[3:45] and welcome to the Township of
[3:46] Whitewater Region's budget committee
[3:48] meeting for Wednesday, January 14th.
[3:50] It's noon and we're going to call
[3:52] ourselves to order.
[3:54] Uh, and just before we do the, uh, land
[3:58] acknowledgement, which I was going to
[4:00] ask councelor Bell to do,
[4:03] if he's prepared to do it in a moment.
[4:05] Um, and just, uh, I just wanted to
[4:08] recognize that we have a new clerk
[4:11] filling the role today. So, Kim Balmer
[4:13] is in uh, called in just on a contract.
[4:17] Our normal clerk is just not available
[4:20] right now. Uh so in order to make sure
[4:22] that we could facilitate the meeting as
[4:24] as much as possible with the CEO's full
[4:27] attention on the um the budget
[4:30] discussion
[4:31] uh we've asked for a secondary qualified
[4:34] clerk to come in and clerk our meeting.
[4:37] So be patient if I am not giving the
[4:41] cues correctly. I'm sure Mr. Balmer here
[4:43] will just elbow me.
[4:49] » Excellent.
[4:51] Good. And with that, I will hand the
[4:53] floor over to councelor Bell for uh our
[4:55] land acknowledgement, please.
[4:57] >> As we gather, we'd like to acknowledge
[4:59] » As we gather, we'd like to acknowledge
[4:59] on behalf of the township of Whitewater
[5:00] region and our community that we are
[5:01] meeting on the traditional territory of
[5:03] the Algangquin people. We thank the
[5:05] Alongquin people and express our respect
[5:06] and support for their rich history and
[5:08] we are extremely grateful for their many
[5:09] and continued displays of friendship. We
[5:11] also thank all the generations of
[5:12] indigenous people who have taken care of
[5:14] this land for thousands of years.
[5:17] >> Thank you for that. Uh, next item on our
[5:19] » Thank you for that. Uh, next item on our
[5:19] agenda, and I'll just remind people that
[5:20] might be, you know, aware of our usual
[5:23] agenda. Because it's a committee
[5:25] meeting, our procedural bylaw has uh
[5:27] kind of an abbreviated agenda format.
[5:30] So, we go directly into the approval of
[5:32] our agenda. And I don't have a
[5:34] resolution here, but I am going to say
[5:38] uh the recommendation is that the budget
[5:40] committee approve the agenda as
[5:43] provided. Can I get a mover in a second,
[5:45] please? Moved by the deputy mayor,
[5:47] seconded by councelor Trim. Is there
[5:49] anybody who'd like to make an amendment
[5:51] or change to the agenda?
[5:54] I see none. And with that, we'll call
[5:56] for the vote. All those in favor? And
[5:58] it's carried unanimously. Thank you. The
[6:00] next is our approval of some minutes.
[6:01] And we have a number of minutes here
[6:03] from December 8th and December 11th. And
[6:05] they are enclosed and available. The
[6:08] recommendation is that the budget
[6:09] committee approve the December 8th and
[6:11] 11th, 2025 budget committee meetings
[6:13] minutes. A move in a seconder, please.
[6:16] Moved by councelor Mstead, seconded by
[6:18] councelor White.
[6:21] Uh, any errors or omissions noted by any
[6:23] member of council
[6:25] committee?
[6:27] None. We'll call for the vote. All those
[6:28] in favor? It's carried unanimously.
[6:31] Thank you. Uh, declarations. Is there
[6:33] any declarations that need to be made by
[6:35] any member of this committee?
[6:38] I see none. We'll move on to item number
[6:40] one
[6:43] which is our uh budget presentation
[6:47] and the recommendation is that the
[6:49] budget committee of the township of
[6:50] whitewater region recommends three
[6:52] things. The first one the mayor present
[6:55] the 2026 operating capital operating
[6:58] capital and user fee budgets as
[7:00] finalized by the budget committee that
[7:02] the council of the township whitewater
[7:03] region enact bylaws to adopt the mayor's
[7:05] 2026 budget as recommended. and three,
[7:08] continuing the development of a 10-year
[7:10] capital plan based on the funding based
[7:13] on funding and the 2026 asset management
[7:15] plan with the budget committee. A mover
[7:18] and a seconder, please. Okay, that's
[7:19] moved by councelor Olmstead
[7:22] and seconded by councelor Moore.
[7:27] Uh CIO, you going to provide a leadin to
[7:30] the discussion?
