and welcome to the Township of
Whitewater Region's budget committee
meeting for Wednesday, January 14th.
It's noon and we're going to call
ourselves to order.
Uh, and just before we do the, uh, land
acknowledgement, which I was going to
ask councelor Bell to do,
if he's prepared to do it in a moment.
Um, and just, uh, I just wanted to
recognize that we have a new clerk
filling the role today. So, Kim Balmer
is in uh, called in just on a contract.
Our normal clerk is just not available
right now. Uh so in order to make sure
that we could facilitate the meeting as
as much as possible with the CEO's full
attention on the um the budget
discussion
uh we've asked for a secondary qualified
clerk to come in and clerk our meeting.
So be patient if I am not giving the
cues correctly. I'm sure Mr. Balmer here
will just elbow me.
» Excellent.
Good. And with that, I will hand the
floor over to councelor Bell for uh our
land acknowledgement, please.
>> As we gather, we'd like to acknowledge
» As we gather, we'd like to acknowledge
on behalf of the township of Whitewater
region and our community that we are
meeting on the traditional territory of
the Algangquin people. We thank the
Alongquin people and express our respect
and support for their rich history and
we are extremely grateful for their many
and continued displays of friendship. We
also thank all the generations of
indigenous people who have taken care of
this land for thousands of years.
>> Thank you for that. Uh, next item on our
» Thank you for that. Uh, next item on our
agenda, and I'll just remind people that
might be, you know, aware of our usual
agenda. Because it's a committee
meeting, our procedural bylaw has uh
kind of an abbreviated agenda format.
So, we go directly into the approval of
our agenda. And I don't have a
resolution here, but I am going to say
uh the recommendation is that the budget
committee approve the agenda as
provided. Can I get a mover in a second,
please? Moved by the deputy mayor,
seconded by councelor Trim. Is there
anybody who'd like to make an amendment
or change to the agenda?
I see none. And with that, we'll call
for the vote. All those in favor? And
it's carried unanimously. Thank you. The
next is our approval of some minutes.
And we have a number of minutes here
from December 8th and December 11th. And
they are enclosed and available. The
recommendation is that the budget
committee approve the December 8th and
11th, 2025 budget committee meetings
minutes. A move in a seconder, please.
Moved by councelor Mstead, seconded by
councelor White.
Uh, any errors or omissions noted by any
member of council
committee?
None. We'll call for the vote. All those
in favor? It's carried unanimously.
Thank you. Uh, declarations. Is there
any declarations that need to be made by
any member of this committee?
I see none. We'll move on to item number
one
which is our uh budget presentation
and the recommendation is that the
budget committee of the township of
whitewater region recommends three
things. The first one the mayor present
the 2026 operating capital operating
capital and user fee budgets as
finalized by the budget committee that
the council of the township whitewater
region enact bylaws to adopt the mayor's
2026 budget as recommended. and three,
continuing the development of a 10-year
capital plan based on the funding based
on funding and the 2026 asset management
plan with the budget committee. A mover
and a seconder, please. Okay, that's
moved by councelor Olmstead
and seconded by councelor Moore.
Uh CIO, you going to provide a leadin to
the discussion?
>> Yeah, absolutely. So, we'll go ahead and
» Yeah, absolutely. So, we'll go ahead and
and commence the 2026 uh draft budget
presentation. I think this would
finalize the intent of today's
presentation is to finalize
uh the the the 2026 budget and to
continue discussions on our on our on
our five-year projections. Um so I just
want to start by thanking uh the mayor
together with council um for for the
involvement. I think with these changes
changes in legislation, strong mayors, I
think that the the collaboration of all
of council together with staff, together
with the public, I think it demonstrates
that we're working in this democratic
system. I just want to recognize that
first staff, we appreciate the
involvement and and the inclusion of all
members of council, staff, and the
public in the process. Um,
what's going to be presented today is
sort of a refined version of our
previous budget presentations. We've
reduced it down to 60 I think 67 slides
from well I think over 100. So uh we
should be able to go through it
relatively relatively quick. Uh noting
that um we have sort of refined the
presentation recognizing that based on
our our observations that there'll be
more deliberations on certain certain
topics. Uh namely the capital capital
budget I think is is one of the areas
where there'll be sort of more
discussion. We feel as though the
deliberations from council were were a
bit less on the operating and and I
think there's we're going to go over it
to some degree but uh but we'll we've
refined that quite a bit. Water
wastewater is is is shaped by our our
financial plan and our our water
wastewater rate study. So I mean it al
the recommendations from staff to
council align with that plan. So it's
it's pretty uh pretty direct from the
plan. Um and then the the the
projections. So the projections is
something we've presented to council at
a previous budget meeting. They're
unfunded. Uh they present a lot of
constraints um a lot of uh competing
priorities. Uh and I think that uh you
know in order to progress forward we
need to manage the 2026 budget and move
it towards approval uh and continue the
the conversation on these projections. I
I don't think we're going to be able to
complete uh this idea of 5-year
projections uh in the time frame of
getting this budget approved and
approving the 2026 budget will allow
staff to move forward with the
implementation of the budget. So whether
it's going to tender, whether it's
issuing RFPs or procuring things, we can
move forward with that and try to get in
it uh ahead of the other communities are
all doing the exact same thing as us. Um
so the the we'll recap the um the the
the uh where we stand on the percentage
of operating in capital. I will
highlight that we're at 1.6%
uh increase on the levy for uh for
operating and that's net of our growth.
Um and that includes the the the removal
of reserves for OP and the like. And
then we're we're following that 4.2%
capital which is the 4.2 2 which we've
implemented in the last three two or
three years uh which aligns with our
asset management plan as it stands
today. So uh while the mayor's direction
um did indicate an upset limit of 7%
we're presently sitting at 5.8% levy
increase. So recognizing the efforts
from staff and together with council uh
the the efforts to try to reduce that as
much as we can. Um so I'll go through a
few slides if you if you'll allow me
Curtis. So we'll just walk through it.
So again, our we we've we've kept this
mission vision uh from our strategic
plan in in our slide deck. Uh so noting
that the township delivers municipal
services to a welcoming community and
that uh we maintain a rural quality of
life by balancing sustainability and
growth. And then our strategic uh
strategic plan identifies sort of five
areas infrastructure, environment,
economic development, recreation, and
corporate performance. So these are the
areas of focus in our the the 10-year
strategic plan. It was adopted by uh the
previous council. I think it may have
been two councils ago. And then our our
our current council uh adopted the
strategic direction which is kind of a
supplement to our strategic plan. And
then these are the areas of focus.
long-term financial planning,
sustainability, which aligns with this
5-year projection, facility direction,
which again
will transpire as part of these these uh
uh financial planning uh discussions,
service levels, staffing, culture,
growth, and economic development. So,
these are the strategic directions from
the current council. Our budget schedule
is outlined here. So, we started back in
September 16th um where the mayor gave
direction to the CEO to sort of prepare
the budget subject to about seven or
eight bullets and we feel as though
what's being presented today sort of
aligns with those bullets. Um we had all
day staff budget two I think one all day
staff one all day budget meeting. We
held the public meeting. Um we sort of
consolidated that all back into today's
meeting. So we've met how many times
Curtis? Is it five or six? five five
meetings with members of council
together with public.
Uh so again here's the mayor direction
that was provided back in September. So
the first three bullets here refer to
these projections. So projections with
respect to the budget forecast
recognizing inflation, cost of living,
the asset management plan, our
contributions or allocations from the
province OCIF.
Um and then also recognizing that uh the
county of Renfruit, the ministry of
education also play a part in our in our
actual tax rate or tax collected. Uh
five-year projections with respect to
capital and without water wastewater.
But then again, five-year rated
projections based on uh for water and
wastewater.
And then the next four bullets sort of
primarily align with the um the 2026
budget. So just uh um
recognizing that the the first bullet
recognizing that the growth shall be
included in the 2026 operating budget uh
that user fees shall align with
inflation. Um
and also recognizing that they should be
contributing to capital reinvestment
needs. Uh bullet six that uh the 2026
consider feedback from the community
council members uh following the
direction from the mayor prior to the
end of 2025. and that number seven that
the proposed change in the budget aligns
with the overall objective of inflation.
Um and also noting here is the 7%
maximum tax requirement together with
the 3.4 affordability
uh measure that we've been using which
I'll speak to very shortly. So I think
that what's being presented to council
now and together with the subsequent
council uh council meeting which this is
a committee we're going to recommend to
council all aligns with with with this
marial direction. But it also we're not
done I don't think. I think there's
still some work to be done on the
five-year fin five five-year plan. Yeah.
Go ahead.
Uh so the affordability component. So
the this whole question of
affordability, how do we assess
affordability? How do we develop metrics
on affordability? So just reiterating, I
mean the members of council have heard
me say this before. This probably be the
third time that you hear it. uh but the
affordability component essentially
limits our property taxes uh on the
median household income to 3.4%. So if
we take the uh median assessment
determine the property residential
property tax accorded to that that
should not be greater than 3.4%. I think
currently uh with the the present budget
not knowing what the county is going to
do uh we're probably sitting around 3
3.23 23, two decimal points. Great,
Curtis. 3.23. Uh, so we're not quite
there, but again, it's there's variables
there, right? It's dependent on what the
county does. Um, and uh, and, um, this,
I think, is one of the one of the
constraints. If we look at our 5-year
projection, and if we're going to limit
ourselves to 3.4, and I'm not saying we
have to, uh, that will provide a
constraint for the amount of revenue
generated for capital investment to name
one one area. Uh, so this 3.4% 4% is
established in the BMA uh consulting inc
it's a report that's prepared uh
comparing over 100 municipalities and
they determine benchmarks for socio so
socioeconomic financial and service
delivery indicators so this is one way
of uh looking at affordability in your
community there are other ways I think
one of the things I'd like to do is just
to see where other communities in run
county align get their median assessment
get their median uh or their property
taxes on that median assessment and see
what percentages they are. I think that
it'd be an interesting exercise to see
where we align with our partners uh or
our neighbors. Uh so so this is
something that we need to keep looking
at as we move into the projection
component of it. But we are aligning at
3.32 you said Curtis
>> 3.3
» 3.3
>> 3.23 uh percentage. Uh so again that 1%
» 3.23 uh percentage. Uh so again that 1%
levy increase it represents 77,485.
So where when I noted the 5.8%
increase 5.8% is where we stand today.
Yep.
>> Uh so it would be 5.8*
» Uh so it would be 5.8*
77,485.
So that's the additional levy money
we're generating from property taxes and
4.2% of that is uh is going to capital
and the other portion is going to
operate.
And then the breakdown of every dollar
based on the 2025 is uh so we we hold
the the lion share recognizing that um
we're at 40% uh the county are at 31%
education at uh
13% and police at 9. So this circular
table will change. I mean once the
county adopts their budget it might
represent a greater percentage might
represent less but we'll update council
when that becomes available. Typically,
we would do that as part of the tax rate
adoption bylaw. So, we'll present a new
circular uh graph when uh when we get to
that, which will be in April, Mayish.
>> Mayish.
» Mayish.
>> May. Yeah. Thanks.
» May. Yeah. Thanks.
And then uh this is just a table chart
rep uh just recognizing the current uh
countywide property taxation and rate
increases from 2025. So where we sit is
kind of in that middle of the pack which
I think is based on the deliberations
from council that's kind of where we
want to be um throughout the county. And
then that red line were the increases in
2025. And the next slide uh is examining
sort of a greater compare comparator
municipalities based on services water
wastewater recreation to name sort of
three areas of service. Um and then so
it sort of narrows down the
municipalities that are included. And
again, we're kind of in the in the
middle of the pack there. Um
recognizing that
our communities are different than sort
of Renfruit and Pemrook, but again,
here's a comparator as a way to to see
how we fit into the whole regional
approach.
>> Um I'll pass it over to you, Curtis.
» Um I'll pass it over to you, Curtis.
Keep looking.
>> Thank you. Um so Ivan has already kind
» Thank you. Um so Ivan has already kind
of mentioned this part um that the
operating still sits at 1.6%.
Um that's including the inflation
pressures uh the uh final billing for OP
um and our actual insurance uh
allocations. Uh there's been no changes
to the overall operating budget since
the last two presentations. I will note
that and that's why we are able to uh
kind of condense that operating portion
and have uh less overall time spent on
that and more focus on the capital side.
Uh so the public comments uh so at the
meeting on the 11th uh we both received
uh verbal comments as well as uh since
that meeting uh some uh via email uh
they were all distributed to council uh
via the clerk. Um so one of the ones was
uh talking about taxation increases that
have happened over the number of years
and the thought of using uh shared
services. Uh one that was noted was the
county uh as the to eliminate in-house
services. Uh I'm sure you've all seen
that that email. Uh another comment was
about OP. Um the main question was how
it was built to the township and the
overall cost of it. Uh it's something
that uh I know the mayor and the and the
CEO are bringing to different uh pieces
about believe Roma as a delegation to
talk about that cost. Uh the other one
was what is the increases changing the
condition of gravel roads. Um that was a
comment that or a question that had
already been brought up before and we
had included it in the alakart piece um
talking about bringing the roads from a
15-year cycle when by the time we're
able to come back to it to actually a
10ear cycle what the cost for that would
be and we'll talk more about that when I
get to the transportation section.
Uh the overall cost of consultants to
the township which was answered at that
at that time for the specific question
that was asked uh but it was just a note
that was brought up. uh solar panels and
their revenue. Uh sub subsidize
non-resident costs at the Pemrook pool
and then consider change of use uh
change of area space at the uh yearround
sports besides uh ice hockey and
skating.
Uh then we look at the key highlights
for capital. So again there's no change
here uh from what has always been
presented is the 4.2 which is based on
the 2022 asset management plan. Um still
holding strong. Uh the public comments
for capital uh again you vote these were
were all received uh verbally and uh
additionally some in written but from
the same uh same residents. So why was
the Zion line not included for the 2026
budget and the question came of the
history of the road. Uh that was a
request by council. So we provide some
information that's on the next slide and
uh there's a a leaflet in front of you.
Uh why does the township need five fire
halls and equipment and is there
efficiencies to be found? Uh, can
services be contracted out to extend the
life of equipment, i.e. hauling of
gravel? And does the township meet
indoor arenas or could be switched to uh
could a switch be made to outdoor rinks?
These were all comments that were
received either verbally or or uh in
writing and all been uh disseminated to
council. Uh so the first uh slide kind
of to answer one of the questions
because it was asked by council was what
was the history of Zion Line? um and
it's on the leaflet in front of you if
it's too hard to see on the actual uh
PowerPoint. So the green line furthest
to the um to the left is that's the
chunk between Hila Road and Beachburg
Road. Uh you'll notice it has it's noted
as DST is 2023 is when it was just
redone. Uh the place between Sturgeon
Mountain and Beachburg Road was 2014. Uh
had a single surface treatment attach
applied to the top of it. Originally the
road was done 2006.
Uh same thing with from Sturgeon
Mountain to Papen Road. Uh 2014 was
whenever a single service was applied to
that. So that's the third lift. Uh then
from uh Papen Road to um West Ross Road,
uh 2009 is when it received its third
lift. And then DST, if it was done in
2010 on the uh chunk of road from West
Ross Road to um to Fortress Falls Road.
Uh I'll actually pass it over to the
manager of public works if he wants to
make any comment at this point in time
uh just about that before uh the
council.
» I have no comments.
