, anytime we go to

[1:02:48] do work on it, somebody always feels

[1:02:50] that there's another road requires more

[1:02:53] urgent help. So,

[1:02:56] in keeping with the staff point of view,

[1:02:58] the staff are saying it's time to do

[1:03:00] government road. And of the complaints

[1:03:03] that I've received in the last 3 years,

[1:03:06] um, majority are from government road,

[1:03:08] but other counselors are getting the

[1:03:11] complaints from Z line. So, probably

[1:03:14] equals out just as well. But, um, in

[1:03:17] order for our staff to make a decision

[1:03:20] on what we as council want them to do,

[1:03:23] uh, we're up in the air. So, how can our

[1:03:25] how can our staff make a decision? So,

[1:03:27] uh, right now I'm behind my staff member

[1:03:29] who says government road is next in

[1:03:31] line.

[1:03:35] » Good. Any other feedback from Council

[1:03:37] Homestead?

[1:03:38] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um,

[1:03:41] » Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um,

[1:03:41] I do know that I've seen a schedule of

[1:03:44] upcoming um, budgets.

[1:03:48] Do we have Zion on 2027's current

[1:03:51] budget?

[1:03:53] >> Right now, it's 2028. 2028.

[1:03:57] » Right now, it's 2028. 2028.

[1:03:57] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[1:04:02] » Good. Any other council feedback?

[1:04:06] >> We have one suggesting a change.

[1:04:10] » We have one suggesting a change.

[1:04:10] Councelor White, if you'd like to go,

[1:04:12] there's no one else.

[1:04:12] >> Um, is there another recommendation

[1:04:15] » Um, is there another recommendation

[1:04:15] coming forward from anyone from any

[1:04:17] staff member or are we leaving it as

[1:04:20] only for um Government Road?

[1:04:25] CEO

[1:04:27] >> um I think as it stands the so so the

[1:04:31] » um I think as it stands the so so the

[1:04:31] maybe I'll just bring it back to the

[1:04:33] original recommendation to do government

[1:04:35] road so the reason you know as councelor

[1:04:39] trim noted is the AADTS are somewhat

[1:04:41] higher on Z line the conditions are

[1:04:44] generally in disrepair for both roads

[1:04:46] among many other roads in our in our

[1:04:48] community um one of the constraints

[1:04:51] which led to the recommendation for

[1:04:52] government road is the the financial

[1:04:55] amount of money we have the 660 $660,000

[1:05:00] it aligns itself well with the length of

[1:05:03] road for government road um being ashalt

[1:05:07] um what you have before you treasure

[1:05:10] McDonald could share on the screen um

[1:05:13] this sheet of paper um

[1:05:17] gives essentially three options if you

[1:05:19] will under costing

[1:05:22] hyphen Z line, Z line, Z line. Those are

[1:05:25] three options. And

[1:05:27] the reason why we were in some sense not

[1:05:30] recommending Z line is because the cost

[1:05:32] to do Z design

[1:05:36] um based on the current policies of

[1:05:40] council, namely the active

[1:05:42] transportation plan. Z Line's intended

[1:05:45] to be an active transportation route,

[1:05:47] which means it's a widen road.

[1:05:50] And the costing for that widen road to

[1:05:53] to comply and meet our active transport

[1:05:56] would be around a million dollars. So we

[1:05:58] don't have a million dollars. So if

[1:06:00] we're going to do a road and government

[1:06:02] road is is being recommended at this

[1:06:04] point in time and and remains. If

[1:06:07] council chooses at their discretion,

[1:06:09] they could do a less widen road which

[1:06:13] does not meet their active

[1:06:14] transportation plan and it would cost

[1:06:15] $700,000 and would more or less fit in

[1:06:18] the budget. we could alter some other

[1:06:20] capital items. So that's kind of where

[1:06:22] the original recommendation came from.

[1:06:25] Um

[1:06:26] the question that we pose as staff to

[1:06:28] council is uh the active transportation

[1:06:31] plan is to some degree maybe an

[1:06:34] increased level of service. It's a need.

[1:06:36] I mean it it impro improves the quality

[1:06:37] of life of our residents, safety of our

[1:06:40] roads and the like. So, um, in the 2028

[1:06:43] and I'll just have the the I'll close

[1:06:44] out with this to the directors. The the

[1:06:48] in 2028 Zion line at $1.1 million, does

[1:06:51] that include the widening of the road?

[1:06:55] >> That is correct.

[1:06:55] » That is correct.

[1:06:55] >> That's correct. So, I mean, basically

[1:06:58] » That's correct. So, I mean, basically

[1:06:58] what is before council is this $660,000.

[1:07:02] We could um do government road this year

[1:07:05] and it's within the budget. We could do

[1:07:07] design line at a reduced scope for 700

[1:07:10] which would fit within the budget or we

[1:07:12] we postpone it to 2028 in the in the

[1:07:16] chart the unfunded big capital list here

[1:07:18] that's unfunded and might change uh for

[1:07:21] 2028 which includes the widening of the

[1:07:23] road. So uh I think the deliberations on

[1:07:26] this projection and levels of service

[1:07:28] it'll look at this active transportation

[1:07:30] plan a little bit closer and whether or

[1:07:31] not we want to increase levels of

[1:07:32] service and follow that. Uh but that's

[1:07:34] kind of what's before council is the

[1:07:36] government road 660 fits in the budget.

[1:07:38] Reduce scope of design line from

[1:07:41] Foresters Falls to West Ross. You're in

[1:07:43] that $700,000 for Ashvalt as well. So

[1:07:46] that's that's where it stands. So our

[1:07:48] recommendation to answer the original

[1:07:49] question stands at Government Road. If I

[1:07:51] look at my my director uh that that's

[1:07:53] kind of where we stand.

[1:07:55] >> Thanks.

[1:07:57] » Thanks.

[1:07:57] >> Good question.

[1:07:58] » Good question.

[1:07:58] any comments as a result of the CEO's

[1:08:01] and I will come to you councelor Trim if

[1:08:02] there's no one else at this point in

[1:08:05] time. Yeah, councelor Bell first then

[1:08:06] councelor trim. This is just a general

[1:08:08] comment but I feel like at this point

[1:08:11] the widening of roads the extra costs

[1:08:14] that are going to be associated with

[1:08:15] doing this year-over-year because I know

[1:08:16] we have a number of roads we talked

[1:08:18] about doing it on Grand Settlement Road

[1:08:19] that's that got dialed back that's no

[1:08:21] longer on the on the schedule now for

[1:08:24] the next few years. Um, this is going to

[1:08:27] be a topic of conversation for the next

[1:08:30] next group of council members and

[1:08:32] probably the council members after that.

[1:08:34] If the intent is to continue to increase

[1:08:36] that level of service on the roads, then

[1:08:38] we're going to have to decide that we're

[1:08:40] not doing the basics on other roads. So,

[1:08:44] I feel like at this point in time when

[1:08:45] we're looking at these 5-year

[1:08:46] projections and we can't afford anything

[1:08:48] moving forward, like I I don't know if

[1:08:53] we should be making a decision today

[1:08:56] based on an increased level of service

[1:08:58] that I'm assuming in a year or two,

[1:09:00] we're still going to be looking at

[1:09:02] scaling those decisions back to make

[1:09:04] sure that they fit within the budget.

[1:09:06] Um,

[1:09:08] so from my perspective, I know both

[1:09:10] roads are in disrepair. We heard uh the

[1:09:14] delegation from Zion Line the other day.

[1:09:16] They make a bunch of good points looking

[1:09:18] at the average daily drivers um for 469

[1:09:22] versus 269. Um,

[1:09:26] just looking at this from like a general

[1:09:29] uh taxpayer perspective, there's 469

[1:09:32] drivers on that road a day that are

[1:09:35] going to appreciate an update in the

[1:09:37] surface and and

[1:09:40] not driving over a road that's in

[1:09:42] disrepair versus the 269 on government

[1:09:44] road. I I'm happy to leave it up to the

[1:09:49] expertise of of the individuals that do

[1:09:53] this on a daily basis. Um, but I

[1:09:56] recognize that Zion Line obviously has

[1:09:58] more more daily traffic. And honestly,

[1:10:02] the the residents of the Zion line

[1:10:05] probably don't care about the widened

[1:10:07] portion of the road. They just want to

[1:10:09] make sure that they can get to and from

[1:10:11] their houses on a daily basis without

[1:10:12] taking the oil pans out of their cars.

[1:10:14] So, um I I just whenever we talk about

[1:10:18] this increased scope of of widening the

[1:10:21] road for active transportation, well, it

[1:10:23] basically doubles the cost of of doing

[1:10:25] it in DST, right? Um

[1:10:29] I know that doesn't really give any

[1:10:31] solutions, but it's just I

[1:10:33] I don't want to be making decisions

[1:10:35] today based on something that we

[1:10:38] probably can't afford in a year or two.

[1:10:40] just looking into the next year, year or

[1:10:43] two of budgets of knowing that this is

[1:10:46] going to be an issue, affordability

[1:10:47] issue moving forward.

[1:10:51] » Good. Thank you for sharing your

[1:10:52] thoughts on that one. And I'll go to

[1:10:54] councelor Trim.

[1:10:55] >> Uh yes, the comments I was going to make

[1:10:59] » Uh yes, the comments I was going to make

[1:10:59] were made by uh councelor Bell. Uh I

[1:11:03] generally am opposed to uh increasing

[1:11:08] levels of service

[1:11:10] uh on not increasing levels of service

[1:11:13] until we are doing well with the

[1:11:16] services we're committed to. Uh and so I

[1:11:20] know that bicycle lanes and walking uh

[1:11:23] shoulders uh would be

[1:11:26] a benefit. I I'm not saying that they

[1:11:28] wouldn't be. However, uh until we have

[1:11:32] all of our roads up to scratch, uh then

[1:11:35] I I think that that's something we can't

[1:11:37] afford. However, having said that, I'm

[1:11:40] wondering if the director, Mr. Lane

[1:11:43] could could tell us how much if if his

[1:11:47] cost estimates includes

[1:11:49] the extra width that the last section of

[1:11:54] the design line got because uh I think

[1:11:57] we should try to accommodate farm

[1:11:59] machinery at the very least. Um so

[1:12:02] perhaps he could give us that

[1:12:04] information. Maybe not today. Thank you,

[1:12:06] Mr. Mayor.

[1:12:09] » Noted.

[1:12:12] Perfect. Any other discussion on this?

[1:12:16] Sorry.

[1:12:19] >> Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was waiting for the

[1:12:21] » Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was waiting for the

[1:12:21] CEO to throw that ball to Lane. So,

[1:12:24] good. We'll give it to manager of public

[1:12:26] works.

[1:12:26] >> Yes. If I can add um yes, both roads are

[1:12:29] » Yes. If I can add um yes, both roads are

[1:12:29] in poor condition as we're all aware. Um

[1:12:33] why originally why we're following

[1:12:36] policy as the for the act of

[1:12:39] transportation. Um that's why uh Zline

[1:12:43] did not fit in this year's budget within

[1:12:46] the the allocation for for roads. Um

[1:12:52] in talking to our our our uh public

[1:12:57] works staff that uh government road is

[1:13:00] patched more often than Z line. um

[1:13:06] resign line I it's been on for the last

[1:13:09] three four years it has been selected um

[1:13:12] but talking to uh the the the road super

[1:13:16] um even today um I travel with both of

[1:13:19] them again today's to ensure that

[1:13:22] junction was coming up um I can tell you

[1:13:25] that government road is in worse shape

[1:13:27] today with potholes as we patched than

[1:13:31] it is design line so I think I think

[1:13:33] originally

[1:13:34] Um, Zing need needs to be done. I think

[1:13:36] it needs to be but I think uh with the

[1:13:40] the the condition of Government Road, it

[1:13:43] needs to be done sooner than Z line. Um

[1:13:46] I've been back and forth. I talking to

[1:13:48] councelor Trim yesterday. I am back and

[1:13:50] forth. I you can be we can do either one

[1:13:52] of them need both both be done. But um I

[1:13:56] think to at this point I think my

[1:13:58] recommendation is to carry on with with

[1:14:01] Government Road.

[1:14:08] Good. Does that bring any other

[1:14:10] comments?

[1:14:11] Now, I'll just recognize uh um one

[1:14:15] comment about 2028. Councelor Mstead

[1:14:17] brought it up. When is Xylon Zion

[1:14:20] forecasted for in the 5-year plan?

[1:14:24] The challenge is 2027 isn't fully

[1:14:26] funded. So, 2027 runs us into a deficit.

[1:14:31] 2028 runs us into another deficit. So,

[1:14:35] uh, resting on the fact that, oh yeah,

[1:14:38] don't worry, we have it. We we don't

[1:14:39] have it scheduled. It's it is written in

[1:14:42] sand on the beach and and that's what

[1:14:46] our our budget committee is going to

[1:14:48] have to look at in the coming months

[1:14:50] because you we're just we're just

[1:14:52] pushing the problem out one more year.

[1:14:56] >> Good. Uh, sorry. Uh, back to manager of

[1:14:58] » Good. Uh, sorry. Uh, back to manager of

[1:14:58] public works.

[1:15:00] >> Yes. I have to add one thing. This was

[1:15:01] » Yes. I have to add one thing. This was

[1:15:01] brought up this uh councelor White

[1:15:05] brought up uh in one of the first or

[1:15:07] second meetings is um also addition with

[1:15:11] as you see in 2027 um there's there is

[1:15:14] some uh some third lifts or a a single

[1:15:17] surf put on to DST for example um Brmley

[1:15:22] Road Bramley line sorry needs it's right

[1:15:25] on the it's very similar to what we did

[1:15:28] um with uh

[1:15:32] um sorry

[1:15:33] >> road.

[1:15:33] » road.

[1:15:34] >> Rapid road. Thank you. Um it's very like

[1:15:36] » Rapid road. Thank you. Um it's very like

[1:15:36] rapid road was probably a year past this

[1:15:38] point. We did save it. We spent a bit

[1:15:41] extra money making it good enough to be

[1:15:43] single surface over top. Bromem line has

[1:15:46] come to a point maybe past this point as

[1:15:49] it's in there. Um there is a cost

[1:15:51] savings if we do a third lift versus

[1:15:53] doing the whole road DST. There is as

[1:15:55] shown in the on on the slides. um where

[1:16:00] that really should be done this year,

[1:16:01] but again with with the with the

[1:16:03] constraint

[1:16:05] um where we are picking a worse road

[1:16:07] over keeping one of our roads bring it

[1:16:10] back to to good again. So next year is a

[1:16:12] challenge like as Mayor Nicholson stated

[1:16:15] that there is a 2027 is even a a

[1:16:19] financial uh shortfall even even that at

[1:16:22] that where a design line needs to be

[1:16:24] done also. So it is a challenge.

[1:16:31] » Thank you. This is good discussion and

[1:16:33] important um for us to be doing this

[1:16:35] publicly. I think so. Is there any other

[1:16:38] councelor Bell? Sorry, but uh yeah, and

[1:16:42] just going back looking at the previous

[1:16:43] presentation, these five-year

[1:16:45] projections, the reason Zion line isn't

[1:16:47] on for 2027 is because ash fault is also

[1:16:53] scheduled to go back go down between

[1:16:55] Fletcher and P road next year as well.