[7:30] >> Yeah, absolutely. So, we'll go ahead and
[7:33] » Yeah, absolutely. So, we'll go ahead and
[7:33] and commence the 2026 uh draft budget
[7:36] presentation. I think this would
[7:37] finalize the intent of today's
[7:39] presentation is to finalize
[7:41] uh the the the 2026 budget and to
[7:44] continue discussions on our on our on
[7:46] our five-year projections. Um so I just
[7:49] want to start by thanking uh the mayor
[7:51] together with council um for for the
[7:54] involvement. I think with these changes
[7:57] changes in legislation, strong mayors, I
[7:59] think that the the collaboration of all
[8:00] of council together with staff, together
[8:02] with the public, I think it demonstrates
[8:04] that we're working in this democratic
[8:06] system. I just want to recognize that
[8:09] first staff, we appreciate the
[8:11] involvement and and the inclusion of all
[8:13] members of council, staff, and the
[8:14] public in the process. Um,
[8:17] what's going to be presented today is
[8:19] sort of a refined version of our
[8:21] previous budget presentations. We've
[8:23] reduced it down to 60 I think 67 slides
[8:25] from well I think over 100. So uh we
[8:28] should be able to go through it
[8:29] relatively relatively quick. Uh noting
[8:32] that um we have sort of refined the
[8:34] presentation recognizing that based on
[8:37] our our observations that there'll be
[8:39] more deliberations on certain certain
[8:42] topics. Uh namely the capital capital
[8:45] budget I think is is one of the areas
[8:46] where there'll be sort of more
[8:48] discussion. We feel as though the
[8:50] deliberations from council were were a
[8:51] bit less on the operating and and I
[8:53] think there's we're going to go over it
[8:55] to some degree but uh but we'll we've
[8:57] refined that quite a bit. Water
[8:59] wastewater is is is shaped by our our
[9:02] financial plan and our our water
[9:04] wastewater rate study. So I mean it al
[9:06] the recommendations from staff to
[9:08] council align with that plan. So it's
[9:10] it's pretty uh pretty direct from the
[9:13] plan. Um and then the the the
[9:16] projections. So the projections is
[9:17] something we've presented to council at
[9:19] a previous budget meeting. They're
[9:21] unfunded. Uh they present a lot of
[9:24] constraints um a lot of uh competing
[9:27] priorities. Uh and I think that uh you
[9:30] know in order to progress forward we
[9:33] need to manage the 2026 budget and move
[9:35] it towards approval uh and continue the
[9:38] the conversation on these projections. I
[9:40] I don't think we're going to be able to
[9:41] complete uh this idea of 5-year
[9:43] projections uh in the time frame of
[9:45] getting this budget approved and
[9:47] approving the 2026 budget will allow
[9:49] staff to move forward with the
[9:50] implementation of the budget. So whether
[9:52] it's going to tender, whether it's
[9:54] issuing RFPs or procuring things, we can
[9:56] move forward with that and try to get in
[9:58] it uh ahead of the other communities are
[10:01] all doing the exact same thing as us. Um
[10:04] so the the we'll recap the um the the
[10:07] the uh where we stand on the percentage
[10:10] of operating in capital. I will
[10:12] highlight that we're at 1.6%
[10:16] uh increase on the levy for uh for
[10:18] operating and that's net of our growth.
[10:20] Um and that includes the the the removal
[10:23] of reserves for OP and the like. And
[10:25] then we're we're following that 4.2%
[10:28] capital which is the 4.2 2 which we've
[10:30] implemented in the last three two or
[10:32] three years uh which aligns with our
[10:34] asset management plan as it stands
[10:35] today. So uh while the mayor's direction
[10:38] um did indicate an upset limit of 7%
[10:42] we're presently sitting at 5.8% levy
[10:45] increase. So recognizing the efforts
[10:47] from staff and together with council uh
[10:49] the the efforts to try to reduce that as
[10:51] much as we can. Um so I'll go through a
[10:53] few slides if you if you'll allow me
[10:54] Curtis. So we'll just walk through it.
[10:56] So again, our we we've we've kept this
[10:58] mission vision uh from our strategic
[10:59] plan in in our slide deck. Uh so noting
[11:02] that the township delivers municipal
[11:04] services to a welcoming community and
[11:06] that uh we maintain a rural quality of
[11:08] life by balancing sustainability and
[11:10] growth. And then our strategic uh
[11:13] strategic plan identifies sort of five
[11:15] areas infrastructure, environment,
[11:18] economic development, recreation, and
[11:19] corporate performance. So these are the
[11:21] areas of focus in our the the 10-year
[11:24] strategic plan. It was adopted by uh the
[11:26] previous council. I think it may have
[11:28] been two councils ago. And then our our
[11:30] our current council uh adopted the
[11:33] strategic direction which is kind of a
[11:34] supplement to our strategic plan. And
[11:37] then these are the areas of focus.