>> Perfect. Um the other piece that was
» Perfect. Um the other piece that was
noted on the slide uh too because there
was a question about per kilometer cost
for ashvault uh with active
transportation without active
transportation per kilometer cost of
double surface treatment and single
surface treatment. So those have all
been noted on that slide. uh ashvalt
single lift 200,000 per kilometer. Uh I
will note uh from the public
presentation that there was an amount uh
that was uh indicated by one of the
residents that made the comment uh for
pavement and this is uh higher than that
amount but it it also involves the
subgrade work uh because we believe the
amount he was referencing was just the
actual pavement itself which does align
uh but there's all the subgrade work of
culverts billing the road all that type
of other construction work that needs to
be done when you're when you're
rehabilitating a road before pavement um
not just the ashalt surface itself. Um
so that's why these amounts are are
listed the way they are.
Uh the next one to that we left in was
just to to illustrate that the township
itself uh between the 25 budget to 2026
budget uh proposed shows a decrease of
overall staff at the township of 1.5. Um
so we went from 37.27 27 um full-time
equivalent staff down to 35.71.
Uh so then we just roll into the general
operating. Uh we've left in here the
budget categories. Uh and these are the
the ones that come from the FIR. So it's
your general government, your protective
services, transportation services,
environmental, recreation and culture
and then planning and development. And
these are all the subcategories that
fall under those main headings. Um
general government seen no changes from
the last presentation. So it was removed
uh from this presentation. Protective
services again seen no change. Uh we
left transportation services in uh just
a quick slide as well as environmental
services and I'll get to those now. And
then planning and development recreation
culture also were removed.
So under the transportation uh the only
reason we brought this back is just to
ill illustrate what gravel roads are
planned for the 2026 year uh to include
that map. Um, so you'll notice it's in
red and not real easy to see on that
screen I see. But, um, so the the roads
that are planning to be done is Acres
Road, so Mine View Road to Homestead
Jeffrey Lake. Uh, Garden of Eden Road,
so it's Godfrey Road to of the gravel
section and then remove the DST portion.
Uh, Broom Road, Almac Road, Dejarta
Road, which goes from Lookout Road to
Pleasant Valley and then from Pleasant
Valley to Hawthorne. Uh, Nangor Trail
and Point Trail.
under environmental services, uh there's
only a slight change to the recycling
program. Uh and that's due to the ICI.
Uh so public works staff did a review of
the uh number of properties that will
actually be qualifying for the ICI. Uh
and that has actually increased to 153.
Uh it was originally 129. Um through
that review, it was just as to what
businesses would classify for that and
what would qualify for that that charge.
So the slight change has been made to
that the recycling. However, the revenue
offsets the exact expense. So it doesn't
change anything on the budget. It's just
to be noted here.
Um so then on the waste user fees, this
is the only part of the user fees that
you'll actually see here today. Um is
the garbage collection because that was
a question that was brought up. Um it is
still recommended by staff side to leave
the piece as uh the garbage collection
fee is 168 for residential properties
and then the ICI properties uh would
have the billing of 446.
Um to put where that cost come from.
It's designed to go from the low side of
the estimate uh due to the fact that we
don't know what the uh total tipping
fees could come in for as to how much
recycling will actually come through or
how many times we'll have to uh tip the
bins. So, you'll see that the curbside
collection cost, which is the contract
to the uh contractor, is $357 per stop.
Uh the the tipping fees for the blue box
program that's collected, uh would be
the low estimate of $59 per stop. And
then the landfill ICI ICI bluebox
hauling and tipping. So, that's the
actual bin from the uh uh option two,
which was chosen for the ICI collection,
is $30 per stop. Um, so it works out to
be $446 per stop.
The this slide has not changed just due
to the fact that the uh it's in and out
for that that revenue portion due to the
user fee portion of it. So it still
comes to the 1.6
and this is where I'll pause for
questions.
» Thank you treasure. So what we'll do is
is uh you basically at this point you
can ask questions in any portion between
slide 1 to 28. Uh and it's important uh
we'll come back depending on what the
questions are. We'll come back and just
make sure that we acknowledge that
public uh those public questions at the
end if it's not part of anybody else's
questions. So councelor White you're up
first.
>> Thank you. Um, what is the on page 25 or
» Thank you. Um, what is the on page 25 or
in slide 25 you're talking about
landfill ICI bluebox hauling and tipping
fees $30 per stops. I'm not
understanding how many stops we have
then if it's just from the landfill.
It's only one stop then.
>> No. So those are the ICI. So the overall
» No. So those are the ICI. So the overall
ICI is charged based on the 153 stops.
So the total cost would be about $4,500.
It's divided by the 153. So it comes
into $30 per stop. it's what the uh
averaged out cost is. So having the bin
at the landfill, there's still no
funding for that to be at a landfill
site. So by having it included with the
ICI cost whenever the if whether a
business takes has their for cycling
picked up at the at their curb or brings
it to the landfill, this co this charge
is still covering the cost of that
material to be taken and processed.
» I can pass it to the environmental
secretary. You lost me on that one, too.
>> So, uh, so what it is is, um, there's,
» So, uh, so what it is is, um, there's,
uh, a there's a total cost for the
curbside collection. There's a total
cost for that for the tonnage that's
collected at the curbside. And then, so
if you imagine the amount of material
that uh, they that we collect, there is
a a tipping fee that we pay for that. So
there's, say they collect 1,000 tons, it
costs us $107 or about $300, sorry, per
ton. So that's the second one. They've
taken the total and they've divided it
by we've taken the total of that cost
that's estimated for the year and
divided amongst the 153 stops and that
gives us sort of a an estimate of that's
what the cost for the tipping fees would
be um from the curbside material. And
then the third piece is uh if we still
allow uh permit the ICI businesses to um
bring bluebox waste also at the landfill
there uh those costs would also have to
be um recovered if you if you follow me
because the uh any material that a
business brings to the landfill is not
covered by um uh the the CMO funding
that we would receive. So, uh, this is
just basically showing all the cost to
allow, um, blue box material either at
the curbside or at the landfill and then
just sort of them broken out by piece by
piece, what that sort of represents. And
then the total coming in at um, 446 per
stop. Does that clarify things?
>> I'll throw one more just if councelor
» I'll throw one more just if councelor
White will allow me, I'll just uh, if I
was to add up one, two, and three, it it
comes to your estimate at 446 on a low
side.
>> That's correct. And um so it the 46
» That's correct. And um so it the 46
uh would be 1 and then 2 a and three. So
we've because the the tonnage is sort of
an estimate, we've given a high and a
low uh estimate. So the the lower
estimate which we're a bit more
comfortable with is the 446.
>> Good.
» Good.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Excellent. Thank you councelor Trim.
» Excellent. Thank you councelor Trim.
If I may on this Mr. mayor on the same
topic through you to the director. Um
does that mean then that u u or the um
residents not ICI but residents will no
longer be permitted to bring recycling
to the landfill site.
uh residents will be able to bring
recycling to the landfill site and that
is being um covered by uh Circular
Materials Ontario. So the cost for that
is covered by Circular Materials
Ontario. So essentially what they're
what the CMO is covering is they've
established a certain tonnage that
represents that's representative of of
um the residents which is I think it was
20.4
four tons and then any tonnage over and
above that that we collect um that would
be assumed to be the commercial
material. So looking at um our previous
year the 2025 we looked at the total
tonnage that we received which was about
24 tons. Uh circular materials Ontario
is going to essentially pay and cover
for 20 tons. So we would be responsible
for four tons which is essentially what
they're saying is due to the commercial
businesses. So that is what that uh
number third line represents. Uh partly
is the tonnage and the hauling of that
material
>> and so at the landfill site there will
» and so at the landfill site there will
be no
>> there will be no it will not be
» there will be no it will not be
distinguished between there will not be
separate bins. It's all one bin and we
are co-mingling.
Yeah. So everything can go in one bin.
both residential and commercial and
they've said they'll essentially haul
the CMO will cover a set number of bins
per year that they will haul and there
will be no cost to us. Anything over and
above that is what comes back as and and
the the the
municipality will be responsible for
covering.
>> That's clear. Thank you.
» That's clear. Thank you.
>> Good. For some reason, that's a very
» Good. For some reason, that's a very
logical approach.
Uh, I wish they would do it the other
way, too. Anyway, uh, councelor Moore,
>> maybe not a good time to bring this up,
» maybe not a good time to bring this up,
and I think I may have already. Um, what
happens with the, uh, businesses ICI out
there that never put out a blue box, but
yet they have to pay the fee. I'm
specifically looking at churches who
only have Sunday service and don't put
out any blue boxes, and all of a sudden,
they have to pay this $400 and some
dollars a year. And uh also then there's
the fair boards, what are they going to
do, etc. So there's a lot of questions
to ask, but um there are groups out
there like the churches that never put
out a blue box.
>> Is there a staff response? Yeah.
» Is there a staff response? Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, um, uh, staff are, um, in the
» Yeah. So, um, uh, staff are, um, in the
process of putting together a waste
management bylaw that would, essentially
set out all of the rules on which
properties, um, uh, are uh, paying the
ICI uh, collection fee. Um, and, uh,
staff are discussing and proposing that
there would be some opt out um,
provisions in the bylaw. Um, we know
that there are some uh businesses
already that have um uh larger um um
like sixyard bins at their businesses
for collecting things like cardboard and
and such. And um sort of the intention
that we're talking through is whether or
not uh a business could uh apply to opt
out because they have an alternate
service in place. Um another thing we
were discussing is exactly that. How
would the um the churches be handled?
Would that be something that council
would um um would choose to like let
them opt in if they want or um or would
they be opt out and then have to apply?
So, those are things to be worked
through and the churches we looked there
was about 10 properties that um we want
to bring staff want to bring back that
and and and really get into the weeds on
exactly how we allow optin and opt out.
That's clear.
>> Perfect. So just to highlight that we
» Perfect. So just to highlight that we
recognize those questions. They aren't
something that we need to solve as part
of the budget. Really the question from
a budget perspective is this is what the
cost will be. How are we going to raise
the funds to cover the cost and then the
subsequent questions will have to get
answered as part of that bylaw review.
>> Understand. Thank you.
» Understand. Thank you.
>> Good. And I'm going to go to councelor
» Good. And I'm going to go to councelor
Bell. So, just to confirm on the
interimm tax bills that come out, these
ICI properties won't be receiving an
extra $446 charge for the first half of
the year until this bylaw gets
confirmed,
» treasure,
>> that's correct. So, the interim bylaw is
» that's correct. So, the interim bylaw is
based on 50% of last year's taxes. So,
no changes that we make here today will
be seen on that interim tax bill until
the final tax bill goes out in August.
So until August happens, nothing of
these user fees that are based on the
taxation or based into taxation will be
seen yet. Uh no revenue is generated
from any of that type of stuff. It's
just based on 50% of last year. So
whatever they had bit were build in
2025, we they see automatically 50% of
that.
» Good. And councelor trim.
>> Yes. And I understand that these rates
» Yes. And I understand that these rates
are based on the fact that we are uh
tendering, I guess the correct word
would be, with six or seven other
municipalities
and that this is um we're going to be in
some kind of a trial period uh to see
how this works out. Uh am I correct on
thinking that?
>> Uh yes. So it's not a tender. It is it
» Uh yes. So it's not a tender. It is it
is um essentially soul sourced uh
because of the timelines on this but uh
there are uh nine of us in total and the
pricing that we were provided was
contingent on uh all of the
municipalities that have committed to uh
working together and um uh the contract
as we understand it will say that it's
for one year and there will add there
they will also includes potentially
there will include provisions for we
believe two one-year extensions. So I
think the intention of what we've heard
from uh most of the municip or some of
the municipalities is that they just
want to do it for one year and see how
it goes and then uh at the end of the
first year re-evaluate where things sit.
Um and then uh if we all want to extend
um the pricing presumably would stay the
same. If some drop out there might be
some negotiation again for a second year
but this is being taken as a one-year
see how it works first.
Go ahead, Council Homestead, please.
>> Um, so just just to be clear on the two
» Um, so just just to be clear on the two
lines, the garbage collection fee and
the recycling collection fee, the $168
fee is for both recycling and garbage,
right, for for households.
>> So the 168 um is for garbage collection.
» So the 168 um is for garbage collection.
Um, and it, uh, dare I say this, carries
some of the costs for like the household
hazards waste depot. Um, uh, some of the
costs for the landfill. So that's that's
the essentially it's mostly the two bags
you put out for garbage and then access
to the landfill for garbage. The second
line is just recycling. So if you recall
the 168, the garbage collection fee, um,
the township is no longer responsible
for delivering recycling for for
residents. So that is not a part of
that. No.
>> Okay. And um so on the second line,
» Okay. And um so on the second line,
they're not going to be paying the 446
plus the 168. It's just the straight
446. Correct.
>> It would be um 168 for garbage and
» It would be um 168 for garbage and
access to the landfill. And the four
sorry 446 is just recycling and
recycling access to the landfill. So on
their tax bill, they're going to see
>> two lines, 168 and 446.
» two lines, 168 and 446.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Any other questions on this single
» Any other questions on this single
slide?
No, I I I just want to make sure that we
are clear on the funding of this because
we haven't spoken about that yet. There
was a proposal uh I think councelor Bell
put it forward to see whether or not we
could take that 446 and distribute it in
a different way.
um that has not proven to be an option
for us based on some legal advice. Uh so
from a council perspective, what's back
on the floor is this as what council
Mstead just said, each business, each
church, each each of these 153 places
will receive both of these charges as
part of their tax bill. Now, they won't
see it until August, according to the
treasurer, even though we're going to
start to incur those costs last week.
From a council perspective, what are
your thoughts on how we manage this new
expense?
» Council Bell, please. So, we spoke to
increasing that garbage collection fee
168. It would would have ended up to be
187 or something if I remember that
correctly. Um,
that's what you're speaking to is it's
proven through legal advice that's that
that's probably not the right avenue.
Um, what about would there be a way to
add
not that I want to increase the fees at
the landfill, but would there be a way
to do
a portion of a fee whenever you go into
the landfill as a means of collecting
revenue to pay for this program on an
annual basis? And what I mean by that is
would we be able to look at the revenue
generated from the landfill
as look at what percentage increase we
would need for every user that goes in
there on a every Wednesday and Saturday
to make up the difference of that 446
per ICI property. So it this wouldn't
just as a you wouldn't be seeing this as
an increase on a on the 168, but we pay
a fee whenever we go to the dump and
dump a half ton, dump a trailer. Would
there be a way to add a small percentage
onto each one of those loads as a means
of collecting revenue to pay for this
specific fee?
staff.
>> It kind of would fall into the same type
» It kind of would fall into the same type
of thought process or same
recommendation of legal as the original
thought of putting it onto the garbage
collection fee because it's not just
residential properties or not just
commercial properties that are coming in
there. the the the the fee itself.
That's the challenge of of putting it
onto to to adding it to different fees
because the the we'd have to review
again whether the recycling cost itself
could be attributed into the cost of the
landfill. Potentially it could, but that
would be my initial thought would be it
would fall similar to the original
recommendation from legal
>> councelor bill.
» councelor bill.