[1:16:59] So, we're spending that 660 this year,

[1:17:01] 737 next year on ashvault for government

[1:17:05] road. And then we've already had these

[1:17:08] discussions, but then it gets back to

[1:17:10] should we just be doing the whole road

[1:17:12] in DST this year to open up the funding

[1:17:16] to resurface another road next year in

[1:17:18] DST? Recognizing the life cycle of that,

[1:17:22] it is what it is with DST. Like it's

[1:17:24] hard to believe that that was that

[1:17:26] government road was done in 2016 and

[1:17:28] we're 2026 talking about it again for

[1:17:33] $660,000 project.

[1:17:36] But is that something that we should be

[1:17:38] considering instead of doing ashvault on

[1:17:41] the two portions over the next two

[1:17:43] years? Do DST for the entire portion

[1:17:46] this year to open up funding to get Zion

[1:17:49] Line done within the next two because

[1:17:51] they brought up a lot of the delegation

[1:17:52] brought up a great point is you know

[1:17:54] it's we're having issues with the

[1:17:56] traffic in Beachburg because trucks

[1:17:58] don't want to be traveling on Zion line

[1:17:59] because of the condition of Zion Line.

[1:18:01] Um there's a fairly significant business

[1:18:04] or very significant business at the end

[1:18:06] of the Zion line that brings in a lot of

[1:18:08] heavy equipment uh on you know through

[1:18:11] both sides of Zion line. The the traffic

[1:18:14] that's seen with the agricultural

[1:18:16] equipment on government road is the same

[1:18:17] as the the the agricultural equipment

[1:18:20] that's driving on on the Zion line. Um

[1:18:25] just again looking at to what we can

[1:18:28] actually afford. Can we actually afford

[1:18:29] to put ashvalt down the entire stretch

[1:18:31] of of government road before we do

[1:18:35] anything with Zion line? That's, you

[1:18:38] know, I brought out that presentation

[1:18:39] from the last budget and I know we've

[1:18:42] already had these discussions, but

[1:18:45] we're making the decision now. So, is

[1:18:47] that something that we should be

[1:18:48] considering instead?

[1:18:56] » Good. Thank you for throwing all of this

[1:18:58] out into the middle of the discussion,

[1:18:59] but this is what a committee is for. Uh

[1:19:02] you're supposed to be able to do these

[1:19:03] things. Uh sorry, council, I'm going to

[1:19:06] throw one thing out and then we'll come

[1:19:08] to councelor Mstead and then we'll do

[1:19:10] this. Is that we do have to make a

[1:19:12] decision today. We we need to It may not

[1:19:14] be the perfect decision. We have

[1:19:17] gathered the information. You've

[1:19:18] received information from the public.

[1:19:20] We've we've drilled into the staff's

[1:19:22] recommendation. We have a staff

[1:19:24] recommendation. Um, but I'll come back

[1:19:26] to both councelor Trim and councelor

[1:19:28] Bell. If you want to put a motion on the

[1:19:29] floor to revisit the existing proposed

[1:19:32] budget, we will we will take a look at

[1:19:34] that. Good. Councelor Mstead.

[1:19:36] >> Yeah. Um, just an overarching comment, I

[1:19:40] » Yeah. Um, just an overarching comment, I

[1:19:40] guess, in that uh number one. Um,

[1:19:44] sorry. And I didn't see this on my my uh

[1:19:47] desk earlier, but we do have a 5-year

[1:19:49] proposal in front of us um for for um

[1:19:54] roads. First time I think I've ever seen

[1:19:57] that. So, hats off to the input that

[1:20:00] went into it. Um I think it's very

[1:20:03] important that as we go through an asset

[1:20:05] management plan and the input that goes

[1:20:08] into it and the expertise of the people

[1:20:11] that that uh are inputting that

[1:20:14] information that once we get it close we

[1:20:17] have to stick to it otherwise what the

[1:20:20] hell are we doing? Why even have an

[1:20:22] asset management plan? So I think it's

[1:20:24] very important that we're down that road

[1:20:27] now. We got a great 5-year. Is it bang

[1:20:31] on? Who knows? I'm sure there's going to

[1:20:33] be little bits of puts and takes, but

[1:20:35] I've heard as much from government road

[1:20:39] uh texts and phone calls to me as I did

[1:20:41] probably more than Zion Line. So, and

[1:20:45] that's going to continue through the

[1:20:46] next bunch of councils that everybody

[1:20:47] that lives on that road is going to come

[1:20:49] to us. And that that's that's good.

[1:20:51] They've got they're they're invested and

[1:20:52] they're interested. But I think at some

[1:20:54] point you've got to go, okay, here's the

[1:20:56] plan. And you know, we're not really

[1:20:58] straying from it other than if there's

[1:21:00] some extenduating circumstances that we

[1:21:02] have to we have to uh stray from it. Um,

[1:21:07] and again, it's one of the first times

[1:21:10] I've seen ashalt all over the page here.

[1:21:13] I've been on council, this is my 12th

[1:21:15] year, and I think I've only seen ashalt

[1:21:17] on a list other than if it's in town

[1:21:19] maybe twice, once or twice. So, it's

[1:21:22] great that we're we're getting to a

[1:21:24] point we're actually seeing ashalt,

[1:21:25] which has to take place on these these

[1:21:27] welltraveled roads versus DST. As

[1:21:30] councelor Bell said, uh, you know, we're

[1:21:33] we're 8 years, 7 years in. I remember

[1:21:36] Zion line, I think we were patching it

[1:21:37] the second year after we we put DST on

[1:21:40] it. So, it we just can't go down the DST

[1:21:43] path on uh these welltraveled roads. So,

[1:21:47] what I would propose is we stick to what

[1:21:50] uh they've have in the plan for 2026.

[1:21:53] Uh we look at 2027, review it, and see

[1:21:56] if there's any changes that can be made

[1:21:57] there. But again, at some point, we've

[1:21:59] got to go, this is the 5-year plan that

[1:22:01] we're going with, and bearing a whole

[1:22:04] lot of uh issues, we have to stick by

[1:22:07] that because it's and again, it's not

[1:22:10] just roads we're dealing with, it's the

[1:22:11] entire freaking township that we're

[1:22:12] trying to get into this asset management

[1:22:14] plan. So, um, anyway, that's my two

[1:22:16] cents. Thank you.

[1:22:17] >> Good. Thank you. And this is perfect.

[1:22:19] » Good. Thank you. And this is perfect.

[1:22:19] Again, this is what committees are for.

[1:22:22] Okay. I'm going to turn it back to

[1:22:23] Councelor Trim and Councelor Bell. Both

[1:22:25] of you had made suggestions about

[1:22:27] changing the current. Is that something

[1:22:29] that you'd like to put on the floor?

[1:22:31] >> Uh, yes. I would like uh to move that uh

[1:22:36] » Uh, yes. I would like uh to move that uh

[1:22:36] that this construction season we we

[1:22:39] spend our the

[1:22:41] uh our funds on the uh section of the

[1:22:45] design line that's been indicated and uh

[1:22:48] uh just uh uh a little further to what

[1:22:52] councelor Olmstead said uh I do believe

[1:22:55] in planning and I do believe that we

[1:22:57] should be sticking to uh our our plans.

[1:23:00] Um, however,

[1:23:03] new in when new information comes in, I

[1:23:06] think that it's appropriate to re

[1:23:10] rethink uh the plan. And so the new

[1:23:13] information today was that the cost for

[1:23:16] the design line included the active

[1:23:19] living uh the what

[1:23:21] >> active transportation

[1:23:22] » active transportation

[1:23:22] >> active transportation

[1:23:24] » active transportation

[1:23:24] um part. Now if we are if we agree to um

[1:23:31] eliminate that which is what I propose

[1:23:35] then the um then all of sudden the plan

[1:23:39] changes then it then to me it makes more

[1:23:43] sense to do the design line because of

[1:23:46] the traffic count and the the age of the

[1:23:48] road and so on and so on. Um a and so

[1:23:54] with that in mind, I'm going to move

[1:23:56] that we make that change.

[1:23:58] >> Good. Thank you. Do I have

[1:23:59] » Good. Thank you. Do I have

[1:23:59] >> And I'm looking for a seconder. Yes.

[1:24:01] » And I'm looking for a seconder. Yes.

[1:24:01] >> Do I have a seconder?

[1:24:04] » Do I have a seconder?

[1:24:04] >> And I see no seconder. So your motion is

[1:24:06] » And I see no seconder. So your motion is

[1:24:06] not recognized. Uh councelor Bell, would

[1:24:10] you like to move any of your

[1:24:12] suggestions?

[1:24:16] » No. I think I I tend to agree with uh

[1:24:19] councelor Olmstead. Um I just wanted to

[1:24:22] throw it out on the table just to just

[1:24:25] to see what other counselors thought.

[1:24:28] But um in listening to what our public

[1:24:32] works manager has to say like

[1:24:36] we're going to make the wrong decision

[1:24:37] in a number of people's eyes. We're

[1:24:39] going to make the right decision in

[1:24:41] some. So, I I tend to agree our our

[1:24:47] public works manager, he's he's been

[1:24:50] considering this. He knows all the

[1:24:52] issues on these roads. Um we're going to

[1:24:55] fit it into the budget. We're laying

[1:24:57] ashall down. I think that is that's a

[1:24:59] that's a good thing. Um just recognizing

[1:25:02] we're we're going to get some some

[1:25:04] backlash from the members on Zion line.

[1:25:07] I looking at this five-year plan, it's a

[1:25:10] plan and like councelor Olmstead said, I

[1:25:13] think once we put it into motion, I

[1:25:15] think sticking to it is important. So

[1:25:18] it's good

[1:25:27] instead of on

[1:25:30] the we're we are we're going to close

[1:25:32] discussion on this item pages page 17

[1:25:36] basically. Um, direction stands as was

[1:25:40] recommended by staff, but I am going to

[1:25:42] propose that we give staff direction on

[1:25:45] a couple things uh when it comes to our

[1:25:48] committee. And the first one is uh we

[1:25:52] need to re-examine active transportation

[1:25:55] and the impact it has on the level of

[1:25:57] service.

[1:25:59] Uh in my opinion, I'm I'm sharing

[1:26:02] councelor Bell's thoughts. I think it's

[1:26:05] unaffordable. Councelor Trim brought it

[1:26:07] up. It's a it's a level of service that

[1:26:09] we are not prepared. It's going to keep

[1:26:11] taking our main roads identified for

[1:26:13] active transportation off of the list

[1:26:14] because we just we don't have the funds

[1:26:16] to do them. Uh so I think that's one

[1:26:19] thing that the budget committee should

[1:26:20] look at in the future.

[1:26:23] Uh the second one is uh the three other

[1:26:27] points

[1:26:30] sorry at least the middle two and I'll

[1:26:32] take committee input on the fourth one

[1:26:34] but about the fireh halls about the

[1:26:37] extended life equipment of of current

[1:26:39] assets. I think we make that a task for

[1:26:41] our budget committee and our discussion

[1:26:43] about a five-year plan. How do we take

[1:26:45] how do we consider those comments in our

[1:26:48] discussions for our five-year plan?

[1:26:50] Uh, and at the fourth one about

[1:26:52] re-rolling our arenas, if you would like

[1:26:56] to have that included, we can add that

[1:26:57] if there's anyone that wants to add that

[1:26:59] in.

[1:27:01] Okay. I don't see any. So, we'll just

[1:27:03] take the first three as as provided. Is

[1:27:05] any feedback from the committee on that

[1:27:07] direction to staff?

[1:27:10] No. And I'll just I don't know if

[1:27:12] there's any public watching or we can

[1:27:14] pass this on to the members of Zion Line

[1:27:16] that came and did the delegation. I

[1:27:17] think that's exactly the type of public

[1:27:20] involvement that council needs. It made

[1:27:22] us go back and tear this apart and

[1:27:26] consider a whole bunch of different

[1:27:28] variables. And that's exactly what we

[1:27:30] want in a democracy is the ability to

[1:27:32] have that interaction between public

[1:27:35] input and necessary decisions. I don't

[1:27:38] think there's ever going to be the

[1:27:40] correct decision. There's always going

[1:27:42] to be the decision that you have to take

[1:27:44] given the parameters you have at that

[1:27:45] moment in time. and we have to proceed.

[1:27:49] But the delegations, the public input is

[1:27:52] is exactly what we need. Good. With

[1:27:55] that, we are concluding pages 1 through

[1:27:57] 28. I think there's another 30 pages to

[1:28:00] go, but maybe we're going to take a

[1:28:02] quick bio break and uh just five

[1:28:05] minutes, please, and then we'll come

[1:28:06] back.

[1:36:57] and welcome back to the Township of

[1:36:59] Whitewater regions budget committee

[1:37:01] meeting and we are going to continue.

[1:37:03] Now, if you're if you're watching and

[1:37:06] and looking for the regular council

[1:37:08] meeting that was supposed to start at

[1:37:09] 1:00,

[1:37:10] we are going to start the regular

[1:37:12] council meeting as soon as we finish the

[1:37:15] budget committee meeting. The two are

[1:37:17] intertwined. We have a recommendation

[1:37:19] that we will be making at the conclusion

[1:37:21] of the budget committee for the council

[1:37:22] meeting and it is the 2026 budget.

[1:37:25] Therefore, important if not vital for us

[1:37:28] to try to address today if uh if at all

[1:37:31] possible.

[1:37:32] So just be patient please and we'll

[1:37:34] continue our deliberations here at the

[1:37:36] committee level and then we'll move into

[1:37:37] council. Excellent. And with that we are

[1:37:41] going to turn the floor back to the CEO

[1:37:42] and the treasurer and continue on. I

[1:37:44] think we're at slide number 29.

[1:37:47] Thank you. We're actually going to the

[1:37:49] CIO's question. We're going to pop back

[1:37:50] to slide 26 just for one second. Um just

[1:37:54] to illustrate the where the 1.6% comes

[1:37:57] from uh with the total operating

[1:37:59] expenses of $9.35 million. So that's the

[1:38:02] total cost to operate the township uh

[1:38:04] which includes the uh the costs for the

[1:38:07] OP uh and and all other costs to to

[1:38:10] operate uh as well as our uh our uh

[1:38:13] other u internal costs of salaries uh

[1:38:17] contracts and things like that. So the

[1:38:19] amount the balance to fund the levy is

[1:38:20] the $5.9 million. That's the operating

[1:38:23] levy. Uh as you can see the prior year

[1:38:25] was 200 or 5.77 million. So overall the

[1:38:28] the levy is increasing by 2.5% uh less

[1:38:31] the expected growth uh which has almost

[1:38:34] been finalized. It's a little higher

[1:38:35] than 0.9 but I for calculation purposes

[1:38:38] I left it that way. And then so it

[1:38:40] equals about a 1.6% overall increase. Um

[1:38:43] I will note I think I mentioned this

[1:38:45] before but I'll just put it out there

[1:38:46] for the public again. By taking the

[1:38:49] growth uh category out and showing it

[1:38:52] this way, it makes the percentage that

[1:38:54] we're dictating out to the public more

[1:38:56] accurate as to what they will actually

[1:38:58] see as an increase on their taxation. Uh

[1:39:00] if I was to just say 2.5% and the 4.2,

[1:39:03] that's the levy, but it does it doesn't

[1:39:05] tie directly into your what you actually

[1:39:07] see on your tax bill. By t removing the

[1:39:10] growth portion from it and talking about

[1:39:11] the 1.6 and the 4.2 specifically, that's

[1:39:14] what the the your actual tax bill will

[1:39:17] see. uh within plus or minus a half a

[1:39:20] percent. So that that's the reason we we

[1:39:23] use the capital or the expected growth

[1:39:25] portion in there to to illustrate that.