[11:39] long-term financial planning,
[11:40] sustainability, which aligns with this
[11:41] 5-year projection, facility direction,
[11:44] which again
[11:46] will transpire as part of these these uh
[11:49] uh financial planning uh discussions,
[11:52] service levels, staffing, culture,
[11:54] growth, and economic development. So,
[11:55] these are the strategic directions from
[11:57] the current council. Our budget schedule
[11:59] is outlined here. So, we started back in
[12:01] September 16th um where the mayor gave
[12:04] direction to the CEO to sort of prepare
[12:06] the budget subject to about seven or
[12:08] eight bullets and we feel as though
[12:10] what's being presented today sort of
[12:12] aligns with those bullets. Um we had all
[12:15] day staff budget two I think one all day
[12:19] staff one all day budget meeting. We
[12:22] held the public meeting. Um we sort of
[12:24] consolidated that all back into today's
[12:26] meeting. So we've met how many times
[12:27] Curtis? Is it five or six? five five
[12:29] meetings with members of council
[12:30] together with public.
[12:32] Uh so again here's the mayor direction
[12:34] that was provided back in September. So
[12:36] the first three bullets here refer to
[12:38] these projections. So projections with
[12:39] respect to the budget forecast
[12:42] recognizing inflation, cost of living,
[12:45] the asset management plan, our
[12:46] contributions or allocations from the
[12:48] province OCIF.
[12:50] Um and then also recognizing that uh the
[12:53] county of Renfruit, the ministry of
[12:55] education also play a part in our in our
[12:58] actual tax rate or tax collected. Uh
[13:01] five-year projections with respect to
[13:02] capital and without water wastewater.
[13:04] But then again, five-year rated
[13:06] projections based on uh for water and
[13:08] wastewater.
[13:10] And then the next four bullets sort of
[13:12] primarily align with the um the 2026
[13:16] budget. So just uh um
[13:20] recognizing that the the first bullet
[13:22] recognizing that the growth shall be
[13:24] included in the 2026 operating budget uh
[13:26] that user fees shall align with
[13:28] inflation. Um
[13:31] and also recognizing that they should be
[13:33] contributing to capital reinvestment
[13:34] needs. Uh bullet six that uh the 2026
[13:39] consider feedback from the community
[13:40] council members uh following the
[13:42] direction from the mayor prior to the
[13:44] end of 2025. and that number seven that
[13:47] the proposed change in the budget aligns
[13:48] with the overall objective of inflation.
[13:51] Um and also noting here is the 7%
[13:54] maximum tax requirement together with
[13:56] the 3.4 affordability
[13:58] uh measure that we've been using which
[14:00] I'll speak to very shortly. So I think
[14:02] that what's being presented to council
[14:03] now and together with the subsequent
[14:05] council uh council meeting which this is
[14:08] a committee we're going to recommend to
[14:09] council all aligns with with with this
[14:12] marial direction. But it also we're not
[14:14] done I don't think. I think there's
[14:15] still some work to be done on the
[14:16] five-year fin five five-year plan. Yeah.
[14:19] Go ahead.
[14:21] Uh so the affordability component. So
[14:23] the this whole question of
[14:24] affordability, how do we assess
[14:26] affordability? How do we develop metrics
[14:28] on affordability? So just reiterating, I
[14:30] mean the members of council have heard
[14:31] me say this before. This probably be the
[14:33] third time that you hear it. uh but the
[14:35] affordability component essentially
[14:38] limits our property taxes uh on the
[14:42] median household income to 3.4%. So if
[14:46] we take the uh median assessment
[14:49] determine the property residential
[14:51] property tax accorded to that that
[14:53] should not be greater than 3.4%. I think
[14:55] currently uh with the the present budget
[14:58] not knowing what the county is going to
[14:59] do uh we're probably sitting around 3
[15:03] 3.23 23, two decimal points. Great,
[15:05] Curtis. 3.23. Uh, so we're not quite
[15:08] there, but again, it's there's variables
[15:10] there, right? It's dependent on what the
[15:11] county does. Um, and uh, and, um, this,
[15:15] I think, is one of the one of the
[15:17] constraints. If we look at our 5-year
[15:18] projection, and if we're going to limit
[15:20] ourselves to 3.4, and I'm not saying we
[15:21] have to, uh, that will provide a
[15:24] constraint for the amount of revenue
[15:26] generated for capital investment to name
[15:28] one one area. Uh, so this 3.4% 4% is
[15:31] established in the BMA uh consulting inc
[15:34] it's a report that's prepared uh
[15:36] comparing over 100 municipalities and
[15:39] they determine benchmarks for socio so
[15:41] socioeconomic financial and service
[15:43] delivery indicators so this is one way
[15:45] of uh looking at affordability in your
[15:48] community there are other ways I think
[15:50] one of the things I'd like to do is just
[15:51] to see where other communities in run
[15:53] county align get their median assessment
[15:55] get their median uh or their property
[15:58] taxes on that median assessment and see
[16:00] what percentages they are. I think that
[16:01] it'd be an interesting exercise to see
[16:03] where we align with our partners uh or
[16:05] our neighbors. Uh so so this is
[16:07] something that we need to keep looking
[16:08] at as we move into the projection
[16:10] component of it. But we are aligning at
[16:13] 3.32 you said Curtis
[16:14] >> 3.3
[16:15] » 3.3
[16:15] >> 3.23 uh percentage. Uh so again that 1%
[16:18] » 3.23 uh percentage. Uh so again that 1%
[16:18] levy increase it represents 77,485.