So, I just keep cycling back to this
because I I don't want to see our small
businesses and our churches pay an
additional user fee tax if we can avoid
it by small some percentage by raising
the revenue in a small percentage
somewhere else. Um,
correct me if
I'm looking at this as if the township
collects revenue to pay for this, even
if it's not if if if by through the
budget discussions today, we decided as
a council that Whitewater region as a
corporation is just going to take care
of this fee, this $446,
not necessarily stating where where it's
coming from, but recognizing that we
need to generate that 446*
159 properties for 2026 to pay for this
for for the ICI,
increasing the user fee at our landfill,
not necessarily with a special
assessment to go towards that, but
recognizing that to make up for this
shortfall of 446* 159 9. We look at that
by increasing our our landfill charges
by x percentage to generate that revenue
without without account not putting a
specific line for accounting for that.
Is that not a way that we could like we
we adjust user fees based on you know
based on a bunch of different decisions
every year.
Could we not just adjust that user fee
recognizing that we just need to collect
that that extra percentage this year to
to pay for that program?
>> If you'll allow me, I think I think the
» If you'll allow me, I think I think the
um so the first thing is is that um the
the actual cost of this won't be
implemented until the final billion as
treasur noted. So there's a bit of time
to look at different options. So I would
just say that uh the discussion with the
the superintendent is that the
strategies to come back with a bylaw to
determine whether or not you could opt
in, opt out. So there's some time to
work through things. Um uh so I think
that is one way that we could look at to
see how we could generate more revenue
cost per visit $1 or something like that
generate that into the and then vet that
with legal to see if it would make
sense. So noteed I would say um as an
alternative way to fund it. Um you think
of like uh we we I wasn't in the call
but I was talking to the treasure
McGonagal before today's meeting about
this discussion. I said what about the
arenas? You know arenas you pay $143 for
your hour and taxation pays for the
other proportional cost of that arena.
And the there was a the the lawyer kind
of had the sense well the the arena's
accessible by all population all of the
population. So I think we just need to
look at it a bit more but this is a a
mechanism by which we could generate
revenue. Let's look into it in greater
depth and see if it's an alternative and
how would you actually implement
implement that? Is it a dollar per
visit? Is it a cost additional cost on
tonnage? There's a few ways to do it. So
if that if that's okay, we could
continue to investigate that
>> followup. Yeah. Sorry if I may, mayor.
» followup. Yeah. Sorry if I may, mayor.
Um and that that's my only concern is
that we're discussing this right now
recognizing that we need to like we're
going to pay for this no matter what,
but I just want to make sure by the
sounds of it that the bylaw is coming.
We can we can discuss this further. Like
this isn't set in stone that that all
ICI properties are getting a $446 extra
fee on their bill come October whatever
the
>> the present fees and charges bylaw
» the present fees and charges bylaw
that's attached to the council agenda
has no amount in it for this. So it's
blank at present moment and it will
amend that fees and charges bylaw when
we make a decision on the how we're
going to fund this.
>> I'm just going to jump in before I give
» I'm just going to jump in before I give
the floor to councelor Trim. Um, from a
council perspective, could the argument
be we have made the decision to provide
this level of service to our ICI
residents?
We're not sure how that's going to jig
out for another 6 months. Could we make
the commitment to cover it with general
taxation
until we sort it out
at uh the the time that the bylaw is
presented whether or not there's another
source of revenue?
I would say it's possible. Um the piece
that would be noted would be is if
because technically taxation can pay for
any service that the township deems to
provide. Um, so then the taxation piece
would the total cost was around 63,000 I
believe if memory serves. Um, so let's
say we're in March or so whenever it
happens. So one quarter of that. So
you'd see about a
quarter of a percent not quite of a
overall increase to the to the overall
levy instead of the 5.8 it would have to
be added in to bring us closer six 6.05
somewhere in that range. Mhm.
And and the argument being that we're
trying to make sure that we divert
recycling away from the landfill, which
is a benefit to all residents.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Yeah. Uh council, it puts it in it puts
» Yeah. Uh council, it puts it in it puts
its in a little bit of a gray area, but
at least we are acknowledging that yes,
we are accepting the cost. We are not
directing that it be uh put on the ICI
identified users at this point in time
and we'll make that final decision as
part of the bylaw. Good. And I'll go to
Sorry, CO. Do you want to counter first?
>> I could just to the treasur ask the
» I could just to the treasur ask the
question is can we leave it unfinanced
and deal with it at the tax rate in May.
That was kind of be the so we're not
actually going to present that we're
increasing the levy by another.3% now
when we
>> communicate this to the public the
» communicate this to the public the
budget to the public it would be dealt
with at a tax rate time
>> in May. Thanks.
» in May. Thanks.
>> Good.
» Good.
Thank you councelor Trim.
>> Yes. Uh, that's all fine and I certainly
» Yes. Uh, that's all fine and I certainly
am not disagreeing with it, but I'm
reminded that the philosophy of the
province, they did this on purpose. They
want this the the ICIs to contribute to
the cost of recycling. That's what they
want. Uh, it's it's not an accident.
It's their philosophy, their plan.
What's unfair about it is that everybody
gets charged the same rate whether
you're a a big business or a small
business or a a little church or a big
church.
That's the unfair part about it. But the
philosophy it it the province is very
clear on it. They do want the businesses
to contributing to the cost of
recycling. So I don't know how we we
squiggle and squeeze around that. Uh but
we need to be what I'm want is to be
very very transparent with the people
who are actually going to pay for it the
taxes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
>> No and again that's the process by which
» No and again that's the process by which
we make that that implement that bylaw
will is it one price for everyone? Is
there opt out? Is there opt in? There's
a there's a whole bunch of things that I
think will have to get ironed out as
part of that bylaw will help answer that
that point that you've raised.
>> Anything CEO?
» Anything CEO?
>> Yeah. And maybe the strategies to fund
» Yeah. And maybe the strategies to fund
it from revenue from elsewhere is like a
you know you you do that over three
years and then they'll pay you know 75%
of that and 85% and then you could you
know you could we'll look at those
options if you
>> Yeah. So I think it's great discussion
» Yeah. So I think it's great discussion
because I think it's given staff some
perspective as to our viewpoint on the
problem. Good. Are we good to carry on
past this? Oh, councelor Homestead.
>> No, just a sticky point. Um, I'm again
» No, just a sticky point. Um, I'm again
trying to understand coming from a
business side as well. Is it accurate to
say that it was legal
before the new laws come out to share it
across because everybody paid the 168
and now due to the new changes it
they've made it illegal. Is that what
advice we're receiving from our from our
legal team?
>> Which staff?
» Which staff?
>> I treasur I can. So the the issue was is
» I treasur I can. So the the issue was is
that before recycling was provided by
the township because we were the actual
payer of the contract to every property.
So that cost was disseminated to all
properties that benefited from the
service. We were providing recycling. We
were providing garbage. We were
providing uh the actual contractor that
picked it up. What is and but in it the
other side of it was the government was
providing us a grant to help us do the
recycling piece. Now it is switched
around that we are not receiving money
from the government as a grant because
they've removed themselves removed us
completely from the recycling equation.
So since we're not doing that service
for all 3,800 or 780 properties anymore,
we're only going to do recycling for
these 153. That's where it becomes
challenging because it's no longer a
majority of seeing it or of incurring
these costs. That's where the issue
comes in is the the fee for service
through the municipal act is it's a fee
for the service of the people who
benefit from that service. So if you're
not receiving the service or Q can't
receive the service, there's no need for
the for a resident to receive recycling
from us. They're already getting it from
the province. So it's not a service that
the municipality needs to provide to
them. We're only providing it to these
153. That's where the the issue comes in
is we're it's not part of the overall
collection cost anymore. It's a we're
doing a separate collection because it's
even a separate truck that goes out on a
Friday to pick up your your commercial
stuff now. It's not even with your
garbage the way it used to be.
I hope that
>> Yeah, that that's clear. Thank you.
» Yeah, that that's clear. Thank you.
>> Good. And when we come back to talk
» Good. And when we come back to talk
about this bylaw, we're going to have to
make sure there's a legal component to
that discussion.
>> Good. Councelor Trim.
» Good. Councelor Trim.
>> Yes. And I asked that very question of
» Yes. And I asked that very question of
the minister in a workshop
at AMO
and Minister Flax's answer was we never
paid for the commercial garbage pickup.
Uh and I don't I didn't get an
explanation of that because I understood
it was the way the grant was structured.
And so uh as far as the ministry is
concerned, there's no change. Um it's
just the administration of it and what
people see uh is is definitely a big
change. So that's the answer I got for
the question that councelor Mstead is
asking.
>> No. Great points. Good. Have we got
» No. Great points. Good. Have we got
enough on this point from a staff
perspective?
I just want to make sure. Okay. We have
to I want to be able to move this budget
on. Okay, good. So, that we are going to
be coming back to that is a great big
placeholder for that discussion in the
future. So, are there any other
questions before I go to the specific
slides here? Any other general questions
on slides 1 to 28?
Okay, I'm going to go to slide 14,
which is the the public comments on
operating. And um I just wanted to make
sure that we as a council publicly
acknowledge this feedback that we've
received from a number of different
residents. And is there anything like
the treasur has already articulated, we
are investigating the op billing as part
of uh advocacy through Roma and AMO.
Uh we have a continued effort to look at
shared services and fee for services
from the county and other agencies.
Point number one there.
Is there any other direction or
questions or comments from members of
council and any other public feedback?
Good. Councelor Moore,
um, can somebody refresh my memory of
what we decided about funding Penrook
Pool? Did we ever have an have a talk
about that or was it just sort of put
off till another meeting and we never we
never did it?
Yeah,
>> I would just say the the the staff are
» I would just say the the the staff are
continuing to engage together with the
city of Pemrook and the town of Renfruit
of recreational services and I think our
our manager spoke to the city of Pemrook
as recently as this week or late last
week. Maybe you could provide an update.
» So, the city of Pemrook is interested in
pursuing a type of agreement for this
summer. Um, and uh we would look forward
to see what we can put forward. Um, it
sounds like it's going to probably be a
matter of us coordinating more and uh
them providing confirmation of the
registrations, but uh we would look
forward to that in the budget.
>> And will it be annual or just summer um
» And will it be annual or just summer um
um learning how to swim type thing?
>> Summer, the same type of program that
» Summer, the same type of program that
ran in 2023.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Okay, if there's no other
questions or comments, then I I can say
that we have duly acknowledged the
public input into the operating
component of the budget. Thank you,
treasurer, for doing that. The next
slide I would like to go to is slide
number 16, which is the public comments
that we received from capital
and the associated response from staff
on slide 17. Is there any comments,
questions or points that council wants
to make on this public comment, these
public comments?
Yes, sorry. Councelor White.
>> Yes. Um, regarding Zion Line, excuse me,
» Yes. Um, regarding Zion Line, excuse me,
and Government Road. So, in this year's
budget, we're proposing $660,000
for Government Road and nothing for Zion
Line. Correct.
>> That's correct.
» That's correct.
>> Okay. So, um, for Zion Line, if I add up
» Okay. So, um, for Zion Line, if I add up
these three numbers, we have spent $2.3
million on Zion Line. And in that same
amount of time, how much money have we
spent on government road? Do we know?
>> I'm sorry. The Are you talking the
» I'm sorry. The Are you talking the
sheets that I handed out?
>> So, it's not an addup.
» So, it's not an addup.
>> Um, so it's different costings. So the
» Um, so it's different costings. So the
top one is costing of a million dollars
ashfalt if the road was widened to meet
the act of transportation for the same
chunk of road. It's Fortress Fault to
West Ross. Same chunk of road if we were
to do just ashvault and not widen the
road $700,000 which is unwidened and
wouldn't meet the uh active
transportation plan. And then if we were
to just do ashvault from Papen Road or
sorry DST from Papen Road to Forers
Falls Road be 660,000. They're
individual costs. They're not added up.
That would be the cost if we were to do
that road over government road this
year.
» Okay.
>> So, we've done work on Zion line in 200
» So, we've done work on Zion line in 200
since early 2000 since 2006.
>> You got it. Yeah.
» You got it. Yeah.
>> Okay. What about government road? What
» Okay. What about government road? What
have we done on government road in
between 2006 and now?
>> I'll pass that to the manager public
» I'll pass that to the manager public
works.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, Government Road, uh,
» Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, Government Road, uh,
sorry, in 2016,
um, they did a DST and then they, uh,
surfaced, uh, portion of the road, but
all done in one year in 2016.
» So, DST and
>> and and a a a single surface all in one
» and and a a a single surface all in one
year.
>> Do we know the cost of what that was
» Do we know the cost of what that was
roughly?
>> Not total cost. I have the cost just for
» Not total cost. I have the cost just for
what what they paid for the contractor,
but I didn't have the cost for the
gravel, anything else.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other comments from members of
» Any other comments from members of
council?
>> Yeah, councelor Trim.
» Yeah, councelor Trim.
>> I I'm just wondering at is this the time
» I I'm just wondering at is this the time
that we're going to be deciding
uh uh with respect to uh these two
roads? Is this is this the point where
we're going to be having the discussion
to decide as it is now? Um the uh uh the
recommendation is government road but I
don't want to be
interfering with what you have planned
Mr. Mayor.
>> No, this is the point in time that we
» No, this is the point in time that we
want to discuss this and it rolls up
into the the resolution that we have at
the end of the meeting. So yes, if you
want to discuss this road Zion line
versus what's been proposed in the
budget, this is the time to do it.
>> May I continue then?
» May I continue then?
>> Yes, please.
» Yes, please.
>> Okay. To prepare myself for this
» Okay. To prepare myself for this
meeting, I did have a chat with the
director of public works and but I was
I've know much of this information
that's being presented today. Uh, also
that isn't included here is is the um uh
the the traffic count and uh and so
personally I need to make a decision on
some some facts. It I I know that there
are probably people living on government
road that could come and make an
impassion plea for us to do that road.
According to the director, both roads
are in similar disrepair. Uh we can't
say one is uh significantly worse than
the other. And so I'm not prepared to
flip a coin here. I I want to base my
decision on other facts. Uh the traffic
count is somewhat more on ZIL. Uh, I'm
not going to say twice as much, but it
is considerably more. The um
>> Sorry to interrupt, but it is on this
» Sorry to interrupt, but it is on this
sheet.
>> Oh, sorry. I missed it. I I was told it,
» Oh, sorry. I missed it. I I was told it,
but I'm not. Okay. And and the the um
dates of um
rehabilitation
are older for the Z line. So, based on
um all of those facts, uh Mr. Mayor, I'm
going to say now before you ask me that
I'm going to recommend that we do spend
our
uh budget money this year on um the
rehabilitation of the Zel line, whatever
that means. And uh because I know that
included there could be some culvert
work. I know the brushing has been done,
but there could be some culvert work and
some gravel. And so whatever it means is
what I'm going to be voting for. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
» Any other comments on timeline? Sorry.
And I've seen you already, so I'll go to
other people. Councelor Moore,
>> I know it was discussed at the time that
» I know it was discussed at the time that
um um Government Road was the older of
the two and that we had thought maybe um
we would continue with doing that road
and then we had the delegation of design
line. I'm sure we could get another
delegation from Government Road to say
the same thing. Um, and it's not to to
pick a fight between the the two, but
we've we found this in many years of
council, whether it be Sturgeon Mountain
Road or whatever, um, anytime we go to
do work on it, somebody always feels
that there's another road requires more
urgent help. So,
in keeping with the staff point of view,
the staff are saying it's time to do
government road. And of the complaints
that I've received in the last 3 years,
um, majority are from government road,
but other counselors are getting the
complaints from Z line. So, probably
equals out just as well. But, um, in
order for our staff to make a decision
on what we as council want them to do,
uh, we're up in the air. So, how can our
how can our staff make a decision? So,
uh, right now I'm behind my staff member
who says government road is next in
line.