[1:39:29] So the next part we move into is the

[1:39:30] capital and special projects portion of

[1:39:32] the budget. Uh I've left the slides in

[1:39:34] here just to again illustrate our

[1:39:36] funding sources for capital. So there's

[1:39:38] the OCIF which is uh for 2026 was

[1:39:42] $817,64.

[1:39:44] uh of that we split it due to the fact

[1:39:47] that there's water wastewater assets and

[1:39:49] road assets which is classified as our

[1:39:51] core infrastructure that's why we get

[1:39:53] the funding uh because it's a uh

[1:39:55] calculation based funding. Uh so

[1:39:57] $420,000

[1:39:58] 135 is being allocated to the general

[1:40:00] capital budget and then 396,929

[1:40:03] is allocated between water and

[1:40:05] wastewater.

[1:40:06] uh W water gets about 118,000

[1:40:09] uh if memory serves and then wise water

[1:40:11] gets about 240,000.

[1:40:15] Uh the other side is the other funding

[1:40:16] we receive is the Canada community

[1:40:18] building fund which is CCBF

[1:40:20] others might remember it as the can the

[1:40:22] gas tax funding uh the provincial or the

[1:40:25] federal funding I should say. Uh so

[1:40:27] 236,620

[1:40:28] again confirmed for 2026. Um that

[1:40:32] eligible uh funding breaks beyond just

[1:40:36] core infrastructure and allows for other

[1:40:38] infrastructure to be uh addressed which

[1:40:40] is normally why we uh tie it to

[1:40:43] infrastructure such as uh recreation uh

[1:40:46] fire systems uh and then uh roads and

[1:40:49] and waste water too as well.

[1:40:53] So the last chunk of the funding sources

[1:40:55] is the actual taxation. Um so with the

[1:40:57] 4.2 that has been occurring

[1:40:59] year-over-year, uh right now that

[1:41:01] balance uh once the 2026 budget is

[1:41:04] approved will be $1.212 million uh in

[1:41:08] taxation towards capital. So we're

[1:41:10] pulling 887,000 from the prior two years

[1:41:13] uh three years actually. And then

[1:41:15] 325,437

[1:41:17] is what's coming for the 2026 budget. Uh

[1:41:21] 1.0 04 million or 004 million, sorry, is

[1:41:25] currently tied up in debenture costs uh

[1:41:27] out of our levy. And then we released a

[1:41:30] one debenture this year uh of 81,000. So

[1:41:32] that part is being tied into the upper

[1:41:34] budget, the 1.2 uh to tie to create more

[1:41:37] capital fund working funds.

[1:41:40] Uh so we've just add a little note here.

[1:41:42] The the orange line is the constraint uh

[1:41:44] for affordability, the 3.4%.

[1:41:47] Uh this chart originally talked about

[1:41:49] how every year we put add 4.2% 2% to the

[1:41:52] levy and in order to try and achieve

[1:41:54] that goal of the $9 million required as

[1:41:57] stipulated in the asset management plan

[1:41:58] for the total uh current replacement

[1:42:01] value of all of our assets. Uh you can

[1:42:03] see by the time we reach that that line

[1:42:05] we hit in 2028 and we cap out at about $

[1:42:09] 1.9 million $1.8.9 million.

[1:42:12] Um so that's where that affordability

[1:42:14] threshold comes in.

[1:42:18] So the capital and special projects um

[1:42:21] one piece we did I think it was

[1:42:23] presentation three is where we talked

[1:42:25] about whenever we started calculating

[1:42:27] for how to create the uh capital plan

[1:42:30] for the going forward for the future for

[1:42:31] the 5 years was we had to have a place

[1:42:33] to start with and that was more or less

[1:42:35] the pots of money that could be

[1:42:36] allocated to certain categories. Um so

[1:42:39] based on the actual assets that we have

[1:42:41] in the asset management plan as well as

[1:42:43] staff input uh it was determined that we

[1:42:47] put it as 50% for the road network, 5%

[1:42:49] for storm water, 10% for buildings, 10%

[1:42:53] for machinery equipment, 20% for

[1:42:54] vehicles, 5% for land improvements,

[1:42:57] which brings us to a total of 100%.

[1:43:00] Um so the first column you'll see uh

[1:43:03] past those percentages that's the uh

[1:43:05] total capital funds uh levy and grants.

[1:43:08] Um total capital funds includes the

[1:43:11] debentures. Um so if we were to take the

[1:43:14] total capital money that we spend every

[1:43:15] year which is the bottom number 2.85

[1:43:17] million um and break it down into each

[1:43:20] category. So there's 1.425 425 that's

[1:43:23] spent on roads 142,000 for for storm

[1:43:26] water buildings 285 machine equipment

[1:43:30] 285 vehicles 570 land improvements 142

[1:43:34] then we remove the portions that we've

[1:43:36] already uh from prior years committed

[1:43:39] that capital funding to through the

[1:43:41] ventures so when I say debenture per

[1:43:43] category the 647,979

[1:43:46] that is uh principal and interest

[1:43:48] payments that we making uh this year for

[1:43:51] the road network. Uh same thing for

[1:43:53] machinery equipment. So there's $110,000

[1:43:56] out of the overall levy that's going to

[1:43:57] pay deb or uh principal and interest

[1:44:00] payments. Uh 141 for vehicles and

[1:44:02] equipment. Uh there's a debenture slide

[1:44:05] I'll show uh later on that'll kind of

[1:44:07] illustrate this more. So what the

[1:44:09] leftover funding uh for 2026 is 777,136

[1:44:14] for roads 142,511 for storm water 285,23

[1:44:20] for buildings machine equipment 1474,942

[1:44:24] vehicles and equipment 428254

[1:44:27] and then land improvements 142511. Um so

[1:44:30] you'll see on each of the slides that

[1:44:31] I've that I present uh again no change

[1:44:34] from the prior but just as a as a

[1:44:36] illustration to the public it talks

[1:44:37] about a remaining and left in reserve.

[1:44:40] So anytime we don't use up this funding

[1:44:43] it would be left and be pushed into

[1:44:45] reserve to be used in the the future

[1:44:47] years if we don't reach the the the

[1:44:50] total use of the funding uh in that

[1:44:52] category. Um and what will happen is

[1:44:54] whenever we uh staff bring forward um a

[1:44:57] reserve policy uh we'll actually be

[1:44:59] talking about these mounts and then

[1:45:00] adding that chunk in as to uh creating

[1:45:02] the reserves to to allocate these

[1:45:04] fundings appropriately.

[1:45:07] So the first project list is the under

[1:45:09] the roads category. So Crawford Street

[1:45:12] is still on the list. Uh the total cost

[1:45:14] of that project the road portion which

[1:45:15] is the surface itself uh is 858,000

[1:45:19] uh funded out of the levy would be

[1:45:21] 27,135

[1:45:23] and the remainder would be a debenture

[1:45:26] um the next one is Pine Road Park Road

[1:45:29] culvert uh $40,000 fully funded Lacquay

[1:45:33] road design 50,000 fully funded and then

[1:45:35] government road which is forers falls to

[1:45:37] Fletcher road um

[1:45:40] as ashvalt $660,000

[1:45:43] And per the prior discussion, there's

[1:45:45] there was no noted changes there. Um,

[1:45:48] mayor, do you want me to stop at the end

[1:45:50] of each of these categories or would you

[1:45:51] like me to run through all categories

[1:45:53] and come back?

[1:46:00] » I'm good either way. Does council have a

[1:46:02] preference?

[1:46:04] >> Yes, council.

[1:46:06] » Yes, council.

[1:46:06] >> You left us with a task last time, Mr.

[1:46:08] » You left us with a task last time, Mr.

[1:46:08] Mayor, with respect to the percentage.

[1:46:11] Uh I don't know when you want to talk

[1:46:13] about that. I want to talk about it uh

[1:46:16] for sure and so uh I'll leave it to your

[1:46:19] discretion.

[1:46:20] >> Okay. Just to recognize we're going to

[1:46:22] » Okay. Just to recognize we're going to

[1:46:22] bounce around. Let's get through all of

[1:46:24] these tables and we have presented

[1:46:26] you've presented these to us three times

[1:46:28] now. Yep.

[1:46:29] >> So if you can go through and just

[1:46:30] » So if you can go through and just

[1:46:30] articulate changes that you've made

[1:46:32] since the last presentation.

[1:46:33] >> Okay.

[1:46:34] » Okay.

[1:46:34] >> That will probably allow us to go

[1:46:36] » That will probably allow us to go

[1:46:36] through with questions at the end more

[1:46:38] quickly.

[1:46:38] >> Perfect. Um so the next slide is the

[1:46:41] » Perfect. Um so the next slide is the

[1:46:41] again Crawford Street being done. This

[1:46:43] is the stormwater network. There is no

[1:46:45] change here from the prior presentation.

[1:46:47] The still funded amount is 142,511.

[1:46:50] Uh so the remainder chunk goes to a

[1:46:52] debenture of 317,000.

[1:46:54] Um buildings again no changes here from

[1:46:57] the prior uh presentations. Uh, so we're

[1:47:00] funding the furnace HVAC, the Cobb Arena

[1:47:02] compressor, the beam painting in the

[1:47:04] Cobb Arena, structure repairs in the

[1:47:06] three arenas for the cement work, the

[1:47:08] Cobb arena HVAC, and then the museum

[1:47:10] snow roller shed. Um, so it leaves a

[1:47:13] remainder in the in that reserve fund of

[1:47:15] $523.

[1:47:17] Um, machinery and equipment, no changes

[1:47:20] again. Uh, $50,000 for RWIS CCTV, which

[1:47:24] it goes to our road patrol system.

[1:47:26] training equipment for the fire fire

[1:47:28] department uh for in-house CPR and first

[1:47:29] aid is $25,000. And then the breathing

[1:47:32] air compressor, which we uh got a grant

[1:47:34] for and purchased in 2025, uh was

[1:47:37] unfunded. So this is just to fund that

[1:47:38] last portion of 16,000. Um so it leaves

[1:47:41] $83,000 in the reserve at the end of

[1:47:43] 2026.

[1:47:45] Uh under vehicles, uh so we're looking

[1:47:48] at a tandem plow truck and a fire

[1:47:50] tanker. Uh so there was a change here,

[1:47:52] just a a clerical note that I want I

[1:47:54] made. Um, so the total cost of the truck

[1:47:56] is $425,000.

[1:47:58] We don't have the money in that fund

[1:48:00] based on the current percentages to be

[1:48:02] able to finance both it and the fire

[1:48:04] tanker, which we need to finance as we

[1:48:06] have received the fire tanker now. Um so

[1:48:09] in order to do that um we'd only be able

[1:48:12] to fund 378,254

[1:48:14] towards the the tandem plow truck and it

[1:48:17] would leave 4 46,746

[1:48:19] as unfunded into the 2027

[1:48:23] uh fiscal year which through the the

[1:48:25] capital plan that we've presented so far

[1:48:28] we can fund in 2027 uh due to the the

[1:48:30] way the equipment goes. Um, and I've

[1:48:33] noted on if you look at schedule D uh of

[1:48:35] the actual capital projects, that's

[1:48:37] where all these are listed and where

[1:48:38] their their funding is, uh, allocated.

[1:48:40] You'll notice that there's $46,000

[1:48:42] that's left as unfunded. So, that'll

[1:48:43] automatically be picked up and added

[1:48:45] into the 2027 budget.

[1:48:48] Uh, land improvements. Uh, there's no

[1:48:50] change here. Uh, based on the prior uh

[1:48:52] prior presentation, leaves no money left

[1:48:55] in reserves after the the play structure

[1:48:57] at the Cobb and/forers Falls Park.

[1:49:00] Uh and then this one again, no changes

[1:49:02] because these have all been pre uh

[1:49:04] presented in prior years. Uh this is

[1:49:06] just bringing it back to council's uh um

[1:49:09] awareness that the the projects are

[1:49:11] going on and where they're coming from

[1:49:12] reserves. So one of the new only new

[1:49:14] project here is the uh Ross uh landfill

[1:49:17] monitoring well. That one's being fully

[1:49:18] funded from the waste reserve of 35,000.

[1:49:21] Uh our website upgraded 17 furnace HAC

[1:49:25] is 50. The fire tanker. So over the last

[1:49:28] three years we put money into reserve

[1:49:30] for the purchase of the fire tanker. So

[1:49:32] this is the year whenever we get to

[1:49:33] actually spend it and we already have uh

[1:49:35] 485,000

[1:49:37] and then Westme boat launch rehab

[1:49:39] 100,000 and the Cobb Narina the

[1:49:41] electrical the ice electrical plant ice

[1:49:42] plant electrical panel at 45,000 which

[1:49:45] was already a project a project in 2025

[1:49:47] and is now uh just being shown here is

[1:49:50] where it's coming from reserve and I

[1:49:52] will note that you'll notice that the

[1:49:54] last two projects actually came from our

[1:49:55] CCBF reserve so in 2025 we allocated

[1:49:58] money from CCBF towards these projects

[1:50:01] them not being done. They're just being

[1:50:02] pulled out of that reserve this year.

[1:50:03] But that's just an illustration of where

[1:50:05] that CCBF money gets gets used.

[1:50:08] And any questions?

[1:50:10] >> Excellent. Thank you, treasure. And with

[1:50:12] » Excellent. Thank you, treasure. And with

[1:50:12] that, I'm going to go we'll go back to

[1:50:14] slide 34, which is what councelor Shim

[1:50:16] would like to ask a question on.

[1:50:26] » Uh yes, Mr. Mayor. Um

[1:50:29] at the end of our last budget

[1:50:31] discussion, you asked all of us to come

[1:50:34] back today with our thoughts on the

[1:50:36] percentage allocation. And so I've been

[1:50:39] thinking about it and um I would like to

[1:50:42] propose that instead of a 50%

[1:50:46] um allocation to the road network that

[1:50:49] it be 60%.

[1:50:51] Now, when I say that,

[1:50:54] what I'm implying is that the management

[1:50:58] staff

[1:50:59] will uh

[1:51:02] go back into the budget and find a a way

[1:51:05] to reallocate that money. And uh that

[1:51:09] might be a virtually impossible task

[1:51:12] without coming back to get some

[1:51:14] decisions from us, some very difficult

[1:51:17] decisions from us.

[1:51:20] um because there's only so much money

[1:51:22] and in our last discussion about roads,

[1:51:25] I don't know if it was obvious to

[1:51:28] everybody, we we're not giving

[1:51:32] uh our director Lane Claroo enough money

[1:51:37] to work on the roads and the streets and

[1:51:40] the sidewalks we have. If we don't give

[1:51:43] him enough money, he just can't do the

[1:51:45] job. That's all there is to it. there's

[1:51:48] the and we can't get the money. Uh we

[1:51:51] can't burden the taxpayers more. So

[1:51:55] something has to give. Um I know

[1:51:57] councelor Olstead alluded to this at our

[1:52:00] last discussion. So I don't know if it's

[1:52:03] a motion, Mr. Mayor, that is

[1:52:06] appropriate, but I just uh want you to

[1:52:10] have my answer to your your uh direction

[1:52:13] last time. I propose 60% goes to roads.