[16:22] So where when I noted the 5.8%
[16:26] increase 5.8% is where we stand today.
[16:30] Yep.
[16:30] >> Uh so it would be 5.8*
[16:33] » Uh so it would be 5.8*
[16:33] 77,485.
[16:35] So that's the additional levy money
[16:37] we're generating from property taxes and
[16:40] 4.2% of that is uh is going to capital
[16:43] and the other portion is going to
[16:45] operate.
[16:47] And then the breakdown of every dollar
[16:48] based on the 2025 is uh so we we hold
[16:52] the the lion share recognizing that um
[16:55] we're at 40% uh the county are at 31%
[17:00] education at uh
[17:03] 13% and police at 9. So this circular
[17:06] table will change. I mean once the
[17:08] county adopts their budget it might
[17:10] represent a greater percentage might
[17:11] represent less but we'll update council
[17:13] when that becomes available. Typically,
[17:14] we would do that as part of the tax rate
[17:16] adoption bylaw. So, we'll present a new
[17:18] circular uh graph when uh when we get to
[17:20] that, which will be in April, Mayish.
[17:22] >> Mayish.
[17:23] » Mayish.
[17:23] >> May. Yeah. Thanks.
[17:26] » May. Yeah. Thanks.
[17:26] And then uh this is just a table chart
[17:29] rep uh just recognizing the current uh
[17:32] countywide property taxation and rate
[17:34] increases from 2025. So where we sit is
[17:36] kind of in that middle of the pack which
[17:37] I think is based on the deliberations
[17:40] from council that's kind of where we
[17:41] want to be um throughout the county. And
[17:44] then that red line were the increases in
[17:46] 2025. And the next slide uh is examining
[17:50] sort of a greater compare comparator
[17:53] municipalities based on services water
[17:56] wastewater recreation to name sort of
[17:58] three areas of service. Um and then so
[18:01] it sort of narrows down the
[18:02] municipalities that are included. And
[18:03] again, we're kind of in the in the
[18:05] middle of the pack there. Um
[18:08] recognizing that
[18:10] our communities are different than sort
[18:12] of Renfruit and Pemrook, but again,
[18:13] here's a comparator as a way to to see
[18:16] how we fit into the whole regional
[18:18] approach.
[18:21] >> Um I'll pass it over to you, Curtis.
[18:24] » Um I'll pass it over to you, Curtis.
[18:24] Keep looking.
[18:26] >> Thank you. Um so Ivan has already kind
[18:28] » Thank you. Um so Ivan has already kind
[18:28] of mentioned this part um that the
[18:30] operating still sits at 1.6%.
[18:33] Um that's including the inflation
[18:35] pressures uh the uh final billing for OP
[18:40] um and our actual insurance uh
[18:42] allocations. Uh there's been no changes
[18:44] to the overall operating budget since
[18:46] the last two presentations. I will note
[18:48] that and that's why we are able to uh
[18:50] kind of condense that operating portion
[18:52] and have uh less overall time spent on
[18:55] that and more focus on the capital side.
[18:58] Uh so the public comments uh so at the
[19:00] meeting on the 11th uh we both received
[19:04] uh verbal comments as well as uh since
[19:06] that meeting uh some uh via email uh
[19:10] they were all distributed to council uh
[19:12] via the clerk. Um so one of the ones was
[19:15] uh talking about taxation increases that
[19:17] have happened over the number of years
[19:19] and the thought of using uh shared
[19:21] services. Uh one that was noted was the
[19:24] county uh as the to eliminate in-house
[19:26] services. Uh I'm sure you've all seen
[19:28] that that email. Uh another comment was
[19:31] about OP. Um the main question was how
[19:34] it was built to the township and the
[19:35] overall cost of it. Uh it's something
[19:37] that uh I know the mayor and the and the
[19:40] CEO are bringing to different uh pieces
[19:42] about believe Roma as a delegation to
[19:46] talk about that cost. Uh the other one
[19:48] was what is the increases changing the
[19:50] condition of gravel roads. Um that was a
[19:53] comment that or a question that had
[19:54] already been brought up before and we
[19:56] had included it in the alakart piece um
[19:59] talking about bringing the roads from a
[20:01] 15-year cycle when by the time we're
[20:03] able to come back to it to actually a
[20:05] 10ear cycle what the cost for that would
[20:07] be and we'll talk more about that when I
[20:09] get to the transportation section.