» Good. Any other feedback from Council
Homestead?
>> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um,
» Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um,
I do know that I've seen a schedule of
upcoming um, budgets.
Do we have Zion on 2027's current
budget?
>> Right now, it's 2028. 2028.
» Right now, it's 2028. 2028.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
» Good. Any other council feedback?
>> We have one suggesting a change.
» We have one suggesting a change.
Councelor White, if you'd like to go,
there's no one else.
>> Um, is there another recommendation
» Um, is there another recommendation
coming forward from anyone from any
staff member or are we leaving it as
only for um Government Road?
CEO
>> um I think as it stands the so so the
» um I think as it stands the so so the
maybe I'll just bring it back to the
original recommendation to do government
road so the reason you know as councelor
trim noted is the AADTS are somewhat
higher on Z line the conditions are
generally in disrepair for both roads
among many other roads in our in our
community um one of the constraints
which led to the recommendation for
government road is the the financial
amount of money we have the 660 $660,000
it aligns itself well with the length of
road for government road um being ashalt
um what you have before you treasure
McDonald could share on the screen um
this sheet of paper um
gives essentially three options if you
will under costing
hyphen Z line, Z line, Z line. Those are
three options. And
the reason why we were in some sense not
recommending Z line is because the cost
to do Z design
um based on the current policies of
council, namely the active
transportation plan. Z Line's intended
to be an active transportation route,
which means it's a widen road.
And the costing for that widen road to
to comply and meet our active transport
would be around a million dollars. So we
don't have a million dollars. So if
we're going to do a road and government
road is is being recommended at this
point in time and and remains. If
council chooses at their discretion,
they could do a less widen road which
does not meet their active
transportation plan and it would cost
$700,000 and would more or less fit in
the budget. we could alter some other
capital items. So that's kind of where
the original recommendation came from.
Um
the question that we pose as staff to
council is uh the active transportation
plan is to some degree maybe an
increased level of service. It's a need.
I mean it it impro improves the quality
of life of our residents, safety of our
roads and the like. So, um, in the 2028
and I'll just have the the I'll close
out with this to the directors. The the
in 2028 Zion line at $1.1 million, does
that include the widening of the road?
>> That is correct.
» That is correct.
>> That's correct. So, I mean, basically
» That's correct. So, I mean, basically
what is before council is this $660,000.
We could um do government road this year
and it's within the budget. We could do
design line at a reduced scope for 700
which would fit within the budget or we
we postpone it to 2028 in the in the
chart the unfunded big capital list here
that's unfunded and might change uh for
2028 which includes the widening of the
road. So uh I think the deliberations on
this projection and levels of service
it'll look at this active transportation
plan a little bit closer and whether or
not we want to increase levels of
service and follow that. Uh but that's
kind of what's before council is the
government road 660 fits in the budget.
Reduce scope of design line from
Foresters Falls to West Ross. You're in
that $700,000 for Ashvalt as well. So
that's that's where it stands. So our
recommendation to answer the original
question stands at Government Road. If I
look at my my director uh that that's
kind of where we stand.
>> Thanks.
» Thanks.
>> Good question.
» Good question.
any comments as a result of the CEO's
and I will come to you councelor Trim if
there's no one else at this point in
time. Yeah, councelor Bell first then
councelor trim. This is just a general
comment but I feel like at this point
the widening of roads the extra costs
that are going to be associated with
doing this year-over-year because I know
we have a number of roads we talked
about doing it on Grand Settlement Road
that's that got dialed back that's no
longer on the on the schedule now for
the next few years. Um, this is going to
be a topic of conversation for the next
next group of council members and
probably the council members after that.
If the intent is to continue to increase
that level of service on the roads, then
we're going to have to decide that we're
not doing the basics on other roads. So,
I feel like at this point in time when
we're looking at these 5-year
projections and we can't afford anything
moving forward, like I I don't know if
we should be making a decision today
based on an increased level of service
that I'm assuming in a year or two,
we're still going to be looking at
scaling those decisions back to make
sure that they fit within the budget.
Um,
so from my perspective, I know both
roads are in disrepair. We heard uh the
delegation from Zion Line the other day.
They make a bunch of good points looking
at the average daily drivers um for 469
versus 269. Um,
just looking at this from like a general
uh taxpayer perspective, there's 469
drivers on that road a day that are
going to appreciate an update in the
surface and and
not driving over a road that's in
disrepair versus the 269 on government
road. I I'm happy to leave it up to the
expertise of of the individuals that do
this on a daily basis. Um, but I
recognize that Zion Line obviously has
more more daily traffic. And honestly,
the the residents of the Zion line
probably don't care about the widened
portion of the road. They just want to
make sure that they can get to and from
their houses on a daily basis without
taking the oil pans out of their cars.
So, um I I just whenever we talk about
this increased scope of of widening the
road for active transportation, well, it
basically doubles the cost of of doing
it in DST, right? Um
I know that doesn't really give any
solutions, but it's just I
I don't want to be making decisions
today based on something that we
probably can't afford in a year or two.
just looking into the next year, year or
two of budgets of knowing that this is
going to be an issue, affordability
issue moving forward.
» Good. Thank you for sharing your
thoughts on that one. And I'll go to
councelor Trim.
>> Uh yes, the comments I was going to make
» Uh yes, the comments I was going to make
were made by uh councelor Bell. Uh I
generally am opposed to uh increasing
levels of service
uh on not increasing levels of service
until we are doing well with the
services we're committed to. Uh and so I
know that bicycle lanes and walking uh
shoulders uh would be
a benefit. I I'm not saying that they
wouldn't be. However, uh until we have
all of our roads up to scratch, uh then
I I think that that's something we can't
afford. However, having said that, I'm
wondering if the director, Mr. Lane
could could tell us how much if if his
cost estimates includes
the extra width that the last section of
the design line got because uh I think
we should try to accommodate farm
machinery at the very least. Um so
perhaps he could give us that
information. Maybe not today. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
» Noted.
Perfect. Any other discussion on this?
Sorry.
>> Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was waiting for the
» Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was waiting for the
CEO to throw that ball to Lane. So,
good. We'll give it to manager of public
works.
>> Yes. If I can add um yes, both roads are
» Yes. If I can add um yes, both roads are
in poor condition as we're all aware. Um
why originally why we're following
policy as the for the act of
transportation. Um that's why uh Zline
did not fit in this year's budget within
the the allocation for for roads. Um
in talking to our our our uh public
works staff that uh government road is
patched more often than Z line. um
resign line I it's been on for the last
three four years it has been selected um
but talking to uh the the the road super
um even today um I travel with both of
them again today's to ensure that
junction was coming up um I can tell you
that government road is in worse shape
today with potholes as we patched than
it is design line so I think I think
originally
Um, Zing need needs to be done. I think
it needs to be but I think uh with the
the the condition of Government Road, it
needs to be done sooner than Z line. Um
I've been back and forth. I talking to
councelor Trim yesterday. I am back and
forth. I you can be we can do either one
of them need both both be done. But um I
think to at this point I think my
recommendation is to carry on with with
Government Road.
Good. Does that bring any other
comments?
Now, I'll just recognize uh um one
comment about 2028. Councelor Mstead
brought it up. When is Xylon Zion
forecasted for in the 5-year plan?
The challenge is 2027 isn't fully
funded. So, 2027 runs us into a deficit.
2028 runs us into another deficit. So,
uh, resting on the fact that, oh yeah,
don't worry, we have it. We we don't
have it scheduled. It's it is written in
sand on the beach and and that's what
our our budget committee is going to
have to look at in the coming months
because you we're just we're just
pushing the problem out one more year.
>> Good. Uh, sorry. Uh, back to manager of
» Good. Uh, sorry. Uh, back to manager of
public works.
>> Yes. I have to add one thing. This was
» Yes. I have to add one thing. This was
brought up this uh councelor White
brought up uh in one of the first or
second meetings is um also addition with
as you see in 2027 um there's there is
some uh some third lifts or a a single
surf put on to DST for example um Brmley
Road Bramley line sorry needs it's right
on the it's very similar to what we did
um with uh
um sorry
>> road.
» road.
>> Rapid road. Thank you. Um it's very like
» Rapid road. Thank you. Um it's very like
rapid road was probably a year past this
point. We did save it. We spent a bit
extra money making it good enough to be
single surface over top. Bromem line has
come to a point maybe past this point as
it's in there. Um there is a cost
savings if we do a third lift versus
doing the whole road DST. There is as
shown in the on on the slides. um where
that really should be done this year,
but again with with the with the
constraint
um where we are picking a worse road
over keeping one of our roads bring it
back to to good again. So next year is a
challenge like as Mayor Nicholson stated
that there is a 2027 is even a a
financial uh shortfall even even that at
that where a design line needs to be
done also. So it is a challenge.
» Thank you. This is good discussion and
important um for us to be doing this
publicly. I think so. Is there any other
councelor Bell? Sorry, but uh yeah, and
just going back looking at the previous
presentation, these five-year
projections, the reason Zion line isn't
on for 2027 is because ash fault is also
scheduled to go back go down between
Fletcher and P road next year as well.
So, we're spending that 660 this year,
737 next year on ashvault for government
road. And then we've already had these
discussions, but then it gets back to
should we just be doing the whole road
in DST this year to open up the funding
to resurface another road next year in
DST? Recognizing the life cycle of that,
it is what it is with DST. Like it's
hard to believe that that was that
government road was done in 2016 and
we're 2026 talking about it again for
$660,000 project.
But is that something that we should be
considering instead of doing ashvault on
the two portions over the next two
years? Do DST for the entire portion
this year to open up funding to get Zion
Line done within the next two because
they brought up a lot of the delegation
brought up a great point is you know
it's we're having issues with the
traffic in Beachburg because trucks
don't want to be traveling on Zion line
because of the condition of Zion Line.
Um there's a fairly significant business
or very significant business at the end
of the Zion line that brings in a lot of
heavy equipment uh on you know through
both sides of Zion line. The the traffic
that's seen with the agricultural
equipment on government road is the same
as the the the agricultural equipment
that's driving on on the Zion line. Um
just again looking at to what we can
actually afford. Can we actually afford
to put ashvalt down the entire stretch
of of government road before we do
anything with Zion line? That's, you
know, I brought out that presentation
from the last budget and I know we've
already had these discussions, but
we're making the decision now. So, is
that something that we should be
considering instead?
» Good. Thank you for throwing all of this
out into the middle of the discussion,
but this is what a committee is for. Uh
you're supposed to be able to do these
things. Uh sorry, council, I'm going to
throw one thing out and then we'll come
to councelor Mstead and then we'll do
this. Is that we do have to make a
decision today. We we need to It may not
be the perfect decision. We have
gathered the information. You've
received information from the public.
We've we've drilled into the staff's
recommendation. We have a staff
recommendation. Um, but I'll come back
to both councelor Trim and councelor
Bell. If you want to put a motion on the
floor to revisit the existing proposed
budget, we will we will take a look at
that. Good. Councelor Mstead.
>> Yeah. Um, just an overarching comment, I
» Yeah. Um, just an overarching comment, I
guess, in that uh number one. Um,
sorry. And I didn't see this on my my uh
desk earlier, but we do have a 5-year
proposal in front of us um for for um
roads. First time I think I've ever seen
that. So, hats off to the input that
went into it. Um I think it's very
important that as we go through an asset
management plan and the input that goes
into it and the expertise of the people
that that uh are inputting that
information that once we get it close we
have to stick to it otherwise what the
hell are we doing? Why even have an
asset management plan? So I think it's
very important that we're down that road
now. We got a great 5-year. Is it bang
on? Who knows? I'm sure there's going to
be little bits of puts and takes, but
I've heard as much from government road
uh texts and phone calls to me as I did
probably more than Zion Line. So, and
that's going to continue through the
next bunch of councils that everybody
that lives on that road is going to come
to us. And that that's that's good.
They've got they're they're invested and
they're interested. But I think at some
point you've got to go, okay, here's the
plan. And you know, we're not really
straying from it other than if there's
some extenduating circumstances that we
have to we have to uh stray from it. Um,
and again, it's one of the first times
I've seen ashalt all over the page here.
I've been on council, this is my 12th
year, and I think I've only seen ashalt
on a list other than if it's in town
maybe twice, once or twice. So, it's
great that we're we're getting to a
point we're actually seeing ashalt,
which has to take place on these these
welltraveled roads versus DST. As
councelor Bell said, uh, you know, we're
we're 8 years, 7 years in. I remember
Zion line, I think we were patching it
the second year after we we put DST on
it. So, it we just can't go down the DST
path on uh these welltraveled roads. So,
what I would propose is we stick to what
uh they've have in the plan for 2026.
Uh we look at 2027, review it, and see
if there's any changes that can be made
there. But again, at some point, we've
got to go, this is the 5-year plan that
we're going with, and bearing a whole
lot of uh issues, we have to stick by
that because it's and again, it's not
just roads we're dealing with, it's the
entire freaking township that we're
trying to get into this asset management
plan. So, um, anyway, that's my two
cents. Thank you.
>> Good. Thank you. And this is perfect.
» Good. Thank you. And this is perfect.
Again, this is what committees are for.
Okay. I'm going to turn it back to
Councelor Trim and Councelor Bell. Both
of you had made suggestions about
changing the current. Is that something
that you'd like to put on the floor?
>> Uh, yes. I would like uh to move that uh
» Uh, yes. I would like uh to move that uh
that this construction season we we
spend our the
uh our funds on the uh section of the
design line that's been indicated and uh
uh just uh uh a little further to what
councelor Olmstead said uh I do believe
in planning and I do believe that we
should be sticking to uh our our plans.
Um, however,
new in when new information comes in, I
think that it's appropriate to re
rethink uh the plan. And so the new
information today was that the cost for
the design line included the active
living uh the what
>> active transportation
» active transportation
>> active transportation
» active transportation
um part. Now if we are if we agree to um
eliminate that which is what I propose
then the um then all of sudden the plan
changes then it then to me it makes more
sense to do the design line because of
the traffic count and the the age of the
road and so on and so on. Um a and so
with that in mind, I'm going to move
that we make that change.
>> Good. Thank you. Do I have
» Good. Thank you. Do I have
>> And I'm looking for a seconder. Yes.
» And I'm looking for a seconder. Yes.
>> Do I have a seconder?
» Do I have a seconder?
>> And I see no seconder. So your motion is
» And I see no seconder. So your motion is
not recognized. Uh councelor Bell, would
you like to move any of your
suggestions?
» No. I think I I tend to agree with uh
councelor Olmstead. Um I just wanted to
throw it out on the table just to just
to see what other counselors thought.
But um in listening to what our public
works manager has to say like
we're going to make the wrong decision
in a number of people's eyes. We're
going to make the right decision in
some. So, I I tend to agree our our
public works manager, he's he's been
considering this. He knows all the
issues on these roads. Um we're going to
fit it into the budget. We're laying
ashall down. I think that is that's a
that's a good thing. Um just recognizing
we're we're going to get some some
backlash from the members on Zion line.