[1:52:17] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:52:20] >> Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Trim. Um,

[1:52:24] » Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Trim. Um,

[1:52:24] I'm just going to clarify because we are

[1:52:26] trying to

[1:52:28] have the 2026 budget approved for this

[1:52:32] for this year. You're talking about ch

[1:52:34] making changes into the future, not for

[1:52:36] 2026

[1:52:38] because it would necess necessitate

[1:52:40] taking the whole budget back to staff to

[1:52:43] rejig this and coming back to budget

[1:52:45] committee to talk about 2026.

[1:52:53] Well, just I I know this is another

[1:52:56] example of us just putting the always

[1:53:01] putting the the the the problem forward.

[1:53:04] I didn't understand your request.

[1:53:07] I should have, but I didn't. Uh I'm

[1:53:13] I'm I don't want the budget amount to

[1:53:15] raise. I just want the allocation to

[1:53:17] change. Um

[1:53:20] I I I don't know where where I am on

[1:53:23] this now. Uh I don't want to impose a

[1:53:26] whole bunch more work onto staff. That

[1:53:30] wasn't the idea. Uh and I don't want to

[1:53:33] prolong

[1:53:35] our budget deliberations.

[1:53:37] But something has to happen here.

[1:53:40] um uh we're not providing the services

[1:53:44] we're committed to because we're not

[1:53:46] giving our staff the money to do it. So

[1:53:49] I I don't know where what you I would

[1:53:52] suggest, Mr. Mayor. I'm I think I

[1:53:54] misunderstood your direction.

[1:53:58] >> No, and thank you for the point and it's

[1:54:00] » No, and thank you for the point and it's

[1:54:00] just a terms of trying to ma match what

[1:54:02] we'd like to do with what we we have to

[1:54:05] do. 2026 has already started. We're

[1:54:07] already starting to spend money in 2026.

[1:54:10] We want to lean in and do the 2026

[1:54:12] portion of the budget, but I think we

[1:54:14] have to acknowledge that the

[1:54:15] prioritization of our capital funds

[1:54:18] isn't optimal. We have to figure out

[1:54:20] that part part of it. Let's see if

[1:54:22] there's other discussion and we'll come

[1:54:23] back to it. Yes, councelor White.

[1:54:26] >> Not very good at math, so maybe Chris

[1:54:28] » Not very good at math, so maybe Chris

[1:54:28] can answer this.

[1:54:30] >> What would be 10% if we went from 50 to

[1:54:34] » What would be 10% if we went from 50 to

[1:54:34] 60%? What would that amount?

[1:54:36] >> An additional 285,000.

[1:54:38] » An additional 285,000.

[1:54:38] >> Pardon? an additional 28. See the bottom

[1:54:40] » Pardon? an additional 28. See the bottom

[1:54:40] number, the total 200 2.85 million,

[1:54:43] >> right?

[1:54:44] » right?

[1:54:44] >> Well, you'd be adding $285,000 more to

[1:54:47] » Well, you'd be adding $285,000 more to

[1:54:47] the road network then.

[1:54:48] >> So, we would have to take out $285,000

[1:54:50] » So, we would have to take out $285,000

[1:54:50] from somewhere else in the budget.

[1:54:51] >> That's right.

[1:54:51] » That's right.

[1:54:52] >> Okay.

[1:54:52] » Okay.

[1:54:52] >> You see the buildings and machinery that

[1:54:53] » You see the buildings and machinery that

[1:54:54] are at 10%. There there's your number

[1:54:56] right there.

[1:54:59] Council

[1:55:00] Moore,

[1:55:02] >> just wondering in what councelor Trim

[1:55:04] » just wondering in what councelor Trim

[1:55:04] just said if somewhere in there our

[1:55:06] discussion last meeting was increasing

[1:55:10] gravel road upgrades from 15 years to 10

[1:55:13] years if that could be included in that

[1:55:16] 10% increase or is it already in this

[1:55:20] budget?

[1:55:22] >> No, it's in operating and we closed that

[1:55:26] » No, it's in operating and we closed that

[1:55:26] out already.

[1:55:27] >> Okay. Now we can we can we'll put that

[1:55:29] » Okay. Now we can we can we'll put that

[1:55:29] on the back burner and we can come back

[1:55:31] to it at the end. But now it's not in

[1:55:32] capital.

[1:55:34] >> Considering we were talking percentage

[1:55:35] » Considering we were talking percentage

[1:55:35] change, I just wondered what happened to

[1:55:36] that discussion. Yeah.

[1:55:38] >> Um improving our gravel roads. That's

[1:55:40] » Um improving our gravel roads. That's

[1:55:40] >> good. If treasure, if you can put a pin

[1:55:42] » good. If treasure, if you can put a pin

[1:55:42] in that, we'll come back to it when

[1:55:43] we're done. The capital piece.

[1:55:44] >> Good. Uh any other comments on the

[1:55:48] » Good. Uh any other comments on the

[1:55:48] division of capital funds?

[1:55:50] >> Yeah, councelor Moore.

[1:55:52] » Yeah, councelor Moore.

[1:55:52] >> I had one on uh

[1:55:55] » I had one on uh

[1:55:55] I lost my place now.

[1:55:59] Well, that helps. Um, slide 39, we're

[1:56:03] talking about a tandem plow truck. Um,

[1:56:05] just wondering then if um if there

[1:56:08] wasn't enough money to perhaps purchase

[1:56:11] this year, does it go on the next year

[1:56:12] or are we still purchasing this year but

[1:56:14] with less money and be more debt?

[1:56:17] >> So, the the design is is that we have

[1:56:20] » So, the the design is is that we have

[1:56:20] $378,000 of the 425. So, it would be

[1:56:24] purchased in this year. Uh, as long as

[1:56:25] we take delivery in this year, that's

[1:56:27] hard to say. Sometimes it we could take

[1:56:29] delivery technically in 2027 because of

[1:56:31] the the length of actually build the

[1:56:33] truck. Um, but should we take delivery

[1:56:36] this year, there would be $46,000 that

[1:56:38] we don't have the funding for that would

[1:56:40] be then collected in 2027. It would

[1:56:42] remain unfunded. Similar to how we did

[1:56:44] the the breathing air compressor, we

[1:56:47] unfunded $16,000. So, we didn't have

[1:56:49] actually have that funds in 2025. And

[1:56:52] now we're fill refilling that that void

[1:56:54] or that unfunded portion in 2026.

[1:56:58] >> Okay, understand. Thank you.

[1:57:00] » Okay, understand. Thank you.

[1:57:00] >> Good. Any other questions?

[1:57:03] » Good. Any other questions?

[1:57:04] >> Sorry, councelor White, you're looking

[1:57:05] » Sorry, councelor White, you're looking

[1:57:05] at me.

[1:57:07] >> I'm just wondering if it says unfunded,

[1:57:08] » I'm just wondering if it says unfunded,

[1:57:08] so that means that we just didn't pay

[1:57:10] the bill.

[1:57:11] >> I'm not sure I understand that then.

[1:57:13] » I'm not sure I understand that then.

[1:57:13] >> So, we pay the bill. So on a income

[1:57:16] » So, we pay the bill. So on a income

[1:57:16] statement side or the actual revenue

[1:57:18] versus expenses side, we are incurring

[1:57:20] the expense but we're not taking in the

[1:57:22] revenue to offset the budget for it for

[1:57:24] the year. So when I say unfunded, it

[1:57:26] technically becomes a uh an expense that

[1:57:29] needs to be picked up in the next year.

[1:57:31] We don't we need to make the revenue up

[1:57:33] to cover that expense. It it's it's an

[1:57:35] effect on our overall working capital.

[1:57:37] Um, so what happens is in one year we

[1:57:39] have this outstanding chunk that needs

[1:57:41] to automatically be associated and

[1:57:43] included into the next year's budget

[1:57:45] 2027.

[1:57:46] >> We borrowed from ourselves.

[1:57:47] » We borrowed from ourselves.

[1:57:47] >> Exactly.

[1:57:48] » Exactly.

[1:57:48] >> That's that's okay.

[1:57:49] » That's that's okay.

[1:57:49] >> Yeah.

[1:57:50] » Yeah.

[1:57:50] >> Good. Any other comments

[1:57:54] » Good. Any other comments

[1:57:54] >> on this part? So I'm just going to come

[1:57:57] » on this part? So I'm just going to come

[1:57:57] back to councelor Trim's points then on

[1:57:59] the division of the capital funds and I

[1:58:01] know um it it is a discussion that we

[1:58:04] need to have

[1:58:06] and uh I for one am in favor of

[1:58:09] increasing the amount of roads. Roads is

[1:58:12] our number one strategic priority. It's

[1:58:14] it's a key function. It's not the only

[1:58:16] one. It can't be the only thing we fund,

[1:58:19] but just on our experience we've had

[1:58:21] with the debate on Zion and and

[1:58:23] Government Road, we know we don't set

[1:58:25] enough money aside for this. Maybe we

[1:58:27] need to change the scope, the width of

[1:58:29] the roads, all these other kind of

[1:58:31] factors. Um, but bottom line, there's

[1:58:35] still not enough money to do the 130 km

[1:58:38] of DST and 50 km of ashvalt that we have

[1:58:42] in the township. Um however I am loathed

[1:58:46] to make these changes today on 2026

[1:58:49] budget. That means that as an example

[1:58:52] the point councelor Moore just said we'd

[1:58:54] be taking money out of the vehicle

[1:58:56] allocation either unfunding it or

[1:59:00] reallocating it from somewhere else.

[1:59:02] You're we'd be pushing it back to staff

[1:59:05] to go back probably take at least a week

[1:59:08] if not more. the CEO was like, but it

[1:59:10] would take time for them to go back and

[1:59:13] rejig it. Uh, that's my thought on it,

[1:59:17] but this is a committee and so we need

[1:59:21] to we need to come up with a consensus

[1:59:23] on it.

[1:59:24] Councelor Bell.

[1:59:26] >> Yeah, just my understanding on it was

[1:59:29] » Yeah, just my understanding on it was

[1:59:29] these are the percentages that we have

[1:59:30] laid out for this year, but going along

[1:59:33] with the five-year projections, that's

[1:59:35] how we can manipulate this moving

[1:59:36] forward. So I think I was comfortable

[1:59:39] with these percentages the way it was

[1:59:40] laid out in the previous presentations.

[1:59:43] Um knowing that these discussions are

[1:59:46] moving forward as it pertains to that

[1:59:49] 5-year projection and how we make that

[1:59:52] how we how we want to to make this look

[1:59:55] moving forward. So, I'm comfortable with

[1:59:57] the percentages as they're laid out and

[2:00:00] uh how it's been presented to us before

[2:00:04] knowing that these are up for discussion

[2:00:06] moving forward.

[2:00:09] >> Other feedback.

[2:00:11] » Other feedback.

[2:00:11] I'll go to the treasurer.

[2:00:13] >> Yeah, I'm just going to make one note

[2:00:14] » Yeah, I'm just going to make one note

[2:00:14] that the other side too is whenever we

[2:00:16] present and bring forward the the 2026

[2:00:18] asset management plan, it's going to

[2:00:20] have a financing schedule in it for the

[2:00:22] next 10 years. So like the the budget

[2:00:24] committee is and is going to have a lot

[2:00:26] of input into that. So that's where the

[2:00:29] new amounts will be set out. It may not

[2:00:30] be a straight 50%. It might look like

[2:00:32] 54% just based on the number of assets

[2:00:35] and how the funding works in order to

[2:00:37] maintain set level of service because

[2:00:39] that's the goal of the asset management

[2:00:41] plan is supposed to council dictates the

[2:00:44] level of service that wants to be

[2:00:45] achieved and the assets that want to be

[2:00:48] uh included in that in that asset

[2:00:50] management plan. level service up, level

[2:00:52] service down. That was where that sits.

[2:00:54] And then they take that and they come

[2:00:56] back with the funding method of how to

[2:00:58] fund it because we can't have unfunded

[2:01:00] assets and still maintain level service

[2:01:01] because you're not. So they have to come

[2:01:03] back to that number. So then whenever

[2:01:05] they come back, that's where this is our

[2:01:07] first attempt without the finalized

[2:01:09] document of putting it. But whenever we

[2:01:11] come into 2026 and they present that

[2:01:14] capital plan, it has to fund everything.

[2:01:16] So it's going to show a breakdown and

[2:01:18] here's the deficits in such categories

[2:01:20] and the the downfalls of assets and then

[2:01:24] things will tie from there as to the the

[2:01:26] percentages. So this is our first

[2:01:28] attempt at it from a staff level. The

[2:01:31] consultants input will will make that

[2:01:33] change number change again. Even if we

[2:01:35] were to change it to 60% now, it could

[2:01:36] technically change again to say 75%.

[2:01:39] Just throwing it out there of a of a

[2:01:41] number that they that the consultant

[2:01:43] recommends in order to maintain whatever

[2:01:46] asset is deemed as the most important.

[2:02:02] Oh,

[2:02:04] >> now it's turned green. Sorry, I went

[2:02:06] » now it's turned green. Sorry, I went

[2:02:06] from flashing red to green. I wrecked

[2:02:08] clerk's microphone.

[2:02:12] » Okay. Thank you, treasure. Um,

[2:02:16] any other comments with respect to

[2:02:17] councelor Trim's proposal? because I

[2:02:20] will highlight one other thing

[2:02:23] is that when you go into the other

[2:02:25] tables that are listed in here, the land

[2:02:28] improvements, the the vehicles, the

[2:02:31] equipment, the buildings,

[2:02:35] if you were to lean forward, like if

[2:02:36] you're of the opinion, oh, I think we

[2:02:38] should go roads to 60% and cut these

[2:02:41] other ones, but maybe we don't have time

[2:02:42] to do that for 2026,

[2:02:44] you could suggest that some of these uh

[2:02:48] projects

[2:02:50] be not be not be done this year and just

[2:02:53] keep that money in a reserve in that

[2:02:55] category

[2:02:57] pending a future decision. That that is

[2:03:00] that is one way to look at it um to to

[2:03:03] meet your intent without having to rejig

[2:03:06] everything. So you could put a pause on

[2:03:09] something if that was something you

[2:03:11] wanted to do. and and and again it may

[2:03:14] not be a decision that we need to take

[2:03:15] today

[2:03:17] but we could come back to

[2:03:20] good. So with that, councelor Trim,

[2:03:23] what's your thought? Are you okay with

[2:03:25] an approach of 2027 for reallocation of

[2:03:28] the percentages?

[2:03:28] >> Uh yes, that is a very good compromise.

[2:03:33] » Uh yes, that is a very good compromise.

[2:03:33] Uh you know, and I'm just thinking just

[2:03:36] off the top of my head, playground

[2:03:38] equipment that gets us very close to the

[2:03:41] 10%. It's good a good way to the pathway

[2:03:45] to the 10%. Uh I I'm not saying it's not

[2:03:47] important. All of this stuff is

[2:03:49] important. The staff spent a lot of time

[2:03:52] on on this and every single one is

[2:03:55] important, but we got to get some kind

[2:03:58] of priority going here and uh uh

[2:04:03] and and we've got to get more money to

[2:04:07] roads. Um because everybody needs roads

[2:04:13] and I'm just wondering if I I don't know

[2:04:16] the situation here in common that well

[2:04:18] but school has playground equipment uh

[2:04:21] maybe in in West Me the kids play in the

[2:04:25] schoolyard uh on the equipment and so

[2:04:29] for a different situation I understand

[2:04:31] but uh we got to do something different

[2:04:36] Lee and uh so That's a wonderful

[2:04:40] suggestion, Mr. Mayor. It seems like a

[2:04:41] good compromise. Um, so thank you for

[2:04:44] that.