[20:12] Uh the overall cost of consultants to
[20:14] the township which was answered at that
[20:15] at that time for the specific question
[20:17] that was asked uh but it was just a note
[20:18] that was brought up. uh solar panels and
[20:20] their revenue. Uh sub subsidize
[20:22] non-resident costs at the Pemrook pool
[20:24] and then consider change of use uh
[20:26] change of area space at the uh yearround
[20:29] sports besides uh ice hockey and
[20:31] skating.
[20:34] Uh then we look at the key highlights
[20:35] for capital. So again there's no change
[20:37] here uh from what has always been
[20:39] presented is the 4.2 which is based on
[20:42] the 2022 asset management plan. Um still
[20:45] holding strong. Uh the public comments
[20:47] for capital uh again you vote these were
[20:51] were all received uh verbally and uh
[20:54] additionally some in written but from
[20:56] the same uh same residents. So why was
[20:58] the Zion line not included for the 2026
[21:00] budget and the question came of the
[21:02] history of the road. Uh that was a
[21:04] request by council. So we provide some
[21:05] information that's on the next slide and
[21:07] uh there's a a leaflet in front of you.
[21:09] Uh why does the township need five fire
[21:11] halls and equipment and is there
[21:13] efficiencies to be found? Uh, can
[21:15] services be contracted out to extend the
[21:17] life of equipment, i.e. hauling of
[21:19] gravel? And does the township meet
[21:21] indoor arenas or could be switched to uh
[21:23] could a switch be made to outdoor rinks?
[21:26] These were all comments that were
[21:28] received either verbally or or uh in
[21:30] writing and all been uh disseminated to
[21:32] council. Uh so the first uh slide kind
[21:36] of to answer one of the questions
[21:38] because it was asked by council was what
[21:39] was the history of Zion Line? um and
[21:42] it's on the leaflet in front of you if
[21:43] it's too hard to see on the actual uh
[21:45] PowerPoint. So the green line furthest
[21:49] to the um to the left is that's the
[21:53] chunk between Hila Road and Beachburg
[21:55] Road. Uh you'll notice it has it's noted
[21:57] as DST is 2023 is when it was just
[21:59] redone. Uh the place between Sturgeon
[22:02] Mountain and Beachburg Road was 2014. Uh
[22:05] had a single surface treatment attach
[22:06] applied to the top of it. Originally the
[22:08] road was done 2006.
[22:11] Uh same thing with from Sturgeon
[22:13] Mountain to Papen Road. Uh 2014 was
[22:16] whenever a single service was applied to
[22:18] that. So that's the third lift. Uh then
[22:20] from uh Papen Road to um West Ross Road,
[22:25] uh 2009 is when it received its third
[22:27] lift. And then DST, if it was done in
[22:30] 2010 on the uh chunk of road from West
[22:32] Ross Road to um to Fortress Falls Road.
[22:36] Uh I'll actually pass it over to the
[22:38] manager of public works if he wants to
[22:39] make any comment at this point in time
[22:40] uh just about that before uh the
[22:42] council.
[22:45] » I have no comments.
[22:48] >> Perfect. Um the other piece that was
[22:50] » Perfect. Um the other piece that was
[22:50] noted on the slide uh too because there
[22:52] was a question about per kilometer cost
[22:55] for ashvault uh with active
[22:57] transportation without active
[22:58] transportation per kilometer cost of
[23:01] double surface treatment and single
[23:02] surface treatment. So those have all
[23:03] been noted on that slide. uh ashvalt
[23:06] single lift 200,000 per kilometer. Uh I
[23:08] will note uh from the public
[23:10] presentation that there was an amount uh
[23:14] that was uh indicated by one of the
[23:16] residents that made the comment uh for
[23:18] pavement and this is uh higher than that
[23:21] amount but it it also involves the
[23:23] subgrade work uh because we believe the
[23:26] amount he was referencing was just the
[23:28] actual pavement itself which does align
[23:30] uh but there's all the subgrade work of
[23:32] culverts billing the road all that type
[23:35] of other construction work that needs to
[23:36] be done when you're when you're
[23:37] rehabilitating a road before pavement um
[23:40] not just the ashalt surface itself. Um
[23:42] so that's why these amounts are are
[23:44] listed the way they are.
[23:48] Uh the next one to that we left in was
[23:51] just to to illustrate that the township
[23:52] itself uh between the 25 budget to 2026
[23:56] budget uh proposed shows a decrease of
[24:00] overall staff at the township of 1.5. Um
[24:03] so we went from 37.27 27 um full-time
[24:07] equivalent staff down to 35.71.