I looking at this five-year plan, it's a
plan and like councelor Olmstead said, I
think once we put it into motion, I
think sticking to it is important. So
it's good
instead of on
the we're we are we're going to close
discussion on this item pages page 17
basically. Um, direction stands as was
recommended by staff, but I am going to
propose that we give staff direction on
a couple things uh when it comes to our
committee. And the first one is uh we
need to re-examine active transportation
and the impact it has on the level of
service.
Uh in my opinion, I'm I'm sharing
councelor Bell's thoughts. I think it's
unaffordable. Councelor Trim brought it
up. It's a it's a level of service that
we are not prepared. It's going to keep
taking our main roads identified for
active transportation off of the list
because we just we don't have the funds
to do them. Uh so I think that's one
thing that the budget committee should
look at in the future.
Uh the second one is uh the three other
points
sorry at least the middle two and I'll
take committee input on the fourth one
but about the fireh halls about the
extended life equipment of of current
assets. I think we make that a task for
our budget committee and our discussion
about a five-year plan. How do we take
how do we consider those comments in our
discussions for our five-year plan?
Uh, and at the fourth one about
re-rolling our arenas, if you would like
to have that included, we can add that
if there's anyone that wants to add that
in.
Okay. I don't see any. So, we'll just
take the first three as as provided. Is
any feedback from the committee on that
direction to staff?
No. And I'll just I don't know if
there's any public watching or we can
pass this on to the members of Zion Line
that came and did the delegation. I
think that's exactly the type of public
involvement that council needs. It made
us go back and tear this apart and
consider a whole bunch of different
variables. And that's exactly what we
want in a democracy is the ability to
have that interaction between public
input and necessary decisions. I don't
think there's ever going to be the
correct decision. There's always going
to be the decision that you have to take
given the parameters you have at that
moment in time. and we have to proceed.
But the delegations, the public input is
is exactly what we need. Good. With
that, we are concluding pages 1 through
28. I think there's another 30 pages to
go, but maybe we're going to take a
quick bio break and uh just five
minutes, please, and then we'll come
back.
and welcome back to the Township of
Whitewater regions budget committee
meeting and we are going to continue.
Now, if you're if you're watching and
and looking for the regular council
meeting that was supposed to start at
1:00,
we are going to start the regular
council meeting as soon as we finish the
budget committee meeting. The two are
intertwined. We have a recommendation
that we will be making at the conclusion
of the budget committee for the council
meeting and it is the 2026 budget.
Therefore, important if not vital for us
to try to address today if uh if at all
possible.
So just be patient please and we'll
continue our deliberations here at the
committee level and then we'll move into
council. Excellent. And with that we are
going to turn the floor back to the CEO
and the treasurer and continue on. I
think we're at slide number 29.
Thank you. We're actually going to the
CIO's question. We're going to pop back
to slide 26 just for one second. Um just
to illustrate the where the 1.6% comes
from uh with the total operating
expenses of $9.35 million. So that's the
total cost to operate the township uh
which includes the uh the costs for the
OP uh and and all other costs to to
operate uh as well as our uh our uh
other u internal costs of salaries uh
contracts and things like that. So the
amount the balance to fund the levy is
the $5.9 million. That's the operating
levy. Uh as you can see the prior year
was 200 or 5.77 million. So overall the
the levy is increasing by 2.5% uh less
the expected growth uh which has almost
been finalized. It's a little higher
than 0.9 but I for calculation purposes
I left it that way. And then so it
equals about a 1.6% overall increase. Um
I will note I think I mentioned this
before but I'll just put it out there
for the public again. By taking the
growth uh category out and showing it
this way, it makes the percentage that
we're dictating out to the public more
accurate as to what they will actually
see as an increase on their taxation. Uh
if I was to just say 2.5% and the 4.2,
that's the levy, but it does it doesn't
tie directly into your what you actually
see on your tax bill. By t removing the
growth portion from it and talking about
the 1.6 and the 4.2 specifically, that's
what the the your actual tax bill will
see. uh within plus or minus a half a
percent. So that that's the reason we we
use the capital or the expected growth
portion in there to to illustrate that.
So the next part we move into is the
capital and special projects portion of
the budget. Uh I've left the slides in
here just to again illustrate our
funding sources for capital. So there's
the OCIF which is uh for 2026 was
$817,64.
uh of that we split it due to the fact
that there's water wastewater assets and
road assets which is classified as our
core infrastructure that's why we get
the funding uh because it's a uh
calculation based funding. Uh so
$420,000
135 is being allocated to the general
capital budget and then 396,929
is allocated between water and
wastewater.
uh W water gets about 118,000
uh if memory serves and then wise water
gets about 240,000.
Uh the other side is the other funding
we receive is the Canada community
building fund which is CCBF
others might remember it as the can the
gas tax funding uh the provincial or the
federal funding I should say. Uh so
236,620
again confirmed for 2026. Um that
eligible uh funding breaks beyond just
core infrastructure and allows for other
infrastructure to be uh addressed which
is normally why we uh tie it to
infrastructure such as uh recreation uh
fire systems uh and then uh roads and
and waste water too as well.
So the last chunk of the funding sources
is the actual taxation. Um so with the
4.2 that has been occurring
year-over-year, uh right now that
balance uh once the 2026 budget is
approved will be $1.212 million uh in
taxation towards capital. So we're
pulling 887,000 from the prior two years
uh three years actually. And then
325,437
is what's coming for the 2026 budget. Uh
1.0 04 million or 004 million, sorry, is
currently tied up in debenture costs uh
out of our levy. And then we released a
one debenture this year uh of 81,000. So
that part is being tied into the upper
budget, the 1.2 uh to tie to create more
capital fund working funds.
Uh so we've just add a little note here.
The the orange line is the constraint uh
for affordability, the 3.4%.
Uh this chart originally talked about
how every year we put add 4.2% 2% to the
levy and in order to try and achieve
that goal of the $9 million required as
stipulated in the asset management plan
for the total uh current replacement
value of all of our assets. Uh you can
see by the time we reach that that line
we hit in 2028 and we cap out at about $
1.9 million $1.8.9 million.
Um so that's where that affordability
threshold comes in.
So the capital and special projects um
one piece we did I think it was
presentation three is where we talked
about whenever we started calculating
for how to create the uh capital plan
for the going forward for the future for
the 5 years was we had to have a place
to start with and that was more or less
the pots of money that could be
allocated to certain categories. Um so
based on the actual assets that we have
in the asset management plan as well as
staff input uh it was determined that we
put it as 50% for the road network, 5%
for storm water, 10% for buildings, 10%
for machinery equipment, 20% for
vehicles, 5% for land improvements,
which brings us to a total of 100%.
Um so the first column you'll see uh
past those percentages that's the uh
total capital funds uh levy and grants.
Um total capital funds includes the
debentures. Um so if we were to take the
total capital money that we spend every
year which is the bottom number 2.85
million um and break it down into each
category. So there's 1.425 425 that's
spent on roads 142,000 for for storm
water buildings 285 machine equipment
285 vehicles 570 land improvements 142
then we remove the portions that we've
already uh from prior years committed
that capital funding to through the
ventures so when I say debenture per
category the 647,979
that is uh principal and interest
payments that we making uh this year for
the road network. Uh same thing for
machinery equipment. So there's $110,000
out of the overall levy that's going to
pay deb or uh principal and interest
payments. Uh 141 for vehicles and
equipment. Uh there's a debenture slide
I'll show uh later on that'll kind of
illustrate this more. So what the
leftover funding uh for 2026 is 777,136
for roads 142,511 for storm water 285,23
for buildings machine equipment 1474,942
vehicles and equipment 428254
and then land improvements 142511. Um so
you'll see on each of the slides that
I've that I present uh again no change
from the prior but just as a as a
illustration to the public it talks
about a remaining and left in reserve.
So anytime we don't use up this funding
it would be left and be pushed into
reserve to be used in the the future
years if we don't reach the the the
total use of the funding uh in that
category. Um and what will happen is
whenever we uh staff bring forward um a
reserve policy uh we'll actually be
talking about these mounts and then
adding that chunk in as to uh creating
the reserves to to allocate these
fundings appropriately.
So the first project list is the under
the roads category. So Crawford Street
is still on the list. Uh the total cost
of that project the road portion which
is the surface itself uh is 858,000
uh funded out of the levy would be
27,135
and the remainder would be a debenture
um the next one is Pine Road Park Road
culvert uh $40,000 fully funded Lacquay
road design 50,000 fully funded and then
government road which is forers falls to
Fletcher road um
as ashvalt $660,000
And per the prior discussion, there's
there was no noted changes there. Um,
mayor, do you want me to stop at the end
of each of these categories or would you
like me to run through all categories
and come back?
» I'm good either way. Does council have a
preference?
>> Yes, council.
» Yes, council.
>> You left us with a task last time, Mr.
» You left us with a task last time, Mr.
Mayor, with respect to the percentage.
Uh I don't know when you want to talk
about that. I want to talk about it uh
for sure and so uh I'll leave it to your
discretion.
>> Okay. Just to recognize we're going to
» Okay. Just to recognize we're going to
bounce around. Let's get through all of
these tables and we have presented
you've presented these to us three times
now. Yep.
>> So if you can go through and just
» So if you can go through and just
articulate changes that you've made
since the last presentation.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> That will probably allow us to go
» That will probably allow us to go
through with questions at the end more
quickly.
>> Perfect. Um so the next slide is the
» Perfect. Um so the next slide is the
again Crawford Street being done. This
is the stormwater network. There is no
change here from the prior presentation.
The still funded amount is 142,511.
Uh so the remainder chunk goes to a
debenture of 317,000.
Um buildings again no changes here from
the prior uh presentations. Uh, so we're
funding the furnace HVAC, the Cobb Arena
compressor, the beam painting in the
Cobb Arena, structure repairs in the
three arenas for the cement work, the
Cobb arena HVAC, and then the museum
snow roller shed. Um, so it leaves a
remainder in the in that reserve fund of
$523.
Um, machinery and equipment, no changes
again. Uh, $50,000 for RWIS CCTV, which
it goes to our road patrol system.
training equipment for the fire fire
department uh for in-house CPR and first
aid is $25,000. And then the breathing
air compressor, which we uh got a grant
for and purchased in 2025, uh was
unfunded. So this is just to fund that
last portion of 16,000. Um so it leaves
$83,000 in the reserve at the end of
2026.
Uh under vehicles, uh so we're looking
at a tandem plow truck and a fire
tanker. Uh so there was a change here,
just a a clerical note that I want I
made. Um, so the total cost of the truck
is $425,000.
We don't have the money in that fund
based on the current percentages to be
able to finance both it and the fire
tanker, which we need to finance as we
have received the fire tanker now. Um so
in order to do that um we'd only be able
to fund 378,254
towards the the tandem plow truck and it
would leave 4 46,746
as unfunded into the 2027
uh fiscal year which through the the
capital plan that we've presented so far
we can fund in 2027 uh due to the the
way the equipment goes. Um, and I've
noted on if you look at schedule D uh of
the actual capital projects, that's
where all these are listed and where
their their funding is, uh, allocated.
You'll notice that there's $46,000
that's left as unfunded. So, that'll
automatically be picked up and added
into the 2027 budget.
Uh, land improvements. Uh, there's no
change here. Uh, based on the prior uh
prior presentation, leaves no money left
in reserves after the the play structure
at the Cobb and/forers Falls Park.
Uh and then this one again, no changes
because these have all been pre uh
presented in prior years. Uh this is
just bringing it back to council's uh um
awareness that the the projects are
going on and where they're coming from
reserves. So one of the new only new
project here is the uh Ross uh landfill
monitoring well. That one's being fully
funded from the waste reserve of 35,000.
Uh our website upgraded 17 furnace HAC
is 50. The fire tanker. So over the last
three years we put money into reserve
for the purchase of the fire tanker. So
this is the year whenever we get to
actually spend it and we already have uh
485,000
and then Westme boat launch rehab
100,000 and the Cobb Narina the
electrical the ice electrical plant ice
plant electrical panel at 45,000 which
was already a project a project in 2025
and is now uh just being shown here is
where it's coming from reserve and I
will note that you'll notice that the
last two projects actually came from our
CCBF reserve so in 2025 we allocated
money from CCBF towards these projects
them not being done. They're just being
pulled out of that reserve this year.
But that's just an illustration of where
that CCBF money gets gets used.
And any questions?
>> Excellent. Thank you, treasure. And with
» Excellent. Thank you, treasure. And with
that, I'm going to go we'll go back to
slide 34, which is what councelor Shim
would like to ask a question on.
» Uh yes, Mr. Mayor. Um
at the end of our last budget
discussion, you asked all of us to come
back today with our thoughts on the
percentage allocation. And so I've been
thinking about it and um I would like to
propose that instead of a 50%
um allocation to the road network that
it be 60%.
Now, when I say that,
what I'm implying is that the management
staff
will uh
go back into the budget and find a a way
to reallocate that money. And uh that
might be a virtually impossible task
without coming back to get some
decisions from us, some very difficult
decisions from us.
um because there's only so much money
and in our last discussion about roads,
I don't know if it was obvious to
everybody, we we're not giving
uh our director Lane Claroo enough money
to work on the roads and the streets and
the sidewalks we have. If we don't give
him enough money, he just can't do the
job. That's all there is to it. there's
the and we can't get the money. Uh we
can't burden the taxpayers more. So
something has to give. Um I know
councelor Olstead alluded to this at our
last discussion. So I don't know if it's
a motion, Mr. Mayor, that is
appropriate, but I just uh want you to
have my answer to your your uh direction
last time. I propose 60% goes to roads.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Trim. Um,
» Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Trim. Um,
I'm just going to clarify because we are
trying to
have the 2026 budget approved for this
for this year. You're talking about ch
making changes into the future, not for
2026
because it would necess necessitate
taking the whole budget back to staff to
rejig this and coming back to budget
committee to talk about 2026.
Well, just I I know this is another
example of us just putting the always
putting the the the the problem forward.
I didn't understand your request.
I should have, but I didn't. Uh I'm
I'm I don't want the budget amount to
raise. I just want the allocation to
change. Um
I I I don't know where where I am on
this now. Uh I don't want to impose a
whole bunch more work onto staff. That
wasn't the idea. Uh and I don't want to
prolong
our budget deliberations.
But something has to happen here.
um uh we're not providing the services
we're committed to because we're not
giving our staff the money to do it. So
I I don't know where what you I would
suggest, Mr. Mayor. I'm I think I
misunderstood your direction.
>> No, and thank you for the point and it's
» No, and thank you for the point and it's
just a terms of trying to ma match what
we'd like to do with what we we have to
do. 2026 has already started. We're
already starting to spend money in 2026.
We want to lean in and do the 2026
portion of the budget, but I think we
have to acknowledge that the
prioritization of our capital funds
isn't optimal. We have to figure out
that part part of it. Let's see if
there's other discussion and we'll come
back to it. Yes, councelor White.
>> Not very good at math, so maybe Chris
» Not very good at math, so maybe Chris
can answer this.
>> What would be 10% if we went from 50 to
» What would be 10% if we went from 50 to
60%? What would that amount?
>> An additional 285,000.
» An additional 285,000.
>> Pardon? an additional 28. See the bottom
» Pardon? an additional 28. See the bottom
number, the total 200 2.85 million,
>> right?
» right?
>> Well, you'd be adding $285,000 more to
» Well, you'd be adding $285,000 more to
the road network then.
>> So, we would have to take out $285,000
» So, we would have to take out $285,000
from somewhere else in the budget.
>> That's right.