[2:04:45] >> Good. Is there any other feedback and

[2:04:47] » Good. Is there any other feedback and

[2:04:47] anyone else on any of these projects

[2:04:48] listed?

[2:04:50] >> So this the the recommendation I throw

[2:04:52] » So this the the recommendation I throw

[2:04:52] to staff on this is that as part of our

[2:04:54] future budget committee meetings, we

[2:04:56] will examine the reallocation even if it

[2:04:58] is temporary to a future AM that could

[2:05:01] come higher. I think it's worthwhile us

[2:05:03] going through the exercise

[2:05:05] and if staff if there are projects that

[2:05:09] we they may be the that may that may

[2:05:11] that may be impacted by a change in

[2:05:14] percentage allocation maybe we can put

[2:05:16] those up as potential discussion points

[2:05:18] at a future budget committee meeting.

[2:05:20] >> Is that fair CEO? Yeah, I think it's I

[2:05:23] » Is that fair CEO? Yeah, I think it's I

[2:05:23] think it's noted and I mean the the the

[2:05:26] challenge we're having is that there's

[2:05:28] the the capital investment that we're

[2:05:31] making is not enough to support our

[2:05:32] assets period. So at some point we have

[2:05:35] to decide what is our priority what are

[2:05:37] our priority areas and we need to move

[2:05:38] forward with that. So the budget

[2:05:40] committee could deliberate on that uh

[2:05:42] moving forward and including the

[2:05:44] reallocation and uh maybe the rep

[2:05:46] prioritization of projects for 2026. I

[2:05:48] think the strategy is is makes sense

[2:05:50] moving forward. Let's let's adopt and

[2:05:51] then uh consider it in the next couple

[2:05:53] months. Thanks.

[2:05:56] >> It's good fair approach. This the the

[2:05:58] » It's good fair approach. This the the

[2:05:58] only other point I'll make um for those

[2:06:00] people that might be watching is the

[2:06:01] Lacqua Bay road design and and please

[2:06:04] manager Claroo if I've got this wrong,

[2:06:06] but the reason we need to have that

[2:06:09] significant investment in that road

[2:06:10] design is because of the storm water

[2:06:13] underneath it.

[2:06:15] So it has storm water systems underneath

[2:06:19] it and therefore it needs an engineering

[2:06:21] component. Is that correct? Am I hitting

[2:06:23] that on the

[2:06:25] >> That's correct. Part of it. Um there

[2:06:27] » That's correct. Part of it. Um there

[2:06:27] also it is an urban section. Um so

[2:06:30] there's

[2:06:31] sidewalks and gutters and the whole how

[2:06:34] it fits in designwise. Um it's not like

[2:06:37] a a rural section that we can do in

[2:06:40] house.

[2:06:41] >> Yeah. Good. So again, just an important

[2:06:44] » Yeah. Good. So again, just an important

[2:06:44] some of the roads in our communities

[2:06:45] have got these requirements that exceed

[2:06:48] the typical rural design requirements.

[2:06:52] >> Good. Yeah. Councelor White,

[2:06:54] » Good. Yeah. Councelor White,

[2:06:54] >> Laqua Bay Road, isn't that the one that

[2:06:56] » Laqua Bay Road, isn't that the one that

[2:06:56] comes off of

[2:06:59] >> Gord?

[2:07:01] » Gord?

[2:07:01] >> Yeah, but doesn't it? And it goes all

[2:07:03] » Yeah, but doesn't it? And it goes all

[2:07:03] the way down and

[2:07:04] >> down to Greenway.

[2:07:06] » down to Greenway.

[2:07:06] >> Oh, is that Greenway there?

[2:07:07] » Oh, is that Greenway there?

[2:07:07] >> Goes down to Greenway. Yeah.

[2:07:08] » Goes down to Greenway. Yeah.

[2:07:08] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah.

[2:07:09] » Oh, yeah. Yeah.

[2:07:09] >> Okay.

[2:07:10] » Okay.

[2:07:10] >> Pause. Now I think the the 50,000 is

[2:07:13] » Pause. Now I think the the 50,000 is

[2:07:13] specifically for the the urban component

[2:07:15] which is within LAS. Is that correct?

[2:07:18] Yeah.

[2:07:19] >> Right.

[2:07:21] » Right.

[2:07:21] Good. All right. Well, keep moving then.

[2:07:25] >> Capital projections and and again please

[2:07:27] » Capital projections and and again please

[2:07:27] treasur just highlight what you think

[2:07:29] are the changes or issues that you need

[2:07:32] to raise publicly.

[2:07:32] >> We'll do uh so yeah capital projections.

[2:07:35] » We'll do uh so yeah capital projections.

[2:07:35] So the first one I roll into is

[2:07:36] debentures and debt. We kind of did a

[2:07:38] little bit of a reallocation here of the

[2:07:40] the slides. Um the only reason we bring

[2:07:42] this forward is because I always want to

[2:07:43] show what the debenture is and because

[2:07:45] there is a debenture on the books that

[2:07:47] will be added because we're doing

[2:07:48] Crawford Street. I wanted to note this.

[2:07:51] So uh currently the the million4,000

[2:07:55] uh for our total payment for the

[2:07:57] taxation is listed there and those are

[2:07:59] the debentures that we currently have on

[2:08:00] the books. Uh you'll see that in 2026 is

[2:08:04] the last year for two of them. So

[2:08:06] there's uh $100,000 worth of technically

[2:08:09] debenture payment room that will be re

[2:08:11] recouped by the township um which will

[2:08:13] roll into the new debenture uh for lack

[2:08:16] of a better term in the 2027 for the uh

[2:08:18] the debenture on Crawford Street.

[2:08:21] Uh this is a slide to show our total

[2:08:23] debentures and the only reason I show

[2:08:24] this here because it shows water and

[2:08:26] wastewater as well um is to the next

[2:08:28] slide for estimated annual payment

[2:08:30] limit. Um, so I did some quick math

[2:08:34] based on what the project that we're

[2:08:36] looking at for Crawford,

[2:08:39] uh, at this point in time, uh, the

[2:08:41] current rate if we did 20 years, which

[2:08:43] is what the water wastewater study

[2:08:45] originally planned as. So I'm using

[2:08:46] those kind of same, uh, pieces. So

[2:08:49] anybody looking between the documents

[2:08:50] has a similar yearing. Uh, so right now

[2:08:53] uh, amortization is 4.52%.

[2:08:56] He's on the loan value. Uh so you can

[2:09:00] see here it'd be one of the highest uh

[2:09:03] loans shy of the Cobden Halealley water

[2:09:06] treatment plant. However, the rates have

[2:09:08] gone up and gone down a lot uh recently.

[2:09:11] Um so by the time we actually close this

[2:09:13] debenture, which would be early 2027, um

[2:09:16] hard to predict what the rates will be

[2:09:18] then, but likely not higher than than

[2:09:20] what we're currently projecting.

[2:09:22] Uh so the total annual payment including

[2:09:26] the water and wastewater portion um

[2:09:28] would be $145,182

[2:09:31] uh because the do total debenture is uh

[2:09:34] around $1.92 million

[2:09:37] uh to to fund that project. Um so then

[2:09:41] the uh total interest um over the term

[2:09:45] of the loan because I always want to

[2:09:47] stipulate this out there for the public

[2:09:48] side. uh it looks at about a million

[2:09:50] dollars of added interest over the 20

[2:09:52] years.

[2:09:55] So the next thing under the projection

[2:09:57] side we flow into assumptions. Um so in

[2:10:00] doing the assumptions uh then this is to

[2:10:03] create the operating uh capital or

[2:10:06] operating uh projection for 5 years as

[2:10:08] well as tie into the capital side uh to

[2:10:11] show that 3.4% and then uh where our

[2:10:13] affordability factors come in. Uh so our

[2:10:16] assumptions is 2% uh the increased

[2:10:18] capital levy to continue at the 4.2%

[2:10:21] until the affordability limit is reached

[2:10:23] and then 1% thereafter to maintain fund

[2:10:27] uh that was a stipulation uh from the

[2:10:29] mayor's uh side after whenever we reach

[2:10:31] that 3.4%. uh assessment growth of 1% uh

[2:10:36] median income growth at 1% uh county

[2:10:38] levy increase capped at around four or

[2:10:41] projected at 4.5%. And then the

[2:10:44] education levy which at 0% which is what

[2:10:47] has been traditionally uh its rate

[2:10:49] increase over the last five years. So uh

[2:10:51] the likelihood of it actually changing

[2:10:53] is uh unlikely at this point in time uh

[2:10:56] just based on uh just history. So the

[2:10:59] capital and operating 2027 to 2030 uh

[2:11:02] shows operating revenue more or less

[2:11:04] stays the same uh due to the fact that

[2:11:06] things go up and things go down in

[2:11:08] different categories but the net

[2:11:09] difference is normally uh the same. Uh

[2:11:12] operating expenses uh they are

[2:11:15] increasing based on those assumptions.

[2:11:18] So you see $9.4 million for 2027, 9.5

[2:11:21] for 2028, 9.729 and then 9.8 for 2030.

[2:11:25] Uh so then it creates the operating levy

[2:11:27] required and the capital levy required.

[2:11:29] So you'll see the total levy is the uh

[2:11:31] second from the bottom uh row. So $ 8.7

[2:11:34] million is what 2027 would be. 2028

[2:11:37] would be 9.13143.

[2:11:40] Uh 9.378 for 2029 and 2030 would be

[2:11:43] 9.618. Uh so we reached the 3.4% 4% um

[2:11:48] affordability factor in 2028 and then

[2:11:52] with that 1% and then the just general

[2:11:54] CPI needed growth uh or increase

[2:11:57] required for the operating uh brings us

[2:12:00] to 3.44 for 29 and 3.48 for 2030. Um so

[2:12:04] that's barebone increases but no

[2:12:06] substantial increases where all we're

[2:12:07] doing is maintaining levels of service

[2:12:09] at that point in time.

[2:12:12] So on those uh five-year budget

[2:12:14] forecasts and awareness um I'll mention

[2:12:18] to you to refer to the documents that

[2:12:19] was provided to you. So there was an

[2:12:20] operating document um as well as our

[2:12:23] capital list uh the water and then the

[2:12:25] wastewater uh and it all includes the

[2:12:27] 5-year budget forecast. It's this big

[2:12:30] one that everybody has. Um so it goes

[2:12:33] through again it's unfunded um because

[2:12:36] due to the lack of overall funds and the

[2:12:39] the allocation as uh councelor trim

[2:12:41] noted uh which couldn't change that's

[2:12:44] where that part um staff made a list of

[2:12:47] projects but in order to actually fund

[2:12:49] them the priorities need to be set by

[2:12:50] council. Um so our overall constraints

[2:12:53] uh limited re revenue generated by the

[2:12:55] 3.4 for ability thresh affordability

[2:12:57] threshold uh overall incre increasing

[2:13:00] replacement values of assets our core

[2:13:02] infrastructure infrastructure and

[2:13:04] supplemental stuff um that is required

[2:13:06] to maintain but it's not the the actual

[2:13:08] infrastructure uh deteriorating overall

[2:13:11] asset conditions uh as the years pro

[2:13:13] progress before things can be replaced

[2:13:16] they deteriorate to such a point um that

[2:13:19] they can't be renewed they have to be

[2:13:20] replaced and that's one of the one of

[2:13:22] the the issue the constraints

[2:13:24] Um the manager mentioned it already

[2:13:27] about Brumal line being one of those one

[2:13:29] of such roads where it's the it

[2:13:31] deteriorates too fast that it can't be

[2:13:33] renewed. It has to be fully replaced. Um

[2:13:36] increasing levels of service

[2:13:37] expectations. Um so that kind of ties

[2:13:40] into the uh active transportation piece

[2:13:42] where the wider road is one of the

[2:13:44] expectations and then to to tie into

[2:13:46] that and then the other piece is the

[2:13:48] clear direction from the council

[2:13:50] strategic direction uh to prioritize

[2:13:52] infrastructure investment in core asset

[2:13:54] renewal uh rather than all assets. Uh

[2:13:56] understand current and future needs and

[2:13:58] provide resolutions on key facilities.

[2:14:00] Uh and we say facilities we don't just

[2:14:02] mean arenas, there's fire halls, there's

[2:14:05] public works, garages there. it's all

[2:14:06] all facilities as a whole. Uh and then

[2:14:09] understand resident expected levels of

[2:14:11] service and their delivery.

[2:14:14] Um I brought this slide back in again

[2:14:16] just to show where we were talking about

[2:14:18] that that invisible glass ceiling as you

[2:14:21] might say of where 3.4% comes in and

[2:14:24] where we kind of we start pushing past

[2:14:26] that um with capital growth. So we cap

[2:14:30] out around $1.8.9 8 1.9 million

[2:14:33] um of overall taxation which can be

[2:14:35] funded towards capital. So as soon as we

[2:14:37] hit that that top end threshold, it

[2:14:39] would then be allocated based on the

[2:14:41] percentages and that would be the it for

[2:14:43] the the future if we wanted to hold to

[2:14:46] that 3.4.

[2:14:48] Um so next steps um so it's continue the

[2:14:51] development of the 10-year uh capital

[2:14:53] plan based on the funding uh and the

[2:14:55] 2026 ashman asset management plan with

[2:14:57] the budget committee. uh finalize the

[2:14:59] asset management plan with the support

[2:15:00] of Dylan consultant. Um examine policies

[2:15:03] to um guide financial decisions and

[2:15:06] infrastructure. So the ones that staff

[2:15:08] have noted so far is amend the reserve

[2:15:10] policy, the tangible capital asset

[2:15:12] policy and the surplus equipment

[2:15:13] disposal policy and then adopt two new

[2:15:15] policies. Uh these are just the main

[2:15:17] ones noted is the venture policy and

[2:15:19] investment policy. Um I can give a quick

[2:15:21] thing. The reserve policy is looking to

[2:15:24] create uh what we have currently have

[2:15:26] one but it doesn't stipulate what

[2:15:28] amounts should be in reserves. Uh so it

[2:15:30] would be to create that that piece of

[2:15:31] what the com the municipality and the is

[2:15:34] comfortable in having in reserve to plan

[2:15:36] for emergencies or plan for future uh

[2:15:38] future projects. Tangible capital asset

[2:15:41] is the length of time we actually hold

[2:15:42] on to an asset before we uh end the its

[2:15:46] service life its useful life and

[2:15:48] amortize it down over the over the

[2:15:50] period. And then the surplus equipment

[2:15:51] disposal policy would be looking to uh

[2:15:53] have something uh in that policy of what

[2:15:56] happens more with more dictates what

[2:15:58] happens with the revenue that's received

[2:15:59] whenever we sell such assets uh where

[2:16:01] it's dictated back. Uh the debenture

[2:16:04] policy would be what can actually be

[2:16:06] eligible for a debenture where right now

[2:16:08] we have debentures for equipment, we

[2:16:10] have debentures for a road of all sorts.