[24:12] Uh so then we just roll into the general
[24:14] operating. Uh we've left in here the
[24:16] budget categories. Uh and these are the
[24:18] the ones that come from the FIR. So it's
[24:20] your general government, your protective
[24:21] services, transportation services,
[24:23] environmental, recreation and culture
[24:26] and then planning and development. And
[24:27] these are all the subcategories that
[24:29] fall under those main headings. Um
[24:31] general government seen no changes from
[24:33] the last presentation. So it was removed
[24:35] uh from this presentation. Protective
[24:37] services again seen no change. Uh we
[24:39] left transportation services in uh just
[24:42] a quick slide as well as environmental
[24:44] services and I'll get to those now. And
[24:46] then planning and development recreation
[24:47] culture also were removed.
[24:50] So under the transportation uh the only
[24:52] reason we brought this back is just to
[24:54] ill illustrate what gravel roads are
[24:56] planned for the 2026 year uh to include
[24:58] that map. Um, so you'll notice it's in
[25:01] red and not real easy to see on that
[25:04] screen I see. But, um, so the the roads
[25:08] that are planning to be done is Acres
[25:10] Road, so Mine View Road to Homestead
[25:12] Jeffrey Lake. Uh, Garden of Eden Road,
[25:14] so it's Godfrey Road to of the gravel
[25:16] section and then remove the DST portion.
[25:19] Uh, Broom Road, Almac Road, Dejarta
[25:22] Road, which goes from Lookout Road to
[25:23] Pleasant Valley and then from Pleasant
[25:24] Valley to Hawthorne. Uh, Nangor Trail
[25:27] and Point Trail.
[25:31] under environmental services, uh there's
[25:33] only a slight change to the recycling
[25:35] program. Uh and that's due to the ICI.
[25:38] Uh so public works staff did a review of
[25:40] the uh number of properties that will
[25:42] actually be qualifying for the ICI. Uh
[25:44] and that has actually increased to 153.
[25:47] Uh it was originally 129. Um through
[25:50] that review, it was just as to what
[25:51] businesses would classify for that and
[25:53] what would qualify for that that charge.
[25:55] So the slight change has been made to
[25:57] that the recycling. However, the revenue
[26:00] offsets the exact expense. So it doesn't
[26:01] change anything on the budget. It's just
[26:02] to be noted here.
[26:05] Um so then on the waste user fees, this
[26:08] is the only part of the user fees that
[26:09] you'll actually see here today. Um is
[26:12] the garbage collection because that was
[26:13] a question that was brought up. Um it is
[26:15] still recommended by staff side to leave
[26:18] the piece as uh the garbage collection
[26:20] fee is 168 for residential properties
[26:22] and then the ICI properties uh would
[26:24] have the billing of 446.
[26:27] Um to put where that cost come from.
[26:30] It's designed to go from the low side of
[26:32] the estimate uh due to the fact that we
[26:34] don't know what the uh total tipping
[26:36] fees could come in for as to how much
[26:38] recycling will actually come through or
[26:40] how many times we'll have to uh tip the
[26:42] bins. So, you'll see that the curbside
[26:44] collection cost, which is the contract
[26:46] to the uh contractor, is $357 per stop.
[26:50] Uh the the tipping fees for the blue box
[26:52] program that's collected, uh would be
[26:54] the low estimate of $59 per stop. And
[26:57] then the landfill ICI ICI bluebox
[27:00] hauling and tipping. So, that's the
[27:01] actual bin from the uh uh option two,
[27:05] which was chosen for the ICI collection,
[27:07] is $30 per stop. Um, so it works out to
[27:10] be $446 per stop.
[27:16] The this slide has not changed just due
[27:19] to the fact that the uh it's in and out
[27:22] for that that revenue portion due to the
[27:24] user fee portion of it. So it still
[27:26] comes to the 1.6
[27:28] and this is where I'll pause for
[27:29] questions.
[27:37] » Thank you treasure. So what we'll do is
[27:40] is uh you basically at this point you
[27:43] can ask questions in any portion between
[27:45] slide 1 to 28. Uh and it's important uh
[27:49] we'll come back depending on what the
[27:51] questions are. We'll come back and just
[27:52] make sure that we acknowledge that
[27:54] public uh those public questions at the
[27:56] end if it's not part of anybody else's
[27:58] questions. So councelor White you're up
[28:00] first.
[28:02] >> Thank you. Um, what is the on page 25 or
[28:06] » Thank you. Um, what is the on page 25 or
[28:06] in slide 25 you're talking about
[28:08] landfill ICI bluebox hauling and tipping
[28:10] fees $30 per stops. I'm not
[28:13] understanding how many stops we have
[28:15] then if it's just from the landfill.
[28:18] It's only one stop then.
[28:19] >> No. So those are the ICI. So the overall
[28:21] » No. So those are the ICI. So the overall
[28:21] ICI is charged based on the 153 stops.
[28:25] So the total cost would be about $4,500.