» That's right.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> You see the buildings and machinery that
» You see the buildings and machinery that
are at 10%. There there's your number
right there.
Council
Moore,
>> just wondering in what councelor Trim
» just wondering in what councelor Trim
just said if somewhere in there our
discussion last meeting was increasing
gravel road upgrades from 15 years to 10
years if that could be included in that
10% increase or is it already in this
budget?
>> No, it's in operating and we closed that
» No, it's in operating and we closed that
out already.
>> Okay. Now we can we can we'll put that
» Okay. Now we can we can we'll put that
on the back burner and we can come back
to it at the end. But now it's not in
capital.
>> Considering we were talking percentage
» Considering we were talking percentage
change, I just wondered what happened to
that discussion. Yeah.
>> Um improving our gravel roads. That's
» Um improving our gravel roads. That's
>> good. If treasure, if you can put a pin
» good. If treasure, if you can put a pin
in that, we'll come back to it when
we're done. The capital piece.
>> Good. Uh any other comments on the
» Good. Uh any other comments on the
division of capital funds?
>> Yeah, councelor Moore.
» Yeah, councelor Moore.
>> I had one on uh
» I had one on uh
I lost my place now.
Well, that helps. Um, slide 39, we're
talking about a tandem plow truck. Um,
just wondering then if um if there
wasn't enough money to perhaps purchase
this year, does it go on the next year
or are we still purchasing this year but
with less money and be more debt?
>> So, the the design is is that we have
» So, the the design is is that we have
$378,000 of the 425. So, it would be
purchased in this year. Uh, as long as
we take delivery in this year, that's
hard to say. Sometimes it we could take
delivery technically in 2027 because of
the the length of actually build the
truck. Um, but should we take delivery
this year, there would be $46,000 that
we don't have the funding for that would
be then collected in 2027. It would
remain unfunded. Similar to how we did
the the breathing air compressor, we
unfunded $16,000. So, we didn't have
actually have that funds in 2025. And
now we're fill refilling that that void
or that unfunded portion in 2026.
>> Okay, understand. Thank you.
» Okay, understand. Thank you.
>> Good. Any other questions?
» Good. Any other questions?
>> Sorry, councelor White, you're looking
» Sorry, councelor White, you're looking
at me.
>> I'm just wondering if it says unfunded,
» I'm just wondering if it says unfunded,
so that means that we just didn't pay
the bill.
>> I'm not sure I understand that then.
» I'm not sure I understand that then.
>> So, we pay the bill. So on a income
» So, we pay the bill. So on a income
statement side or the actual revenue
versus expenses side, we are incurring
the expense but we're not taking in the
revenue to offset the budget for it for
the year. So when I say unfunded, it
technically becomes a uh an expense that
needs to be picked up in the next year.
We don't we need to make the revenue up
to cover that expense. It it's it's an
effect on our overall working capital.
Um, so what happens is in one year we
have this outstanding chunk that needs
to automatically be associated and
included into the next year's budget
2027.
>> We borrowed from ourselves.
» We borrowed from ourselves.
>> Exactly.
» Exactly.
>> That's that's okay.
» That's that's okay.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Good. Any other comments
» Good. Any other comments
>> on this part? So I'm just going to come
» on this part? So I'm just going to come
back to councelor Trim's points then on
the division of the capital funds and I
know um it it is a discussion that we
need to have
and uh I for one am in favor of
increasing the amount of roads. Roads is
our number one strategic priority. It's
it's a key function. It's not the only
one. It can't be the only thing we fund,
but just on our experience we've had
with the debate on Zion and and
Government Road, we know we don't set
enough money aside for this. Maybe we
need to change the scope, the width of
the roads, all these other kind of
factors. Um, but bottom line, there's
still not enough money to do the 130 km
of DST and 50 km of ashvalt that we have
in the township. Um however I am loathed
to make these changes today on 2026
budget. That means that as an example
the point councelor Moore just said we'd
be taking money out of the vehicle
allocation either unfunding it or
reallocating it from somewhere else.
You're we'd be pushing it back to staff
to go back probably take at least a week
if not more. the CEO was like, but it
would take time for them to go back and
rejig it. Uh, that's my thought on it,
but this is a committee and so we need
to we need to come up with a consensus
on it.
Councelor Bell.
>> Yeah, just my understanding on it was
» Yeah, just my understanding on it was
these are the percentages that we have
laid out for this year, but going along
with the five-year projections, that's
how we can manipulate this moving
forward. So I think I was comfortable
with these percentages the way it was
laid out in the previous presentations.
Um knowing that these discussions are
moving forward as it pertains to that
5-year projection and how we make that
how we how we want to to make this look
moving forward. So, I'm comfortable with
the percentages as they're laid out and
uh how it's been presented to us before
knowing that these are up for discussion
moving forward.
>> Other feedback.
» Other feedback.
I'll go to the treasurer.
>> Yeah, I'm just going to make one note
» Yeah, I'm just going to make one note
that the other side too is whenever we
present and bring forward the the 2026
asset management plan, it's going to
have a financing schedule in it for the
next 10 years. So like the the budget
committee is and is going to have a lot
of input into that. So that's where the
new amounts will be set out. It may not
be a straight 50%. It might look like
54% just based on the number of assets
and how the funding works in order to
maintain set level of service because
that's the goal of the asset management
plan is supposed to council dictates the
level of service that wants to be
achieved and the assets that want to be
uh included in that in that asset
management plan. level service up, level
service down. That was where that sits.
And then they take that and they come
back with the funding method of how to
fund it because we can't have unfunded
assets and still maintain level service
because you're not. So they have to come
back to that number. So then whenever
they come back, that's where this is our
first attempt without the finalized
document of putting it. But whenever we
come into 2026 and they present that
capital plan, it has to fund everything.
So it's going to show a breakdown and
here's the deficits in such categories
and the the downfalls of assets and then
things will tie from there as to the the
percentages. So this is our first
attempt at it from a staff level. The
consultants input will will make that
change number change again. Even if we
were to change it to 60% now, it could
technically change again to say 75%.
Just throwing it out there of a of a
number that they that the consultant
recommends in order to maintain whatever
asset is deemed as the most important.
Oh,
>> now it's turned green. Sorry, I went
» now it's turned green. Sorry, I went
from flashing red to green. I wrecked
clerk's microphone.
» Okay. Thank you, treasure. Um,
any other comments with respect to
councelor Trim's proposal? because I
will highlight one other thing
is that when you go into the other
tables that are listed in here, the land
improvements, the the vehicles, the
equipment, the buildings,
if you were to lean forward, like if
you're of the opinion, oh, I think we
should go roads to 60% and cut these
other ones, but maybe we don't have time
to do that for 2026,
you could suggest that some of these uh
projects
be not be not be done this year and just
keep that money in a reserve in that
category
pending a future decision. That that is
that is one way to look at it um to to
meet your intent without having to rejig
everything. So you could put a pause on
something if that was something you
wanted to do. and and and again it may
not be a decision that we need to take
today
but we could come back to
good. So with that, councelor Trim,
what's your thought? Are you okay with
an approach of 2027 for reallocation of
the percentages?
>> Uh yes, that is a very good compromise.
» Uh yes, that is a very good compromise.
Uh you know, and I'm just thinking just
off the top of my head, playground
equipment that gets us very close to the
10%. It's good a good way to the pathway
to the 10%. Uh I I'm not saying it's not
important. All of this stuff is
important. The staff spent a lot of time
on on this and every single one is
important, but we got to get some kind
of priority going here and uh uh
and and we've got to get more money to
roads. Um because everybody needs roads
and I'm just wondering if I I don't know
the situation here in common that well
but school has playground equipment uh
maybe in in West Me the kids play in the
schoolyard uh on the equipment and so
for a different situation I understand
but uh we got to do something different
Lee and uh so That's a wonderful
suggestion, Mr. Mayor. It seems like a
good compromise. Um, so thank you for
that.
>> Good. Is there any other feedback and
» Good. Is there any other feedback and
anyone else on any of these projects
listed?
>> So this the the recommendation I throw
» So this the the recommendation I throw
to staff on this is that as part of our
future budget committee meetings, we
will examine the reallocation even if it
is temporary to a future AM that could
come higher. I think it's worthwhile us
going through the exercise
and if staff if there are projects that
we they may be the that may that may
that may be impacted by a change in
percentage allocation maybe we can put
those up as potential discussion points
at a future budget committee meeting.
>> Is that fair CEO? Yeah, I think it's I
» Is that fair CEO? Yeah, I think it's I
think it's noted and I mean the the the
challenge we're having is that there's
the the capital investment that we're
making is not enough to support our
assets period. So at some point we have
to decide what is our priority what are
our priority areas and we need to move
forward with that. So the budget
committee could deliberate on that uh
moving forward and including the
reallocation and uh maybe the rep
prioritization of projects for 2026. I
think the strategy is is makes sense
moving forward. Let's let's adopt and
then uh consider it in the next couple
months. Thanks.
>> It's good fair approach. This the the
» It's good fair approach. This the the
only other point I'll make um for those
people that might be watching is the
Lacqua Bay road design and and please
manager Claroo if I've got this wrong,
but the reason we need to have that
significant investment in that road
design is because of the storm water
underneath it.
So it has storm water systems underneath
it and therefore it needs an engineering
component. Is that correct? Am I hitting
that on the
>> That's correct. Part of it. Um there
» That's correct. Part of it. Um there
also it is an urban section. Um so
there's
sidewalks and gutters and the whole how
it fits in designwise. Um it's not like
a a rural section that we can do in
house.
>> Yeah. Good. So again, just an important
» Yeah. Good. So again, just an important
some of the roads in our communities
have got these requirements that exceed
the typical rural design requirements.
>> Good. Yeah. Councelor White,
» Good. Yeah. Councelor White,
>> Laqua Bay Road, isn't that the one that
» Laqua Bay Road, isn't that the one that
comes off of
>> Gord?
» Gord?
>> Yeah, but doesn't it? And it goes all
» Yeah, but doesn't it? And it goes all
the way down and
>> down to Greenway.
» down to Greenway.
>> Oh, is that Greenway there?
» Oh, is that Greenway there?
>> Goes down to Greenway. Yeah.
» Goes down to Greenway. Yeah.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah.
» Oh, yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Pause. Now I think the the 50,000 is
» Pause. Now I think the the 50,000 is
specifically for the the urban component
which is within LAS. Is that correct?
Yeah.
>> Right.
» Right.
Good. All right. Well, keep moving then.
>> Capital projections and and again please
» Capital projections and and again please
treasur just highlight what you think
are the changes or issues that you need
to raise publicly.
>> We'll do uh so yeah capital projections.
» We'll do uh so yeah capital projections.
So the first one I roll into is
debentures and debt. We kind of did a
little bit of a reallocation here of the
the slides. Um the only reason we bring
this forward is because I always want to
show what the debenture is and because
there is a debenture on the books that
will be added because we're doing
Crawford Street. I wanted to note this.
So uh currently the the million4,000
uh for our total payment for the
taxation is listed there and those are
the debentures that we currently have on
the books. Uh you'll see that in 2026 is
the last year for two of them. So
there's uh $100,000 worth of technically
debenture payment room that will be re
recouped by the township um which will
roll into the new debenture uh for lack
of a better term in the 2027 for the uh
the debenture on Crawford Street.
Uh this is a slide to show our total
debentures and the only reason I show
this here because it shows water and
wastewater as well um is to the next
slide for estimated annual payment
limit. Um, so I did some quick math
based on what the project that we're
looking at for Crawford,
uh, at this point in time, uh, the
current rate if we did 20 years, which
is what the water wastewater study
originally planned as. So I'm using
those kind of same, uh, pieces. So
anybody looking between the documents
has a similar yearing. Uh, so right now
uh, amortization is 4.52%.
He's on the loan value. Uh so you can
see here it'd be one of the highest uh
loans shy of the Cobden Halealley water
treatment plant. However, the rates have
gone up and gone down a lot uh recently.
Um so by the time we actually close this
debenture, which would be early 2027, um
hard to predict what the rates will be
then, but likely not higher than than
what we're currently projecting.
Uh so the total annual payment including
the water and wastewater portion um
would be $145,182
uh because the do total debenture is uh
around $1.92 million
uh to to fund that project. Um so then
the uh total interest um over the term
of the loan because I always want to
stipulate this out there for the public
side. uh it looks at about a million
dollars of added interest over the 20
years.
So the next thing under the projection
side we flow into assumptions. Um so in
doing the assumptions uh then this is to
create the operating uh capital or
operating uh projection for 5 years as
well as tie into the capital side uh to
show that 3.4% and then uh where our
affordability factors come in. Uh so our
assumptions is 2% uh the increased
capital levy to continue at the 4.2%
until the affordability limit is reached
and then 1% thereafter to maintain fund
uh that was a stipulation uh from the
mayor's uh side after whenever we reach
that 3.4%. uh assessment growth of 1% uh
median income growth at 1% uh county
levy increase capped at around four or
projected at 4.5%. And then the
education levy which at 0% which is what
has been traditionally uh its rate
increase over the last five years. So uh
the likelihood of it actually changing
is uh unlikely at this point in time uh
just based on uh just history. So the
capital and operating 2027 to 2030 uh
shows operating revenue more or less
stays the same uh due to the fact that
things go up and things go down in
different categories but the net
difference is normally uh the same. Uh
operating expenses uh they are
increasing based on those assumptions.
So you see $9.4 million for 2027, 9.5
for 2028, 9.729 and then 9.8 for 2030.
Uh so then it creates the operating levy
required and the capital levy required.
So you'll see the total levy is the uh
second from the bottom uh row. So $ 8.7
million is what 2027 would be. 2028
would be 9.13143.
Uh 9.378 for 2029 and 2030 would be
9.618. Uh so we reached the 3.4% 4% um
affordability factor in 2028 and then
with that 1% and then the just general
CPI needed growth uh or increase
required for the operating uh brings us
to 3.44 for 29 and 3.48 for 2030. Um so
that's barebone increases but no
substantial increases where all we're
doing is maintaining levels of service
at that point in time.
So on those uh five-year budget
forecasts and awareness um I'll mention
to you to refer to the documents that
was provided to you. So there was an
operating document um as well as our
capital list uh the water and then the
wastewater uh and it all includes the
5-year budget forecast. It's this big
one that everybody has. Um so it goes
through again it's unfunded um because
due to the lack of overall funds and the
the allocation as uh councelor trim
noted uh which couldn't change that's
where that part um staff made a list of
projects but in order to actually fund
them the priorities need to be set by
council. Um so our overall constraints
uh limited re revenue generated by the
3.4 for ability thresh affordability
threshold uh overall incre increasing
replacement values of assets our core
infrastructure infrastructure and
supplemental stuff um that is required
to maintain but it's not the the actual
infrastructure uh deteriorating overall
asset conditions uh as the years pro
progress before things can be replaced
they deteriorate to such a point um that
they can't be renewed they have to be
replaced and that's one of the one of
the the issue the constraints
Um the manager mentioned it already
about Brumal line being one of those one
of such roads where it's the it
deteriorates too fast that it can't be
renewed. It has to be fully replaced. Um
increasing levels of service
expectations. Um so that kind of ties
into the uh active transportation piece
where the wider road is one of the
expectations and then to to tie into
that and then the other piece is the
clear direction from the council
strategic direction uh to prioritize
infrastructure investment in core asset
renewal uh rather than all assets. Uh
understand current and future needs and
provide resolutions on key facilities.