[2:16:12] We have debentures for so it it would

[2:16:14] stipulate what qualifies what value

[2:16:16] qualifies and what asset actually

[2:16:18] qualifies for a debenture and which ones

[2:16:20] we have to council has to always fund

[2:16:22] 100% via taxation it it would make it

[2:16:25] ineligible for a debenture and just due

[2:16:28] to its life expectancy and that which

[2:16:30] ties in again to the TCA policy the

[2:16:32] tangible capital asset and the last one

[2:16:34] is investment policy um and this was one

[2:16:36] I' I've added to the list uh due to the

[2:16:38] fact that in the years whenever we don't

[2:16:41] use said money um for a certain capital

[2:16:45] asset. Do we invest that money in a

[2:16:47] certain way and make money on our money?

[2:16:50] That's the the goal of of uh this policy

[2:16:53] is to try and maximize the taxpayers's

[2:16:55] dollar. Um, right now we're not in a

[2:16:58] situation where we can do in this, but

[2:16:59] it'd be good to have it ahead of time to

[2:17:01] kind of dictate if we start to build

[2:17:03] reserve funds and balances into the

[2:17:06] future, but they're not needed for say 5

[2:17:08] years that we start looking at an

[2:17:09] investment portion of that in order to

[2:17:12] use it. Um, same thing with uh and what

[2:17:16] as an eligible investment.

[2:17:19] Any questions?

[2:17:22] >> Thank you, treasurer. Is there any

[2:17:24] » Thank you, treasurer. Is there any

[2:17:24] questions or comments from council on

[2:17:27] this section? Yeah, councelor White.

[2:17:29] >> Just out of curiosity. Um I know you

[2:17:32] » Just out of curiosity. Um I know you

[2:17:32] have an investment policy, but can we

[2:17:34] invest our taxpayers money if but what

[2:17:35] if we lose it all?

[2:17:37] >> So there's a mandated uh what we're

[2:17:39] » So there's a mandated uh what we're

[2:17:39] allowed to actually invest in. So

[2:17:41] there's a qualified list and we're not

[2:17:43] we can't it's but you can't invest in

[2:17:45] the stock market. It's it's all secured.

[2:17:48] It's just the term of said secure said

[2:17:50] security as in um whether we go a

[2:17:53] certain level and whether then if cash

[2:17:56] flows were fall below a certain level do

[2:17:58] we borrow in between that point in time

[2:17:59] like the it's the the what stipulates

[2:18:01] that of how long do we have to have a

[2:18:04] projection for for cash flows at x

[2:18:06] dollars and how much can we put forward

[2:18:08] and like what's our level of risk more

[2:18:10] or less is what it stipulates.

[2:18:12] >> Thank you.

[2:18:13] » Thank you.

[2:18:13] >> Right. So, if we've got a million

[2:18:14] » Right. So, if we've got a million

[2:18:14] dollars in our working capital and we it

[2:18:18] sits there earning on a checking

[2:18:21] account, we could be using it to make

[2:18:24] more money for future purposes. That's

[2:18:27] But there's a bunch of guidelines that

[2:18:29] have to be established for that. Yeah.

[2:18:31] Look at Council Homestead. His eyes just

[2:18:33] got really big.

[2:18:35] >> Okay.

[2:18:37] » Okay.

[2:18:37] >> 4.2% on cash.

[2:18:40] » 4.2% on cash.

[2:18:40] >> Yeah.

[2:18:41] » Yeah.

[2:18:41] And but the problem is is that we're not

[2:18:43] in a position now. We're still trying to

[2:18:45] figure out how to fund a road. Uh

[2:18:48] once we get once we get out of the

[2:18:50] woods, we can start to to really make

[2:18:52] really some sound decisions financially.

[2:18:54] Is there any other comments on this

[2:18:56] section? Councelor Mstead. Yeah, just

[2:18:58] back I know it's it's semantics, but

[2:19:01] just on um slide 47,

[2:19:04] I I know you went through that pretty

[2:19:06] quickly and I I I saw a lot of uh a lot

[2:19:09] of confusing looks on it. Just a couple

[2:19:11] of uh changes to the titles if you would

[2:19:15] and I think it just going forward to

[2:19:17] clear up some um understanding of the

[2:19:20] slide.

[2:19:21] >> Um so just down at the bottom there are

[2:19:22] » Um so just down at the bottom there are

[2:19:22] debt charges. Do you mind calling that

[2:19:25] current debt charges or current Yeah.

[2:19:28] >> current debt?

[2:19:29] » current debt?

[2:19:29] >> Yep.

[2:19:29] » Yep.

[2:19:29] >> And then on estimated ARIRL,

[2:19:32] » And then on estimated ARIRL,

[2:19:32] uh can we can we term that um estimated

[2:19:35] ARIRL remaining?

[2:19:36] >> Yep.

[2:19:37] » Yep.

[2:19:37] >> So just so council understands that the

[2:19:39] » So just so council understands that the

[2:19:39] debt charges so that 1.5 million is what

[2:19:42] our current uh payments are including

[2:19:45] principal and interest. And so it means

[2:19:47] that we have $1.69 69 million remaining

[2:19:51] that we could in in payments that we

[2:19:54] could take on. So, uh, and if I don't

[2:19:58] know, yeah, I don't want to add an extra

[2:19:59] column, but it basically we're paying

[2:20:01] about 12.5% of our, uh, of the 25%. So,

[2:20:06] we're paying about half the the limit

[2:20:09] that we're allowed right now. So, it

[2:20:10] means we have a lot of room. Not that

[2:20:11] you want to go out on a spending spree,

[2:20:13] but we're in good shape on this this

[2:20:16] particular slide. But I think I just did

[2:20:18] a clarify um if we just change those

[2:20:20] descriptions a little bit at the bottom.

[2:20:23] >> Noted.

[2:20:23] » Noted.

[2:20:23] >> There's a lot of numbers on that page so

[2:20:25] » There's a lot of numbers on that page so

[2:20:25] it kind of gets gets lost.

[2:20:29] >> Noted. Um the other thing I will note

[2:20:31] » Noted. Um the other thing I will note

[2:20:31] too is that they this is based on the

[2:20:33] ministries's um

[2:20:36] request and that's why like you'll see

[2:20:37] total revenue SLC 1099. That's the

[2:20:41] actual code that comes off their page

[2:20:42] and that's where I pulled this

[2:20:43] originally from. Um, we've received this

[2:20:46] through the FIR every year. 25% is where

[2:20:49] they set it as of the net revenues less

[2:20:51] all their grants. A lot of local

[2:20:54] municipalities who are bringing in their

[2:20:56] debt policies also put in a new limit,

[2:20:59] not the 25%. I've seen 15%, I've seen

[2:21:02] 20% uh kind of goes between the two

[2:21:05] because the idea is that you leave that

[2:21:07] either 5% or that last 10% for emergency

[2:21:10] purposes. So, it's not on just a general

[2:21:13] project that you're doing, say an arena,

[2:21:15] that you're able to borrow that that the

[2:21:18] money and have that repayment limit that

[2:21:20] you top out your debenture limit. Uh,

[2:21:22] like similar municipal, some other

[2:21:23] municipalities can go to the point where

[2:21:25] they've maxed out their debenture limit,

[2:21:27] then get an emergency project that they

[2:21:30] have no way to fund. You have to get

[2:21:32] special permission from the ministry in

[2:21:34] order to go over this limit and it it

[2:21:36] puts a lot of constraints on it and then

[2:21:38] it also affects the overall financial

[2:21:40] stability of the municipality. So that's

[2:21:41] why a lot of municipalities put in their

[2:21:42] own limit a lower to leave a a limit

[2:21:46] opening. Um and the other piece I didn't

[2:21:49] speak about and I should have is this is

[2:21:52] the annual overpayment limit. So it's

[2:21:55] the payment on the loan. It's not the

[2:21:57] total amount we can borrow. So whenever

[2:22:00] it says 1.69 69 million if we were to

[2:22:02] say 20 years uh of a debenture

[2:22:06] going to do some rough math here in my

[2:22:07] head about say 4 and a.5% I think that

[2:22:10] worked out to be

[2:22:14] 10 or 15 or $18 million I think but

[2:22:17] don't quote me but that's like we could

[2:22:18] borrow at set amount of dollars that's

[2:22:20] the total amount that we have to pay

[2:22:21] every year is the the 1.69 69 million.

[2:22:24] So that's our payment every year. Um

[2:22:27] like all of the ventures we have right

[2:22:28] now, actually I'll go back up one. Right

[2:22:30] now we have $13 million on the books and

[2:22:33] we pay 1.5 towards that.

[2:22:37] So that $13 million equates to our ARIRL

[2:22:40] of having a 1.5 million. Um but there's

[2:22:44] a lot of different rates in there. So if

[2:22:46] we were to do that again, more or less

[2:22:47] it's double again. And so yeah, it'd be

[2:22:49] about $15 million potentially that we

[2:22:51] could borrow and then it would top out

[2:22:54] our limit at the at the 25% category. So

[2:22:57] that's our room at this point in time.

[2:23:00] Um the only thing I stipulate is I'm

[2:23:02] using that number, but some of these

[2:23:03] deventures are 10-year deventures. So

[2:23:05] the the repayment amount is higher. Some

[2:23:07] of them are are 30-year deventures. So

[2:23:10] like a lot of factors come into it and I

[2:23:12] can bring that back to council whenever

[2:23:13] I do the venture policy of saying what

[2:23:16] that limit equals and what how much

[2:23:18] money we could borrow uh just as an

[2:23:20] information for council but uh in a

[2:23:22] future date

[2:23:24] >> government like like banks seem like

[2:23:27] » government like like banks seem like

[2:23:27] they want you in debt

[2:23:30] and in fact part of that's true because

[2:23:32] when we apply for grants it's important

[2:23:35] that uh you show that you more or less

[2:23:39] need the grant. So, if you don't have

[2:23:41] any like if you don't have the $ 1.5

[2:23:43] million in debt charges, you're probably

[2:23:45] not going to acquire some grants, right?

[2:23:47] Because they're saying you can pay for

[2:23:49] it yourself. So,

[2:23:51] >> it's a game.

[2:23:52] » it's a game.

[2:23:52] >> Yep. Exactly.

[2:23:56] » Yep. Exactly.

[2:23:56] >> Good. Um any other questions on this

[2:23:59] » Good. Um any other questions on this

[2:23:59] one? Yeah, Councelor Trim.

[2:24:02] >> Yes. Just quickly on um page 25, I guess

[2:24:07] » Yes. Just quickly on um page 25, I guess

[2:24:07] slide 50, the last um the last bullet at

[2:24:11] the bottom, clear direction

[2:24:15] um from council to staff. And I think uh

[2:24:19] that that's a reminder for me from now

[2:24:21] on because uh we gave direction um at

[2:24:26] two staff and I guess it was clear about

[2:24:29] active transportation and I don't know

[2:24:33] what I was thinking. We can't afford

[2:24:35] active transportation. So, uh, we've got

[2:24:38] to be careful about what we ask council,

[2:24:42] uh, a ask staff to do.

[2:24:45] >> I've got to be very, very careful. So,

[2:24:51] » just to be clear, because I heard some

[2:24:53] murmurings. I think that was the

[2:24:54] previous term that gave the direction of

[2:24:56] the act of transportation. Councelor

[2:24:57] Tabard, you're off. Councilor Trim,

[2:25:00] you're off. Councelor Bell, you weren't

[2:25:02] here for it. Uh, but it is. You make the

[2:25:04] point. It's valid. We have to put a lens

[2:25:08] of affordability

[2:25:09] on each decision that we take. There is

[2:25:12] no easy decision where somebody else

[2:25:14] just going to pay for it in the future.

[2:25:17] Good. Councelor Trim. Sorry. Yes. I know

[2:25:20] it was I wasn't here, but I was being

[2:25:23] kind because I probably have made those

[2:25:28] decisions in the past. So,

[2:25:31] >> good. Any other comments? Okay. I just

[2:25:34] » good. Any other comments? Okay. I just

[2:25:34] have a couple on this one and I

[2:25:35] apologize but just to set the framework

[2:25:37] going forward slide 49 when we talk

[2:25:39] about capital and operating uh and this

[2:25:42] is really the the operating portion

[2:25:45] this is a this is a wonderful slide it

[2:25:47] looks the numbers all match up and

[2:25:49] balance beautifully but we are

[2:25:52] constraining the operating for the next

[2:25:54] 5 years we have squeezed the operating

[2:25:57] to basically

[2:25:59] fall behind a little bit every year yes

[2:26:01] it's CPI indexed Yes, there's a little

[2:26:04] 1% growth, but we're we're talking about

[2:26:07] someone comes to us and says, "Hey, can

[2:26:09] we pick up can we do a large item pickup

[2:26:11] for there's no money like there's no

[2:26:13] room and we've done that on purpose and

[2:26:16] put all of them all of the taxes that we

[2:26:19] raise are going into capital.

[2:26:22] So, we may we may get through the

[2:26:25] capital portion of the discussion for

[2:26:27] the five-year plan, but at at the end of

[2:26:30] that, we we we have a responsibility to

[2:26:32] go back and say, is this really

[2:26:34] realistic for for operating or are there

[2:26:36] other things we need to consider for

[2:26:38] operating? So, staff have put the work

[2:26:40] into this, but the implications are

[2:26:43] we've really squeezed the operating.

[2:26:47] Fair. Yeah. Councelor Trim.

[2:26:50] >> Yes. And that translates into

[2:26:52] » Yes. And that translates into

[2:26:52] maintenance. And um I I I don't want to

[2:26:57] exaggerate here, but we seem to have a

[2:27:00] default way of making decisions.

[2:27:03] We squeeze operating so that we're not

[2:27:06] doing maintenance and then an asset

[2:27:09] fails and then our decision is made. We

[2:27:12] can't replace the asset so it's failed.

[2:27:15] So it's gone and uh then nobody can be

[2:27:18] mad at us. I think the better strategy

[2:27:22] strategy would be to get rid of the

[2:27:26] asset and stop paying maintenance and

[2:27:29] then we uh we have more money for

[2:27:32] capital.

[2:27:33] >> Yeah. Or operating in some cases.

[2:27:37] » Yeah. Or operating in some cases.

[2:27:37] >> Good. Okay. I just framed that and I

[2:27:39] » Good. Okay. I just framed that and I

[2:27:39] know CEO was like, "Oh, good. He's

[2:27:42] realizing this." Okay. Good. Uh the

[2:27:44] other comment I'll make is just on the

[2:27:45] 5-year forecast. So this beautiful

[2:27:47] document that the uh treasurer put a lot

[2:27:49] of effort into is a very valuable one um

[2:27:52] to take a look at but there is good news

[2:27:54] in it

[2:27:56] I think and treasurer please correct me

[2:27:58] the last page the one that talks about

[2:28:00] water and wastewater it does balance

[2:28:05] it does because the uh actual amounts

[2:28:07] that go forward all the projects that

[2:28:10] have been listed in there based on the

[2:28:11] water wastewater study again that's the

[2:28:13] what we're going to be going for for the

[2:28:15] asset management plan for all other

[2:28:17] assets. They had to create a fin a

[2:28:20] financing plan that makes it finance our

[2:28:22] assets. And that's what Watson has done

[2:28:24] in that part. I've done a few little

[2:28:25] tweaks to it, but otherwise that's why

[2:28:28] it it balances out because they that's

[2:28:30] why water will see 5% increase for the

[2:28:32] next 10 years. That's why wastewater

[2:28:34] will see an increase of 3% for the next

[2:28:36] two then down sorry yep 3% then down to

[2:28:39] two sorry 4% then down to 3% then down

[2:28:42] to 2%. and they staggered that in as to

[2:28:44] the projects because we listed the main

[2:28:46] projects that need to be done, inflated

[2:28:48] them up, then put them into the year

[2:28:51] that they need to be paid for and that's

[2:28:52] how that that document came to exist.