[28:28] It's divided by the 153. So it comes
[28:30] into $30 per stop. it's what the uh
[28:32] averaged out cost is. So having the bin
[28:35] at the landfill, there's still no
[28:38] funding for that to be at a landfill
[28:39] site. So by having it included with the
[28:42] ICI cost whenever the if whether a
[28:44] business takes has their for cycling
[28:46] picked up at the at their curb or brings
[28:48] it to the landfill, this co this charge
[28:50] is still covering the cost of that
[28:52] material to be taken and processed.
[28:58] » I can pass it to the environmental
[29:00] secretary. You lost me on that one, too.
[29:03] >> So, uh, so what it is is, um, there's,
[29:06] » So, uh, so what it is is, um, there's,
[29:06] uh, a there's a total cost for the
[29:08] curbside collection. There's a total
[29:10] cost for that for the tonnage that's
[29:12] collected at the curbside. And then, so
[29:15] if you imagine the amount of material
[29:16] that uh, they that we collect, there is
[29:19] a a tipping fee that we pay for that. So
[29:22] there's, say they collect 1,000 tons, it
[29:24] costs us $107 or about $300, sorry, per
[29:28] ton. So that's the second one. They've
[29:30] taken the total and they've divided it
[29:32] by we've taken the total of that cost
[29:34] that's estimated for the year and
[29:36] divided amongst the 153 stops and that
[29:39] gives us sort of a an estimate of that's
[29:41] what the cost for the tipping fees would
[29:43] be um from the curbside material. And
[29:47] then the third piece is uh if we still
[29:49] allow uh permit the ICI businesses to um
[29:53] bring bluebox waste also at the landfill
[29:56] there uh those costs would also have to
[29:58] be um recovered if you if you follow me
[30:01] because the uh any material that a
[30:03] business brings to the landfill is not
[30:05] covered by um uh the the CMO funding
[30:09] that we would receive. So, uh, this is
[30:11] just basically showing all the cost to
[30:14] allow, um, blue box material either at
[30:16] the curbside or at the landfill and then
[30:19] just sort of them broken out by piece by
[30:20] piece, what that sort of represents. And
[30:22] then the total coming in at um, 446 per
[30:25] stop. Does that clarify things?
[30:29] >> I'll throw one more just if councelor
[30:31] » I'll throw one more just if councelor
[30:31] White will allow me, I'll just uh, if I
[30:33] was to add up one, two, and three, it it
[30:36] comes to your estimate at 446 on a low
[30:39] side.
[30:39] >> That's correct. And um so it the 46
[30:43] » That's correct. And um so it the 46
[30:43] uh would be 1 and then 2 a and three. So
[30:47] we've because the the tonnage is sort of
[30:50] an estimate, we've given a high and a
[30:52] low uh estimate. So the the lower
[30:54] estimate which we're a bit more
[30:55] comfortable with is the 446.
[30:58] >> Good.
[31:01] » Good.
[31:01] >> Thank you.
[31:02] » Thank you.
[31:02] >> Excellent. Thank you councelor Trim.
[31:06] » Excellent. Thank you councelor Trim.
[31:06] If I may on this Mr. mayor on the same
[31:08] topic through you to the director. Um
[31:14] does that mean then that u u or the um
[31:20] residents not ICI but residents will no
[31:24] longer be permitted to bring recycling
[31:26] to the landfill site.
[31:29] uh residents will be able to bring
[31:32] recycling to the landfill site and that
[31:34] is being um covered by uh Circular
[31:37] Materials Ontario. So the cost for that
[31:39] is covered by Circular Materials
[31:40] Ontario. So essentially what they're
[31:42] what the CMO is covering is they've
[31:46] established a certain tonnage that
[31:48] represents that's representative of of
[31:50] um the residents which is I think it was
[31:53] 20.4
[31:55] four tons and then any tonnage over and
[31:58] above that that we collect um that would
[32:01] be assumed to be the commercial
[32:03] material. So looking at um our previous
[32:07] year the 2025 we looked at the total
[32:10] tonnage that we received which was about
[32:11] 24 tons. Uh circular materials Ontario
[32:15] is going to essentially pay and cover
[32:17] for 20 tons. So we would be responsible
[32:20] for four tons which is essentially what
[32:22] they're saying is due to the commercial
[32:25] businesses. So that is what that uh
[32:28] number third line represents. Uh partly
[32:31] is the tonnage and the hauling of that
[32:33] material
[32:35] >> and so at the landfill site there will
[32:37] » and so at the landfill site there will
[32:37] be no
[32:39] >> there will be no it will not be
[32:40] » there will be no it will not be
[32:40] distinguished between there will not be
[32:42] separate bins. It's all one bin and we
[32:44] are co-mingling.
[32:46] Yeah. So everything can go in one bin.
[32:48] both residential and commercial and
[32:50] they've said they'll essentially haul
[32:52] the CMO will cover a set number of bins
[32:54] per year that they will haul and there
[32:56] will be no cost to us. Anything over and
[32:59] above that is what comes back as and and
[33:01] the the the
[33:03] municipality will be responsible for
[33:05] covering.