Uh and we say facilities we don't just
mean arenas, there's fire halls, there's
public works, garages there. it's all
all facilities as a whole. Uh and then
understand resident expected levels of
service and their delivery.
Um I brought this slide back in again
just to show where we were talking about
that that invisible glass ceiling as you
might say of where 3.4% comes in and
where we kind of we start pushing past
that um with capital growth. So we cap
out around $1.8.9 8 1.9 million
um of overall taxation which can be
funded towards capital. So as soon as we
hit that that top end threshold, it
would then be allocated based on the
percentages and that would be the it for
the the future if we wanted to hold to
that 3.4.
Um so next steps um so it's continue the
development of the 10-year uh capital
plan based on the funding uh and the
2026 ashman asset management plan with
the budget committee. uh finalize the
asset management plan with the support
of Dylan consultant. Um examine policies
to um guide financial decisions and
infrastructure. So the ones that staff
have noted so far is amend the reserve
policy, the tangible capital asset
policy and the surplus equipment
disposal policy and then adopt two new
policies. Uh these are just the main
ones noted is the venture policy and
investment policy. Um I can give a quick
thing. The reserve policy is looking to
create uh what we have currently have
one but it doesn't stipulate what
amounts should be in reserves. Uh so it
would be to create that that piece of
what the com the municipality and the is
comfortable in having in reserve to plan
for emergencies or plan for future uh
future projects. Tangible capital asset
is the length of time we actually hold
on to an asset before we uh end the its
service life its useful life and
amortize it down over the over the
period. And then the surplus equipment
disposal policy would be looking to uh
have something uh in that policy of what
happens more with more dictates what
happens with the revenue that's received
whenever we sell such assets uh where
it's dictated back. Uh the debenture
policy would be what can actually be
eligible for a debenture where right now
we have debentures for equipment, we
have debentures for a road of all sorts.
We have debentures for so it it would
stipulate what qualifies what value
qualifies and what asset actually
qualifies for a debenture and which ones
we have to council has to always fund
100% via taxation it it would make it
ineligible for a debenture and just due
to its life expectancy and that which
ties in again to the TCA policy the
tangible capital asset and the last one
is investment policy um and this was one
I' I've added to the list uh due to the
fact that in the years whenever we don't
use said money um for a certain capital
asset. Do we invest that money in a
certain way and make money on our money?
That's the the goal of of uh this policy
is to try and maximize the taxpayers's
dollar. Um, right now we're not in a
situation where we can do in this, but
it'd be good to have it ahead of time to
kind of dictate if we start to build
reserve funds and balances into the
future, but they're not needed for say 5
years that we start looking at an
investment portion of that in order to
use it. Um, same thing with uh and what
as an eligible investment.
Any questions?
>> Thank you, treasurer. Is there any
» Thank you, treasurer. Is there any
questions or comments from council on
this section? Yeah, councelor White.
>> Just out of curiosity. Um I know you
» Just out of curiosity. Um I know you
have an investment policy, but can we
invest our taxpayers money if but what
if we lose it all?
>> So there's a mandated uh what we're
» So there's a mandated uh what we're
allowed to actually invest in. So
there's a qualified list and we're not
we can't it's but you can't invest in
the stock market. It's it's all secured.
It's just the term of said secure said
security as in um whether we go a
certain level and whether then if cash
flows were fall below a certain level do
we borrow in between that point in time
like the it's the the what stipulates
that of how long do we have to have a
projection for for cash flows at x
dollars and how much can we put forward
and like what's our level of risk more
or less is what it stipulates.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Right. So, if we've got a million
» Right. So, if we've got a million
dollars in our working capital and we it
sits there earning on a checking
account, we could be using it to make
more money for future purposes. That's
But there's a bunch of guidelines that
have to be established for that. Yeah.
Look at Council Homestead. His eyes just
got really big.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> 4.2% on cash.
» 4.2% on cash.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
And but the problem is is that we're not
in a position now. We're still trying to
figure out how to fund a road. Uh
once we get once we get out of the
woods, we can start to to really make
really some sound decisions financially.
Is there any other comments on this
section? Councelor Mstead. Yeah, just
back I know it's it's semantics, but
just on um slide 47,
I I know you went through that pretty
quickly and I I I saw a lot of uh a lot
of confusing looks on it. Just a couple
of uh changes to the titles if you would
and I think it just going forward to
clear up some um understanding of the
slide.
>> Um so just down at the bottom there are
» Um so just down at the bottom there are
debt charges. Do you mind calling that
current debt charges or current Yeah.
>> current debt?
» current debt?
>> Yep.
» Yep.
>> And then on estimated ARIRL,
» And then on estimated ARIRL,
uh can we can we term that um estimated
ARIRL remaining?
>> Yep.
» Yep.
>> So just so council understands that the
» So just so council understands that the
debt charges so that 1.5 million is what
our current uh payments are including
principal and interest. And so it means
that we have $1.69 69 million remaining
that we could in in payments that we
could take on. So, uh, and if I don't
know, yeah, I don't want to add an extra
column, but it basically we're paying
about 12.5% of our, uh, of the 25%. So,
we're paying about half the the limit
that we're allowed right now. So, it
means we have a lot of room. Not that
you want to go out on a spending spree,
but we're in good shape on this this
particular slide. But I think I just did
a clarify um if we just change those
descriptions a little bit at the bottom.
>> Noted.
» Noted.
>> There's a lot of numbers on that page so
» There's a lot of numbers on that page so
it kind of gets gets lost.
>> Noted. Um the other thing I will note
» Noted. Um the other thing I will note
too is that they this is based on the
ministries's um
request and that's why like you'll see
total revenue SLC 1099. That's the
actual code that comes off their page
and that's where I pulled this
originally from. Um, we've received this
through the FIR every year. 25% is where
they set it as of the net revenues less
all their grants. A lot of local
municipalities who are bringing in their
debt policies also put in a new limit,
not the 25%. I've seen 15%, I've seen
20% uh kind of goes between the two
because the idea is that you leave that
either 5% or that last 10% for emergency
purposes. So, it's not on just a general
project that you're doing, say an arena,
that you're able to borrow that that the
money and have that repayment limit that
you top out your debenture limit. Uh,
like similar municipal, some other
municipalities can go to the point where
they've maxed out their debenture limit,
then get an emergency project that they
have no way to fund. You have to get
special permission from the ministry in
order to go over this limit and it it
puts a lot of constraints on it and then
it also affects the overall financial
stability of the municipality. So that's
why a lot of municipalities put in their
own limit a lower to leave a a limit
opening. Um and the other piece I didn't
speak about and I should have is this is
the annual overpayment limit. So it's
the payment on the loan. It's not the
total amount we can borrow. So whenever
it says 1.69 69 million if we were to
say 20 years uh of a debenture
going to do some rough math here in my
head about say 4 and a.5% I think that
worked out to be
10 or 15 or $18 million I think but
don't quote me but that's like we could
borrow at set amount of dollars that's
the total amount that we have to pay
every year is the the 1.69 69 million.
So that's our payment every year. Um
like all of the ventures we have right
now, actually I'll go back up one. Right
now we have $13 million on the books and
we pay 1.5 towards that.
So that $13 million equates to our ARIRL
of having a 1.5 million. Um but there's
a lot of different rates in there. So if
we were to do that again, more or less
it's double again. And so yeah, it'd be
about $15 million potentially that we
could borrow and then it would top out
our limit at the at the 25% category. So
that's our room at this point in time.
Um the only thing I stipulate is I'm
using that number, but some of these
deventures are 10-year deventures. So
the the repayment amount is higher. Some
of them are are 30-year deventures. So
like a lot of factors come into it and I
can bring that back to council whenever
I do the venture policy of saying what
that limit equals and what how much
money we could borrow uh just as an
information for council but uh in a
future date
>> government like like banks seem like
» government like like banks seem like
they want you in debt
and in fact part of that's true because
when we apply for grants it's important
that uh you show that you more or less
need the grant. So, if you don't have
any like if you don't have the $ 1.5
million in debt charges, you're probably
not going to acquire some grants, right?
Because they're saying you can pay for
it yourself. So,
>> it's a game.
» it's a game.
>> Yep. Exactly.
» Yep. Exactly.
>> Good. Um any other questions on this
» Good. Um any other questions on this
one? Yeah, Councelor Trim.
>> Yes. Just quickly on um page 25, I guess
» Yes. Just quickly on um page 25, I guess
slide 50, the last um the last bullet at
the bottom, clear direction
um from council to staff. And I think uh
that that's a reminder for me from now
on because uh we gave direction um at
two staff and I guess it was clear about
active transportation and I don't know
what I was thinking. We can't afford
active transportation. So, uh, we've got
to be careful about what we ask council,
uh, a ask staff to do.
>> I've got to be very, very careful. So,
» just to be clear, because I heard some
murmurings. I think that was the
previous term that gave the direction of
the act of transportation. Councelor
Tabard, you're off. Councilor Trim,
you're off. Councelor Bell, you weren't
here for it. Uh, but it is. You make the
point. It's valid. We have to put a lens
of affordability
on each decision that we take. There is
no easy decision where somebody else
just going to pay for it in the future.
Good. Councelor Trim. Sorry. Yes. I know
it was I wasn't here, but I was being
kind because I probably have made those
decisions in the past. So,
>> good. Any other comments? Okay. I just
» good. Any other comments? Okay. I just
have a couple on this one and I
apologize but just to set the framework
going forward slide 49 when we talk
about capital and operating uh and this
is really the the operating portion
this is a this is a wonderful slide it
looks the numbers all match up and
balance beautifully but we are
constraining the operating for the next
5 years we have squeezed the operating
to basically
fall behind a little bit every year yes
it's CPI indexed Yes, there's a little
1% growth, but we're we're talking about
someone comes to us and says, "Hey, can
we pick up can we do a large item pickup
for there's no money like there's no
room and we've done that on purpose and
put all of them all of the taxes that we
raise are going into capital.
So, we may we may get through the
capital portion of the discussion for
the five-year plan, but at at the end of
that, we we we have a responsibility to
go back and say, is this really
realistic for for operating or are there
other things we need to consider for
operating? So, staff have put the work
into this, but the implications are
we've really squeezed the operating.
Fair. Yeah. Councelor Trim.
>> Yes. And that translates into
» Yes. And that translates into
maintenance. And um I I I don't want to
exaggerate here, but we seem to have a
default way of making decisions.
We squeeze operating so that we're not
doing maintenance and then an asset
fails and then our decision is made. We
can't replace the asset so it's failed.
So it's gone and uh then nobody can be
mad at us. I think the better strategy
strategy would be to get rid of the
asset and stop paying maintenance and
then we uh we have more money for
capital.
>> Yeah. Or operating in some cases.
» Yeah. Or operating in some cases.
>> Good. Okay. I just framed that and I
» Good. Okay. I just framed that and I
know CEO was like, "Oh, good. He's
realizing this." Okay. Good. Uh the
other comment I'll make is just on the
5-year forecast. So this beautiful
document that the uh treasurer put a lot
of effort into is a very valuable one um
to take a look at but there is good news
in it
I think and treasurer please correct me
the last page the one that talks about
water and wastewater it does balance
it does because the uh actual amounts
that go forward all the projects that
have been listed in there based on the
water wastewater study again that's the
what we're going to be going for for the
asset management plan for all other
assets. They had to create a fin a
financing plan that makes it finance our
assets. And that's what Watson has done
in that part. I've done a few little
tweaks to it, but otherwise that's why
it it balances out because they that's
why water will see 5% increase for the
next 10 years. That's why wastewater
will see an increase of 3% for the next
two then down sorry yep 3% then down to
two sorry 4% then down to 3% then down
to 2%. and they staggered that in as to
the projects because we listed the main
projects that need to be done, inflated
them up, then put them into the year
that they need to be paid for and that's
how that that document came to exist.
So, good news, we do have the work done
on water and wastewater. And we know
that that's been,
you know, a result of the circumstances
that we're working through with
wastewater right now. But we do have it
done. We know we can do it. We've done
it for two very complicated asset
classes. We just have the remainder now
to do. Um and and that's what I think
our budget committee is going to really
bite off in the coming months.
>> Good. If there's no other comments then
» Good. If there's no other comments then
we will go we'll keep going on. If you
can do a quick summary of the slides as
you go through please.
>> We'll do. Uh so this slide has not
» We'll do. Uh so this slide has not
changed from prior because there is no
change in the actual overall rate still
at the 5.8. Um, so an estimated effect
on taxes.
Uh, so for $100,000 assessment, you'd be
looking at an increase of $44.71.
Uh, median singingle family detached
179. I realized I should have updated
this slide to the 182. My mistake. Um,
to to match what the affordability side
said, but so it's increase of $804.
Uh, and then we'll flow into water and
waste water.
>> Oh, sorry. Just pause there for a
» Oh, sorry. Just pause there for a
second. And sorry, and I'm doomsday
today, so I'm not feeling
glass half full. Uh that 14 $173 that
we're talking about lower tier taxation
on our $170,000 house,
that only represents 47% of the property
tax we collect from that house
because that's only the lower tier
portion. So we're asking the owner of
that $170,000 home. Okay? So, please
correct the numbers, but make the point,
please.
>> Sorry. Yeah. Uh, not 47. It would be the
» Sorry. Yeah. Uh, not 47. It would be the
47 plus the nine because policing is
included in this.
>> Yeah. Sorry.
» Yeah. Sorry.
>> 56%.
» 56%.
>> You got it. 56%.
» You got it. 56%.
But you can see the the affordability
piece that 17 $179,000 home is going to
be paying
essentially double that. $3,000 plus
water plus waste water plus
uh waste pickup plus recycling if they
got a small business there.
Good.
Keep going please. Thank you.
Um so I'm going to water race
wastewater. Do we want when did you want
to bring back the uh councelor Mo's
comment about gravel? Did you want to
still do it within this portion or do
you want me to wait till the end?
>> Let's get this PowerPoint done please.
» Let's get this PowerPoint done please.
We'll do uh so water wastewater uh so
here's the pieces with the water so
water is 5% uh wastewater increase is
4%. And this is actually the slide I was
trying to come from memory. Um so for
the rates so we did our new water
wastewater study in 2026
uh or 2025 sorry and it presented from
2026 onward. Uh so we're matching the wa
the race rate studies for both uh 4% for
water for waste water and then 5% for
water and you'll see projected out for
the next 10 years from 2027 to 2034 it's
5% annually for water. uh and then we
would recommend the exact same thing.
And then for uh wastewater it's 4% uh I
believe that goes to 2027 then it turns
to 3% from 28 29 and then 2030 to 2034
is 2%. uh and we would aim to match that
that same amount uh going forward uh
because the the um assets are funded and
financed uh as long as capital projects
and things like that hold within the
inflated values that have been that have
been set out.
Um this is just a quick slide to show
what debentures are currently on the
books. So in water and wastewater uh our
2026 total payment is $525,000. So, of
the money that we collect from from the
residents for all these systems, we pay
$525,000 of that back to, in this
instance, the province for the
debentures that we've taken out. Um,
because the total ending balance is a
little over $7 million.
Uh so the water rates for 2026
uh effective January 1 would be 1,268.96
uh total increase of $6043.
Uh billing change of $107 and a monthly
change of 504. Uh then small commercial,
medium commercial, all have seen the
same uh 5% increase. The newest category
in here which was uh proposed by the
Watson study uh for the 2026 year is the
high commercial tier 2 um which would
account for uh $12,68957
annually.