[2:28:56] So, good news, we do have the work done

[2:28:58] on water and wastewater. And we know

[2:29:01] that that's been,

[2:29:03] you know, a result of the circumstances

[2:29:05] that we're working through with

[2:29:06] wastewater right now. But we do have it

[2:29:08] done. We know we can do it. We've done

[2:29:10] it for two very complicated asset

[2:29:12] classes. We just have the remainder now

[2:29:15] to do. Um and and that's what I think

[2:29:18] our budget committee is going to really

[2:29:20] bite off in the coming months.

[2:29:23] >> Good. If there's no other comments then

[2:29:25] » Good. If there's no other comments then

[2:29:25] we will go we'll keep going on. If you

[2:29:28] can do a quick summary of the slides as

[2:29:30] you go through please.

[2:29:31] >> We'll do. Uh so this slide has not

[2:29:34] » We'll do. Uh so this slide has not

[2:29:34] changed from prior because there is no

[2:29:35] change in the actual overall rate still

[2:29:36] at the 5.8. Um, so an estimated effect

[2:29:40] on taxes.

[2:29:42] Uh, so for $100,000 assessment, you'd be

[2:29:44] looking at an increase of $44.71.

[2:29:47] Uh, median singingle family detached

[2:29:50] 179. I realized I should have updated

[2:29:52] this slide to the 182. My mistake. Um,

[2:29:56] to to match what the affordability side

[2:29:58] said, but so it's increase of $804.

[2:30:02] Uh, and then we'll flow into water and

[2:30:03] waste water.

[2:30:04] >> Oh, sorry. Just pause there for a

[2:30:05] » Oh, sorry. Just pause there for a

[2:30:05] second. And sorry, and I'm doomsday

[2:30:08] today, so I'm not feeling

[2:30:11] glass half full. Uh that 14 $173 that

[2:30:17] we're talking about lower tier taxation

[2:30:19] on our $170,000 house,

[2:30:23] that only represents 47% of the property

[2:30:26] tax we collect from that house

[2:30:30] because that's only the lower tier

[2:30:31] portion. So we're asking the owner of

[2:30:33] that $170,000 home. Okay? So, please

[2:30:36] correct the numbers, but make the point,

[2:30:37] please.

[2:30:38] >> Sorry. Yeah. Uh, not 47. It would be the

[2:30:39] » Sorry. Yeah. Uh, not 47. It would be the

[2:30:39] 47 plus the nine because policing is

[2:30:41] included in this.

[2:30:43] >> Yeah. Sorry.

[2:30:44] » Yeah. Sorry.

[2:30:44] >> 56%.

[2:30:45] » 56%.

[2:30:45] >> You got it. 56%.

[2:30:48] » You got it. 56%.

[2:30:48] But you can see the the affordability

[2:30:50] piece that 17 $179,000 home is going to

[2:30:54] be paying

[2:30:56] essentially double that. $3,000 plus

[2:30:59] water plus waste water plus

[2:31:02] uh waste pickup plus recycling if they

[2:31:05] got a small business there.

[2:31:09] Good.

[2:31:11] Keep going please. Thank you.

[2:31:14] Um so I'm going to water race

[2:31:15] wastewater. Do we want when did you want

[2:31:18] to bring back the uh councelor Mo's

[2:31:20] comment about gravel? Did you want to

[2:31:22] still do it within this portion or do

[2:31:24] you want me to wait till the end?

[2:31:25] >> Let's get this PowerPoint done please.

[2:31:27] » Let's get this PowerPoint done please.

[2:31:27] We'll do uh so water wastewater uh so

[2:31:30] here's the pieces with the water so

[2:31:32] water is 5% uh wastewater increase is

[2:31:35] 4%. And this is actually the slide I was

[2:31:38] trying to come from memory. Um so for

[2:31:41] the rates so we did our new water

[2:31:43] wastewater study in 2026

[2:31:45] uh or 2025 sorry and it presented from

[2:31:48] 2026 onward. Uh so we're matching the wa

[2:31:51] the race rate studies for both uh 4% for

[2:31:54] water for waste water and then 5% for

[2:31:56] water and you'll see projected out for

[2:31:59] the next 10 years from 2027 to 2034 it's

[2:32:02] 5% annually for water. uh and then we

[2:32:05] would recommend the exact same thing.

[2:32:07] And then for uh wastewater it's 4% uh I

[2:32:11] believe that goes to 2027 then it turns

[2:32:13] to 3% from 28 29 and then 2030 to 2034

[2:32:18] is 2%. uh and we would aim to match that

[2:32:21] that same amount uh going forward uh

[2:32:23] because the the um assets are funded and

[2:32:26] financed uh as long as capital projects

[2:32:29] and things like that hold within the

[2:32:30] inflated values that have been that have

[2:32:32] been set out.

[2:32:34] Um this is just a quick slide to show

[2:32:36] what debentures are currently on the

[2:32:38] books. So in water and wastewater uh our

[2:32:41] 2026 total payment is $525,000. So, of

[2:32:45] the money that we collect from from the

[2:32:47] residents for all these systems, we pay

[2:32:50] $525,000 of that back to, in this

[2:32:53] instance, the province for the

[2:32:55] debentures that we've taken out. Um,

[2:32:57] because the total ending balance is a

[2:32:59] little over $7 million.

[2:33:02] Uh so the water rates for 2026

[2:33:05] uh effective January 1 would be 1,268.96

[2:33:09] uh total increase of $6043.

[2:33:12] Uh billing change of $107 and a monthly

[2:33:15] change of 504. Uh then small commercial,

[2:33:18] medium commercial, all have seen the

[2:33:20] same uh 5% increase. The newest category

[2:33:23] in here which was uh proposed by the

[2:33:25] Watson study uh for the 2026 year is the

[2:33:28] high commercial tier 2 um which would

[2:33:31] account for uh $12,68957

[2:33:34] annually.

[2:33:37] Uh these are the projects that are

[2:33:38] projected for 2026. Uh there's no

[2:33:41] changes here from the original uh

[2:33:43] presentation. Uh the debenture would go

[2:33:46] to uh the Crawford Street. Um annual

[2:33:50] payment around uh $56,000

[2:33:54] um on the water side. Uh water meters

[2:33:57] would be installed uh fully funded

[2:33:59] through OSF uh based on last year's uh

[2:34:01] 2025's uh contribution from OSF as well

[2:34:04] as the this current year. Uh beachwork

[2:34:07] water main fully funded from our reser

[2:34:08] from our reserves.

[2:34:10] Uh and then the cob water treatment

[2:34:12] plant would receive uh uh one one thing

[2:34:14] of $20,000. And then the the leak

[2:34:16] detector and uh frequency locator under

[2:34:19] the lines would be 12,515,000.

[2:34:22] Uh those are all user fee financed. Uh

[2:34:25] wastewater uh they would see the 4%

[2:34:27] increase. Uh so it goes from 195878

[2:34:31] to 23713. So it's a total increase for

[2:34:34] the annually of $78.35.

[2:34:37] Billing is 1306. When I say billing,

[2:34:39] that's every two months. Uh and then

[2:34:41] monthly change is $653.

[2:34:43] And again, tier 2 was the recommendation

[2:34:46] uh from Watson's uh through the the

[2:34:49] consultant the rate study is 20,37131

[2:34:54] uh for the annual cost. Uh there's only

[2:34:57] one project that's looked at for the

[2:34:58] wastewater treatment plant at this point

[2:34:59] in time. It's the centerfuge pump. Um a

[2:35:02] replacement cost of 58,500 and it's

[2:35:05] financed through user fees for the year.

[2:35:08] So here's the combined cost. Uh so this

[2:35:11] is resident Cobden uh specific. Um

[2:35:14] residential would be $3,369.

[2:35:17] So a total increase of $13878 or billing

[2:35:20] increase of 2313. And then high

[2:35:23] commercial uh would be a total cost of

[2:35:25] tier two of would be a cost of $33,60.88

[2:35:28] 88

[2:35:30] or annual or a billing ch increase of

[2:35:33] 4,45418.

[2:35:38] So this is a slide that the mayor was

[2:35:40] kind of not noting to before. Um so this

[2:35:42] one is based off $182,000 assessment. Um

[2:35:46] so you'll see the first column is

[2:35:48] municipal and tax uh includes municipal,

[2:35:51] county, and tax portions. So it's 22 uh

[2:35:55] 262188.

[2:35:57] It's for 2026. uh increase of 13440 over

[2:36:01] 2025

[2:36:02] uh monthly change of 1120 and this is

[2:36:04] where the 3.23 is where we're currently

[2:36:06] sitting. I will note this does not

[2:36:08] include the garbage charge. This is

[2:36:10] taxation based taxation water and

[2:36:12] wastewater uh is only the things noted

[2:36:14] here. Um so then the municipal county

[2:36:16] taxation and water. So our Beachburg and

[2:36:18] Haley's properties would look at a bill

[2:36:20] total for the year if their assessment

[2:36:22] is 182,000 of $3,890.84 84 cents

[2:36:26] increase of 1948 83. Uh so they're

[2:36:28] sitting about a 5% affordability factor.

[2:36:31] And then the last one would be our

[2:36:33] Cobden residents again $182,000 property

[2:36:37] be looking about 5,92797.

[2:36:40] So it's a total increase of $273.18.

[2:36:44] Uh and then the affordability sitting at

[2:36:45] 7.52. And then my next slide is

[2:36:48] questions. So before that,

[2:36:52] >> good questions on water wastewater from

[2:36:54] » good questions on water wastewater from

[2:36:54] council.

[2:36:57] » Yes, deputy mayor.

[2:36:58] >> Thank you. Um the high commercial tier 2

[2:37:04] » Thank you. Um the high commercial tier 2

[2:37:04] uh sorry 161. What um you go from 3,900

[2:37:10] to 20,000. What is that? I I'm confused.

[2:37:14] So the tier everybody used to be under

[2:37:16] high commercial which was two times the

[2:37:18] residential rate. Um through the Watson

[2:37:21] study there was certain businesses that

[2:37:22] were noted that use substantially more

[2:37:24] water than just two times what a uh a

[2:37:27] regular residential unit uses. Um so

[2:37:30] this new rate was proposed uh to be

[2:37:33] implemented into this budget and would

[2:37:34] be passed through this council and the

[2:37:36] the council uh when it actually comes to

[2:37:38] council with through the user fee bylaw

[2:37:40] to be 10 times the rate. So whenever I

[2:37:43] say 2025 uh that's why both amounts are

[2:37:46] the same. So if you're on slide 63 for

[2:37:48] example

[2:37:49] um both in 2025 I have both the

[2:37:53] commercials tier 1 and tier 2 is the

[2:37:55] same amount the 633580

[2:37:58] um 2026 rate sees the tier one just get

[2:38:02] its standard uh increase of about 4 and

[2:38:05] a half%. The tier 2 actually implements

[2:38:08] the 10 times rate b of the 10 times the

[2:38:11] residential rate. So you'll notice the

[2:38:12] residential rate for the year is 336. So

[2:38:15] 10 times that is the 33,6088.

[2:38:18] Um so it affects uh stipulated through

[2:38:22] the um whenever the the

[2:38:25] report was um approved

[2:38:28] um the areas are arenas. So part of it

[2:38:31] affects the the municipality itself. our

[2:38:34] two arenas fall into this category as

[2:38:36] well as uh two business categories at

[2:38:39] this point in time are are tied into

[2:38:41] this this amount. Um one here in Cobden

[2:38:44] and then one in Beachburg at this point

[2:38:46] in time and that those are the

[2:38:47] categories that fall in. Uh other major

[2:38:49] businesses are on meters and then that's

[2:38:51] where the commercial meters are put in.

[2:38:53] um so that whenever we install those

[2:38:55] meters come 2027 hopefully uh once we

[2:38:58] have the data re received we can start

[2:39:00] implementing based on the actual usage

[2:39:02] they have rather than uh estimates based

[2:39:04] on uh the consultants uh work. So this

[2:39:07] is kind of the stepping stone to that

[2:39:09] next step of implementing those those

[2:39:10] meters uh because there's certain

[2:39:12] businesses that use that substantial

[2:39:14] amount of water.

[2:39:17] >> Thank you.

[2:39:20] » Thank you.

[2:39:20] >> Any other questions on water wastewater?

[2:39:22] » Any other questions on water wastewater?

[2:39:22] Yeah, councelor Moore,

[2:39:25] >> just in keeping with that same chart on

[2:39:27] » just in keeping with that same chart on

[2:39:27] 63, the one that's there. Um,

[2:39:31] on this list, what will be me metered

[2:39:33] this year? Will it be small commercial,

[2:39:35] medium commercial, high?

[2:39:37] >> What about the multi-residential? Will

[2:39:39] » What about the multi-residential? Will

[2:39:39] it be going metered?

[2:39:40] >> No. So, at this point in time, the

[2:39:42] » No. So, at this point in time, the

[2:39:42] >> just commercial.

[2:39:42] » just commercial.

[2:39:42] >> Just commercial. Yep.

[2:39:44] » Just commercial. Yep.

[2:39:44] >> Thank you.

[2:39:47] » Thank you.

[2:39:47] >> Good. Any other questions?

[2:39:51] Good. The only point I'll make is that

[2:39:53] uh

[2:39:55] when you take a look at that wonderful

[2:39:57] chart that talks about uh 5%

[2:40:01] if you're on water and 7.52%

[2:40:04] affordability for those that are on Oh

[2:40:07] yeah, thank you. on uh water and

[2:40:09] wastewater. Uh we're continuing to work

[2:40:12] both of these cases through advocacy. We

[2:40:15] have another uh delegation with Ministry

[2:40:18] of of Infrastructure. I think this will

[2:40:21] be my seventh on the topic of water and

[2:40:24] wastewater. Uh they're continuing to

[2:40:26] receive our delegation. So that is a

[2:40:28] positive note. Um we're working with FCM

[2:40:32] and AMO L so that we're not just putting

[2:40:36] these figures out and saying, "Oh gosh,

[2:40:37] just live with it." We are doing

[2:40:39] everything within our power to pull

[2:40:42] whatever lever is out there to try to

[2:40:44] provide some relief. Uh and as soon as

[2:40:47] we know more information, we'll be able

[2:40:48] to share it.

[2:40:50] Good.

[2:40:52] Okay. Uh

[2:40:54] at that point, let's go back to

[2:40:56] councelor Moore's uh question. Let's

[2:40:58] talk about gravel for a moment. And uh I

[2:41:01] I think what we had in a previous

[2:41:04] committee meeting was a was a point that

[2:41:06] was included in a cart alakart option to

[2:41:10] increase the number of kilometers that

[2:41:12] we redo of gravel roads each year. Right

[2:41:16] now the program is 10. um could we go

[2:41:20] higher than 10 kilometers in a year?

[2:41:22] What would that cost? So, treasurer, can

[2:41:24] I hand the floor over to you and just

[2:41:25] take that?

[2:41:26] >> Sure. Sure. Um so, the original alocart

[2:41:28] » Sure. Sure. Um so, the original alocart

[2:41:28] piece um noted it was $60,000 in order

[2:41:31] to bring it from the current cycle time

[2:41:33] of 15 years down to back to the 10-year

[2:41:36] period. Uh $60,000 equals a.77%

[2:41:39] increase to our overall budget. Um so,

[2:41:42] in order to implement that, so the 5.8%

[2:41:44] 8% would effectively become 6.57 should

[2:41:48] that be uh implemented as one lump sum

[2:41:51] into the year uh or some other variation

[2:41:53] of that. Um that's that would be the way

[2:41:56] to bring the program back to the the

[2:41:57] 10-year recirculation back to uh for

[2:42:00] graph roads.

[2:42:07] » I'm in full agreement with that. Um, the

[2:42:10] last couple of, as I said previously,

[2:42:12] the last couple of rainstorms we've had,

[2:42:13] like we're getting a lot of complaints

[2:42:14] because the soup's the roads turning

[2:42:16] into soup and we can't do anything with

[2:42:18] it as long as it stays soup. So, if we

[2:42:21] could initiate this program today to

[2:42:25] start doing more roads with fresh

[2:42:27] gravel, uh, we should alleviate some of

[2:42:29] that soupness and unable to even grade

[2:42:32] at that point. So, if if what councelor

[2:42:36] Trim stated before about increasing our

[2:42:38] our money for our roads that this would

[2:42:40] be a good place to start.

[2:42:45] Any other comments from anyone else.

[2:42:49] So, I'm not in disagreement with uh with

[2:42:52] what you're saying, councelor Moore. I I

[2:42:55] hesitate to increase taxation to achieve

[2:42:58] it. treasurer, CEO, could you offer

[2:43:02] other ways that funding could be found

[2:43:05] or what considerations council could

[2:43:07] have if we wanted to rep prioritize

[2:43:10] funds into gravel?

[2:43:14] And from a council perspective, if

[2:43:16] you're thinking of a a a lower priority

[2:43:19] item that we've already discussed, you

[2:43:21] could bring it forward as well. Yeah, I

[2:43:23] I'm I'm just like I'm trying to process

[2:43:26] whether or not we increase the levy for

[2:43:28] the purposes of gravel roads when we

[2:43:30] know very well we you know there's not

[2:43:32] only gravel roads, there's DST roads and

[2:43:35] there's ashalt roads and this whole

[2:43:37] complexity. Um would it benefit

[2:43:42] uh the replacement of assets if we

[2:43:44] increase to the 7% specifically for

[2:43:47] capital or or gravel roads? I mean

[2:43:50] certainly we we'd get ahead but I don't

[2:43:52] think we're that much further ahead. So

[2:43:54] um aside from just that note like I mean

[2:43:57] out of like can we rep prioritize

[2:43:59] operating expenses at this stage? I mean

[2:44:02] we'd have to do some more investigation

[2:44:04] but I I would the answer is really no. I

[2:44:07] was just messaging our our manager just

[2:44:09] because we're talking water meters.

[2:44:10] We're talking Beachburg water main. We

[2:44:12] have a water project underway in

[2:44:14] Beachburg. We have Crawford. We have

[2:44:16] gravel road program. We have government

[2:44:18] road like that alone for the department

[2:44:21] is is a lot of work. I mean that's a lot

[2:44:23] of work. Um and the success I mean the

[2:44:29] the human resources applied to that. I'm

[2:44:32] not sure like I am confident that we'll

[2:44:34] probably achieve it but it's going to be

[2:44:36] a lot of work. It's going to be a lot of

[2:44:37] time a lot of commitment. So I mean if

[2:44:40] we keep doing more work how do we apply

[2:44:42] the human resources and needed to

[2:44:43] support that work? So, I I'm just I I'm

[2:44:46] having a hard time just processing and

[2:44:48] figuring out what would be the best

[2:44:49] approach, but um

[2:44:52] yeah, I don't know. I mean, I'd pass it

[2:44:54] over to my treasurer or manager or any

[2:44:56] other managers to provide additional

[2:44:57] input by all means.

[2:45:01] » Yeah, I would just echo the the CEO's

[2:45:04] point of it'd be hard to integrate it

[2:45:07] into the current budget to not have an

[2:45:09] increase like associated to it. Um, one

[2:45:12] of the only things that uh we had kind

[2:45:14] of looked at uh from a management

[2:45:16] standpoint is um potentially like

[2:45:19] phasing it in over years instead of

[2:45:21] going right from like adding the full

[2:45:23] $60,000 in one year to going say $20,000

[2:45:26] per year or something like that of

[2:45:28] instead of seeing as big of an increase

[2:45:30] to the overall budget. Um it still would

[2:45:32] be a very hard amount to integrate into

[2:45:34] the budget because we have the operating

[2:45:37] budget to the most point I would say is

[2:45:39] bare bones. um meets the level of

[2:45:42] service. You start trying to pull out of

[2:45:44] some other area to fund this one to a

[2:45:46] higher level, you're going to see a

[2:45:48] decreased level of service that council

[2:45:50] would have to approve in some other

[2:45:52] category. Whether it be within the road

[2:45:55] budget that something else gets adjusted

[2:45:56] to adjust more to cap to the the gravel

[2:45:59] roads program or whether it's another

[2:46:00] budget line item. Um right now we're

[2:46:03] able to meet meet the uh the current

[2:46:07] levels of service. any changes to to

[2:46:09] decrease those areas to fund this would

[2:46:11] see a decrease in those levels of

[2:46:12] service in order to more or less

[2:46:14] increase this level of service

[2:46:15] currently.

[2:46:17] >> If I could through you the mayor is uh

[2:46:21] » If I could through you the mayor is uh

[2:46:21] not to postpone the discussion of

[2:46:24] increasing tax. I think we're at I mean

[2:46:27] from my perspective we're at a point

[2:46:28] where I think the budget as presented

[2:46:30] today at the 5.8% is is generally

[2:46:34] palpitable by council. Uh perhaps the we

[2:46:38] we just leave it with staff to analyze

[2:46:41] the what's the $30,000 is what you

[2:46:43] mentioned $20,000

[2:46:46] um as part of our deliberations

[2:46:49] with the budget committee with the

[2:46:50] projections other priorities and and all

[2:46:53] of these other things. Um and if there's

[2:46:56] a decision to um increase to that

[2:47:01] $20,000 we could do so as part of our

[2:47:03] tax rate implementation. uh not the best

[2:47:06] approach but it is a mechanism by which

[2:47:08] we could we could look at that and then

[2:47:11] also maybe we look at perhaps it's rep

[2:47:13] prioritizing other other projects I'm

[2:47:15] not sure but just so we could keep the

[2:47:18] progress of the budget discussion moving

[2:47:19] forward but if that's acceptable to

[2:47:21] yourself mayor and through the mover

[2:47:23] that'd be great

[2:47:25] >> council more and just a comment on that

[2:47:28] » council more and just a comment on that

[2:47:28] and and and I understand what you're

[2:47:30] saying um but with the current rate of

[2:47:35] graveling roads every 15 years. What

[2:47:38] happens to inflation and how much gravel

[2:47:40] are we losing because we haven't

[2:47:42] increased the rate of pay per se into

[2:47:44] that GL account and we're going

[2:47:47] backwards not forwards. So in keeping

[2:47:49] with what councelor Trim suggested that

[2:47:51] we add more money to the roads budget um

[2:47:53] I think this should take part of that

[2:47:56] conversation when it comes up at next

[2:47:58] budget.

[2:48:00] Okay. Thank you.

[2:48:02] So I'll just add to that before we throw

[2:48:04] it back to staff or any other member of

[2:48:06] council is the I think the approach is

[2:48:09] that gravel we have to recognize gravel

[2:48:11] as a unique item although it's

[2:48:13] classified as an operating expense. I

[2:48:17] think from a from a council directive

[2:48:19] from a level of service perspective we

[2:48:21] need to consider it a capital asset. I

[2:48:23] know that's going to mess with the

[2:48:24] treasurer's charts. you. I'm sure you'll

[2:48:27] figure out a way to, but I think we put

[2:48:29] it on the agenda for the budget

[2:48:31] committee to consider as part of the

[2:48:32] five-year plan. Um, we can explore to

[2:48:36] see if there might be a rep

[2:48:37] prioritization. I like the idea of

[2:48:39] phasing something in. Um, but I don't

[2:48:41] think I'm not prepared to increase the

[2:48:44] the uh the the budget at this point in

[2:48:47] time. I don't know if there's any

[2:48:49] appetite for council to consider that.

[2:48:52] None. Okay, good. Is there anybody wants

[2:48:54] to make a comment to that before I open

[2:48:55] up to staff? Councilor Mstead.

[2:48:57] >> Yeah, completely in agreement with you,

[2:48:58] » Yeah, completely in agreement with you,

[2:48:58] Mayor. Um, and the the other um

[2:49:03] issue is weather. We can't control

[2:49:05] weather. I'm I'm looking here. It's plus

[2:49:07] three outside. It's January 14th. I

[2:49:09] think it's the 14th. And it's plus three

[2:49:12] outside. Yesterday was plus 4. Uh, and

[2:49:15] we've had probably 10

[2:49:18] thaw freeze cycles. My my lane was the

[2:49:20] same thing. It It's a mess. and I've got

[2:49:23] a good laneway. So, it's sometimes no

[2:49:24] matter how much material you throw at

[2:49:27] it, it's just the weather doesn't

[2:49:28] cooperate. So, the surface is terrible.

[2:49:30] But, uh I'm going to agree. I don't

[2:49:32] think we touched the budget. Thank you.

[2:49:36] >> Other members of council before I open

[2:49:38] » Other members of council before I open

[2:49:38] up to staff, I saw manager public works.

[2:49:42] >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh uh I'm councilstead.

[2:49:46] » Yeah. Thank you. Uh uh I'm councilstead.

[2:49:46] The one I think what hot it's on our

[2:49:48] topic because last fall was we had a

[2:49:52] more of a unique situation and we're not

[2:49:53] the only township. Every township around

[2:49:55] had the same uh um social media posts as

[2:49:59] we did. Um it we we got we got

[2:50:05] uh rain then it froze and it was very

[2:50:07] tough challenging. We our staff uh put

[2:50:11] in a lot of overtime and a lot of

[2:50:12] weekend work uh to try to get the roads

[2:50:16] half decent gravel roads before freeze

[2:50:18] up. and I um and I um thank him for

[2:50:22] that. The one item that I we've talked

[2:50:25] as staff internally um is any um with

[2:50:30] GRA roads how it's done it's it's it's

[2:50:32] estimated how much tonnage we need per

[2:50:34] per road and it's added up um within our

[2:50:38] budget. One thing I would suggest and

[2:50:40] I've talked to Charger about this is any

[2:50:43] surplus if you surplus from a year and

[2:50:45] and for example this year um there is a

[2:50:48] surplus in sorry in 2025 there was

[2:50:50] surplus because we didn't do the entire

[2:50:52] road network that that we were going

[2:50:54] through that that went into a reserve

[2:50:57] that we could pull from the following

[2:50:59] year. So for example, if we use instead

[2:51:01] of previous years, it would just go into

[2:51:02] working funds at the end of the year in

[2:51:04] a general surplus, if we pull it out and

[2:51:07] put it into a into a fund that for

[2:51:10] example, if if there's an extra 20,000

[2:51:12] from 2025, we could we could we could

[2:51:15] I'm bringing a a report back and if if

[2:51:20] if we can do one more road with that

[2:51:22] with that money. Um I know uh the one

[2:51:26] thing we were trying to do better is um

[2:51:28] could we do gra tickets and brought in

[2:51:30] and determine

[2:51:32] um like if we in the fall if we do it

[2:51:35] soon enough we know how much money's

[2:51:36] left in the in the in the budget. The

[2:51:38] one issue with that is that we do

[2:51:41] schedule our work um like do a work plan

[2:51:44] for the year and sometimes it's it's too

[2:51:46] much time in in the fall. So what by

[2:51:48] having reserve anyone come we can do it

[2:51:50] early enough to to program that in make

[2:51:52] sure there's enough time to program that

[2:51:53] in

[2:51:57] » good and that's the kind of that's the

[2:51:59] kind of thinking that we want. I think

[2:52:00] we have to come up with some other ways

[2:52:03] than just increasing taxation to achieve

[2:52:05] it. Um so yeah please I would encourage

[2:52:09] uh staff to consider that as a as an

[2:52:11] option. It's good. Anything else? Okay,

[2:52:15] final call on the budget 2026 as

[2:52:19] presented.

[2:52:22] Good. Uh I just can you put up the slide

[2:52:24] at the So just to review the resolution

[2:52:27] that's on the floor and I can't remember

[2:52:29] the mover. Oh, councelor Olmstead was

[2:52:31] the mover. Councelor Moore was the

[2:52:34] seconder. Those are the three

[2:52:37] um elements of that resolution that's on

[2:52:41] the floor.

[2:52:43] I'll just let council take a moment to

[2:52:45] review it. I know it was three hours

[2:52:47] ago.

[2:53:00] Good. So, if there was if if I know it

[2:53:02] was a huge package. So, if you want to

[2:53:04] make an amendment to it that that we can

[2:53:07] accept that now. Otherwise, I will call

[2:53:10] for the vote.

[2:53:13] Good. Call for the vote. All those in

[2:53:14] favor? And it's carried unanimously.

[2:53:17] With that, I just want to first off

[2:53:19] thank the staff. I know this has been a

[2:53:21] tremendous amount of work, especially

[2:53:23] with the additional asks this year,

[2:53:25] five-year forecast, and forcing us to

[2:53:27] have these tough discussions. Thank you

[2:53:29] for doing that, and I think council I

[2:53:31] think future councils are going to

[2:53:32] appreciate it. So, thank you.

[2:53:35] >> Okay. What else is on this agenda? I can

[2:53:37] » Okay. What else is on this agenda? I can

[2:53:37] adjourn.

[2:53:40] » Yes. Unless it's something else. Yes.

[2:53:42] >> No.

[2:53:45] » No.

[2:53:45] >> Oh. Uh, yes. This was provided. Is that

[2:53:49] » Oh. Uh, yes. This was provided. Is that

[2:53:49] just an example of what the, uh, the

[2:53:53] bylaws?

[2:53:53] >> Yeah, I think that's what's going to go

[2:53:55] » Yeah, I think that's what's going to go

[2:53:55] forward to council.

[2:53:57] >> Perfect. So, this is what's being

[2:53:58] » Perfect. So, this is what's being

[2:53:58] brought forward to the council meeting.

[2:54:00] >> Item number two, I think it was on the

[2:54:04] » Item number two, I think it was on the

[2:54:04] recommendation.

[2:54:05] >> Good. If there's no other final

[2:54:07] » Good. If there's no other final

[2:54:07] comments, we are adjourned at 2:51. For

[2:54:11] those people that are watching, we will

[2:54:13] initiate our council meeting at 300 p.m.

[2:54:16] Thank you.

Budget Committee Meeting - 14 Jan 2026

Transcript