Uh these are the projects that are
projected for 2026. Uh there's no
changes here from the original uh
presentation. Uh the debenture would go
to uh the Crawford Street. Um annual
payment around uh $56,000
um on the water side. Uh water meters
would be installed uh fully funded
through OSF uh based on last year's uh
2025's uh contribution from OSF as well
as the this current year. Uh beachwork
water main fully funded from our reser
from our reserves.
Uh and then the cob water treatment
plant would receive uh uh one one thing
of $20,000. And then the the leak
detector and uh frequency locator under
the lines would be 12,515,000.
Uh those are all user fee financed. Uh
wastewater uh they would see the 4%
increase. Uh so it goes from 195878
to 23713. So it's a total increase for
the annually of $78.35.
Billing is 1306. When I say billing,
that's every two months. Uh and then
monthly change is $653.
And again, tier 2 was the recommendation
uh from Watson's uh through the the
consultant the rate study is 20,37131
uh for the annual cost. Uh there's only
one project that's looked at for the
wastewater treatment plant at this point
in time. It's the centerfuge pump. Um a
replacement cost of 58,500 and it's
financed through user fees for the year.
So here's the combined cost. Uh so this
is resident Cobden uh specific. Um
residential would be $3,369.
So a total increase of $13878 or billing
increase of 2313. And then high
commercial uh would be a total cost of
tier two of would be a cost of $33,60.88
88
or annual or a billing ch increase of
4,45418.
So this is a slide that the mayor was
kind of not noting to before. Um so this
one is based off $182,000 assessment. Um
so you'll see the first column is
municipal and tax uh includes municipal,
county, and tax portions. So it's 22 uh
262188.
It's for 2026. uh increase of 13440 over
2025
uh monthly change of 1120 and this is
where the 3.23 is where we're currently
sitting. I will note this does not
include the garbage charge. This is
taxation based taxation water and
wastewater uh is only the things noted
here. Um so then the municipal county
taxation and water. So our Beachburg and
Haley's properties would look at a bill
total for the year if their assessment
is 182,000 of $3,890.84 84 cents
increase of 1948 83. Uh so they're
sitting about a 5% affordability factor.
And then the last one would be our
Cobden residents again $182,000 property
be looking about 5,92797.
So it's a total increase of $273.18.
Uh and then the affordability sitting at
7.52. And then my next slide is
questions. So before that,
>> good questions on water wastewater from
» good questions on water wastewater from
council.
» Yes, deputy mayor.
>> Thank you. Um the high commercial tier 2
» Thank you. Um the high commercial tier 2
uh sorry 161. What um you go from 3,900
to 20,000. What is that? I I'm confused.
So the tier everybody used to be under
high commercial which was two times the
residential rate. Um through the Watson
study there was certain businesses that
were noted that use substantially more
water than just two times what a uh a
regular residential unit uses. Um so
this new rate was proposed uh to be
implemented into this budget and would
be passed through this council and the
the council uh when it actually comes to
council with through the user fee bylaw
to be 10 times the rate. So whenever I
say 2025 uh that's why both amounts are
the same. So if you're on slide 63 for
example
um both in 2025 I have both the
commercials tier 1 and tier 2 is the
same amount the 633580
um 2026 rate sees the tier one just get
its standard uh increase of about 4 and
a half%. The tier 2 actually implements
the 10 times rate b of the 10 times the
residential rate. So you'll notice the
residential rate for the year is 336. So
10 times that is the 33,6088.
Um so it affects uh stipulated through
the um whenever the the
report was um approved
um the areas are arenas. So part of it
affects the the municipality itself. our
two arenas fall into this category as
well as uh two business categories at
this point in time are are tied into
this this amount. Um one here in Cobden
and then one in Beachburg at this point
in time and that those are the
categories that fall in. Uh other major
businesses are on meters and then that's
where the commercial meters are put in.
um so that whenever we install those
meters come 2027 hopefully uh once we
have the data re received we can start
implementing based on the actual usage
they have rather than uh estimates based
on uh the consultants uh work. So this
is kind of the stepping stone to that
next step of implementing those those
meters uh because there's certain
businesses that use that substantial
amount of water.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Any other questions on water wastewater?
» Any other questions on water wastewater?
Yeah, councelor Moore,
>> just in keeping with that same chart on
» just in keeping with that same chart on
63, the one that's there. Um,
on this list, what will be me metered
this year? Will it be small commercial,
medium commercial, high?
>> What about the multi-residential? Will
» What about the multi-residential? Will
it be going metered?
>> No. So, at this point in time, the
» No. So, at this point in time, the
>> just commercial.
» just commercial.
>> Just commercial. Yep.
» Just commercial. Yep.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Good. Any other questions?
Good. The only point I'll make is that
uh
when you take a look at that wonderful
chart that talks about uh 5%
if you're on water and 7.52%
affordability for those that are on Oh
yeah, thank you. on uh water and
wastewater. Uh we're continuing to work
both of these cases through advocacy. We
have another uh delegation with Ministry
of of Infrastructure. I think this will
be my seventh on the topic of water and
wastewater. Uh they're continuing to
receive our delegation. So that is a
positive note. Um we're working with FCM
and AMO L so that we're not just putting
these figures out and saying, "Oh gosh,
just live with it." We are doing
everything within our power to pull
whatever lever is out there to try to
provide some relief. Uh and as soon as
we know more information, we'll be able
to share it.
Good.
Okay. Uh
at that point, let's go back to
councelor Moore's uh question. Let's
talk about gravel for a moment. And uh I
I think what we had in a previous
committee meeting was a was a point that
was included in a cart alakart option to
increase the number of kilometers that
we redo of gravel roads each year. Right
now the program is 10. um could we go
higher than 10 kilometers in a year?
What would that cost? So, treasurer, can
I hand the floor over to you and just
take that?
>> Sure. Sure. Um so, the original alocart
» Sure. Sure. Um so, the original alocart
piece um noted it was $60,000 in order
to bring it from the current cycle time
of 15 years down to back to the 10-year
period. Uh $60,000 equals a.77%
increase to our overall budget. Um so,
in order to implement that, so the 5.8%
8% would effectively become 6.57 should
that be uh implemented as one lump sum
into the year uh or some other variation
of that. Um that's that would be the way
to bring the program back to the the
10-year recirculation back to uh for
graph roads.
» I'm in full agreement with that. Um, the
last couple of, as I said previously,
the last couple of rainstorms we've had,
like we're getting a lot of complaints
because the soup's the roads turning
into soup and we can't do anything with
it as long as it stays soup. So, if we
could initiate this program today to
start doing more roads with fresh
gravel, uh, we should alleviate some of
that soupness and unable to even grade
at that point. So, if if what councelor
Trim stated before about increasing our
our money for our roads that this would
be a good place to start.
Any other comments from anyone else.
So, I'm not in disagreement with uh with
what you're saying, councelor Moore. I I
hesitate to increase taxation to achieve
it. treasurer, CEO, could you offer
other ways that funding could be found
or what considerations council could
have if we wanted to rep prioritize
funds into gravel?
And from a council perspective, if
you're thinking of a a a lower priority
item that we've already discussed, you
could bring it forward as well. Yeah, I
I'm I'm just like I'm trying to process
whether or not we increase the levy for
the purposes of gravel roads when we
know very well we you know there's not
only gravel roads, there's DST roads and
there's ashalt roads and this whole
complexity. Um would it benefit
uh the replacement of assets if we
increase to the 7% specifically for
capital or or gravel roads? I mean
certainly we we'd get ahead but I don't
think we're that much further ahead. So
um aside from just that note like I mean
out of like can we rep prioritize
operating expenses at this stage? I mean
we'd have to do some more investigation
but I I would the answer is really no. I
was just messaging our our manager just
because we're talking water meters.
We're talking Beachburg water main. We
have a water project underway in
Beachburg. We have Crawford. We have
gravel road program. We have government
road like that alone for the department
is is a lot of work. I mean that's a lot
of work. Um and the success I mean the
the human resources applied to that. I'm
not sure like I am confident that we'll
probably achieve it but it's going to be
a lot of work. It's going to be a lot of
time a lot of commitment. So I mean if
we keep doing more work how do we apply
the human resources and needed to
support that work? So, I I'm just I I'm
having a hard time just processing and
figuring out what would be the best
approach, but um
yeah, I don't know. I mean, I'd pass it
over to my treasurer or manager or any
other managers to provide additional
input by all means.
» Yeah, I would just echo the the CEO's
point of it'd be hard to integrate it
into the current budget to not have an
increase like associated to it. Um, one
of the only things that uh we had kind
of looked at uh from a management
standpoint is um potentially like
phasing it in over years instead of
going right from like adding the full
$60,000 in one year to going say $20,000
per year or something like that of
instead of seeing as big of an increase
to the overall budget. Um it still would
be a very hard amount to integrate into
the budget because we have the operating
budget to the most point I would say is
bare bones. um meets the level of
service. You start trying to pull out of
some other area to fund this one to a
higher level, you're going to see a
decreased level of service that council
would have to approve in some other
category. Whether it be within the road
budget that something else gets adjusted
to adjust more to cap to the the gravel
roads program or whether it's another
budget line item. Um right now we're
able to meet meet the uh the current
levels of service. any changes to to
decrease those areas to fund this would
see a decrease in those levels of
service in order to more or less
increase this level of service
currently.
>> If I could through you the mayor is uh
» If I could through you the mayor is uh
not to postpone the discussion of
increasing tax. I think we're at I mean
from my perspective we're at a point
where I think the budget as presented
today at the 5.8% is is generally
palpitable by council. Uh perhaps the we
we just leave it with staff to analyze
the what's the $30,000 is what you
mentioned $20,000
um as part of our deliberations
with the budget committee with the
projections other priorities and and all
of these other things. Um and if there's
a decision to um increase to that
$20,000 we could do so as part of our
tax rate implementation. uh not the best
approach but it is a mechanism by which
we could we could look at that and then
also maybe we look at perhaps it's rep
prioritizing other other projects I'm
not sure but just so we could keep the
progress of the budget discussion moving
forward but if that's acceptable to
yourself mayor and through the mover
that'd be great
>> council more and just a comment on that
» council more and just a comment on that
and and and I understand what you're
saying um but with the current rate of
graveling roads every 15 years. What
happens to inflation and how much gravel
are we losing because we haven't
increased the rate of pay per se into
that GL account and we're going
backwards not forwards. So in keeping
with what councelor Trim suggested that
we add more money to the roads budget um
I think this should take part of that
conversation when it comes up at next
budget.
Okay. Thank you.
So I'll just add to that before we throw
it back to staff or any other member of
council is the I think the approach is
that gravel we have to recognize gravel
as a unique item although it's
classified as an operating expense. I
think from a from a council directive
from a level of service perspective we
need to consider it a capital asset. I
know that's going to mess with the
treasurer's charts. you. I'm sure you'll
figure out a way to, but I think we put
it on the agenda for the budget
committee to consider as part of the
five-year plan. Um, we can explore to
see if there might be a rep
prioritization. I like the idea of
phasing something in. Um, but I don't
think I'm not prepared to increase the
the uh the the budget at this point in
time. I don't know if there's any
appetite for council to consider that.
None. Okay, good. Is there anybody wants
to make a comment to that before I open
up to staff? Councilor Mstead.
>> Yeah, completely in agreement with you,
» Yeah, completely in agreement with you,
Mayor. Um, and the the other um
issue is weather. We can't control
weather. I'm I'm looking here. It's plus
three outside. It's January 14th. I
think it's the 14th. And it's plus three
outside. Yesterday was plus 4. Uh, and
we've had probably 10
thaw freeze cycles. My my lane was the
same thing. It It's a mess. and I've got
a good laneway. So, it's sometimes no
matter how much material you throw at
it, it's just the weather doesn't
cooperate. So, the surface is terrible.
But, uh I'm going to agree. I don't
think we touched the budget. Thank you.
>> Other members of council before I open
» Other members of council before I open
up to staff, I saw manager public works.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Uh uh I'm councilstead.
» Yeah. Thank you. Uh uh I'm councilstead.
The one I think what hot it's on our
topic because last fall was we had a
more of a unique situation and we're not
the only township. Every township around
had the same uh um social media posts as
we did. Um it we we got we got
uh rain then it froze and it was very
tough challenging. We our staff uh put
in a lot of overtime and a lot of
weekend work uh to try to get the roads
half decent gravel roads before freeze
up. and I um and I um thank him for
that. The one item that I we've talked
as staff internally um is any um with
GRA roads how it's done it's it's it's
estimated how much tonnage we need per
per road and it's added up um within our
budget. One thing I would suggest and
I've talked to Charger about this is any
surplus if you surplus from a year and
and for example this year um there is a
surplus in sorry in 2025 there was
surplus because we didn't do the entire
road network that that we were going
through that that went into a reserve
that we could pull from the following
year. So for example, if we use instead
of previous years, it would just go into
working funds at the end of the year in
a general surplus, if we pull it out and
put it into a into a fund that for
example, if if there's an extra 20,000
from 2025, we could we could we could
I'm bringing a a report back and if if
if we can do one more road with that
with that money. Um I know uh the one
thing we were trying to do better is um
could we do gra tickets and brought in
and determine
um like if we in the fall if we do it
soon enough we know how much money's
left in the in the in the budget. The
one issue with that is that we do
schedule our work um like do a work plan
for the year and sometimes it's it's too
much time in in the fall. So what by
having reserve anyone come we can do it
early enough to to program that in make
sure there's enough time to program that
in
» good and that's the kind of that's the
kind of thinking that we want. I think
we have to come up with some other ways
than just increasing taxation to achieve
it. Um so yeah please I would encourage
uh staff to consider that as a as an
option. It's good. Anything else? Okay,
final call on the budget 2026 as
presented.
Good. Uh I just can you put up the slide
at the So just to review the resolution
that's on the floor and I can't remember
the mover. Oh, councelor Olmstead was
the mover. Councelor Moore was the
seconder. Those are the three
um elements of that resolution that's on
the floor.
I'll just let council take a moment to
review it. I know it was three hours
ago.
Good. So, if there was if if I know it
was a huge package. So, if you want to
make an amendment to it that that we can
accept that now. Otherwise, I will call
for the vote.
Good. Call for the vote. All those in
favor? And it's carried unanimously.
With that, I just want to first off
thank the staff. I know this has been a
tremendous amount of work, especially
with the additional asks this year,
five-year forecast, and forcing us to
have these tough discussions. Thank you
for doing that, and I think council I
think future councils are going to
appreciate it. So, thank you.
>> Okay. What else is on this agenda? I can
» Okay. What else is on this agenda? I can
adjourn.
» Yes. Unless it's something else. Yes.
>> No.
» No.
>> Oh. Uh, yes. This was provided. Is that
» Oh. Uh, yes. This was provided. Is that
just an example of what the, uh, the
bylaws?
>> Yeah, I think that's what's going to go
» Yeah, I think that's what's going to go
forward to council.
>> Perfect. So, this is what's being
» Perfect. So, this is what's being
brought forward to the council meeting.
>> Item number two, I think it was on the
» Item number two, I think it was on the
recommendation.
>> Good. If there's no other final
» Good. If there's no other final
comments, we are adjourned at 2:51. For
those people that are watching, we will
initiate our council meeting at 300 p.m.
Thank you.