[33:07] >> That's clear. Thank you.
[33:11] » That's clear. Thank you.
[33:11] >> Good. For some reason, that's a very
[33:13] » Good. For some reason, that's a very
[33:13] logical approach.
[33:15] Uh, I wish they would do it the other
[33:17] way, too. Anyway, uh, councelor Moore,
[33:21] >> maybe not a good time to bring this up,
[33:22] » maybe not a good time to bring this up,
[33:22] and I think I may have already. Um, what
[33:25] happens with the, uh, businesses ICI out
[33:27] there that never put out a blue box, but
[33:29] yet they have to pay the fee. I'm
[33:32] specifically looking at churches who
[33:34] only have Sunday service and don't put
[33:36] out any blue boxes, and all of a sudden,
[33:40] they have to pay this $400 and some
[33:41] dollars a year. And uh also then there's
[33:44] the fair boards, what are they going to
[33:46] do, etc. So there's a lot of questions
[33:49] to ask, but um there are groups out
[33:52] there like the churches that never put
[33:53] out a blue box.
[33:56] >> Is there a staff response? Yeah.
[33:58] » Is there a staff response? Yeah.
[33:58] >> Yeah. So, um, uh, staff are, um, in the
[34:01] » Yeah. So, um, uh, staff are, um, in the
[34:01] process of putting together a waste
[34:03] management bylaw that would, essentially
[34:06] set out all of the rules on which
[34:08] properties, um, uh, are uh, paying the
[34:12] ICI uh, collection fee. Um, and, uh,
[34:17] staff are discussing and proposing that
[34:20] there would be some opt out um,
[34:22] provisions in the bylaw. Um, we know
[34:24] that there are some uh businesses
[34:26] already that have um uh larger um um
[34:31] like sixyard bins at their businesses
[34:33] for collecting things like cardboard and
[34:36] and such. And um sort of the intention
[34:39] that we're talking through is whether or
[34:41] not uh a business could uh apply to opt
[34:44] out because they have an alternate
[34:45] service in place. Um another thing we
[34:47] were discussing is exactly that. How
[34:49] would the um the churches be handled?
[34:51] Would that be something that council
[34:53] would um um would choose to like let
[34:56] them opt in if they want or um or would
[35:00] they be opt out and then have to apply?
[35:02] So, those are things to be worked
[35:03] through and the churches we looked there
[35:05] was about 10 properties that um we want
[35:09] to bring staff want to bring back that
[35:11] and and and really get into the weeds on
[35:13] exactly how we allow optin and opt out.
[35:16] That's clear.
[35:17] >> Perfect. So just to highlight that we
[35:20] » Perfect. So just to highlight that we
[35:20] recognize those questions. They aren't
[35:22] something that we need to solve as part
[35:24] of the budget. Really the question from
[35:25] a budget perspective is this is what the
[35:27] cost will be. How are we going to raise
[35:30] the funds to cover the cost and then the
[35:32] subsequent questions will have to get
[35:35] answered as part of that bylaw review.
[35:37] >> Understand. Thank you.
[35:39] » Understand. Thank you.
[35:39] >> Good. And I'm going to go to councelor
[35:40] » Good. And I'm going to go to councelor
[35:40] Bell. So, just to confirm on the
[35:44] interimm tax bills that come out, these
[35:46] ICI properties won't be receiving an
[35:48] extra $446 charge for the first half of
[35:52] the year until this bylaw gets
[35:53] confirmed,
[35:57] » treasure,
[35:57] >> that's correct. So, the interim bylaw is
[35:59] » that's correct. So, the interim bylaw is
[35:59] based on 50% of last year's taxes. So,
[36:02] no changes that we make here today will
[36:04] be seen on that interim tax bill until
[36:06] the final tax bill goes out in August.
[36:08] So until August happens, nothing of
[36:10] these user fees that are based on the
[36:13] taxation or based into taxation will be
[36:15] seen yet. Uh no revenue is generated
[36:17] from any of that type of stuff. It's
[36:18] just based on 50% of last year. So
[36:20] whatever they had bit were build in
[36:22] 2025, we they see automatically 50% of
[36:25] that.
[36:29] » Good. And councelor trim.
[36:31] >> Yes. And I understand that these rates
[36:34] » Yes. And I understand that these rates
[36:34] are based on the fact that we are uh
[36:39] tendering, I guess the correct word
[36:41] would be, with six or seven other
[36:43] municipalities
[36:45] and that this is um we're going to be in
[36:48] some kind of a trial period uh to see
[36:51] how this works out. Uh am I correct on
[36:54] thinking that?
[36:55] >> Uh yes. So it's not a tender. It is it
[36:57] » Uh yes. So it's not a tender. It is it
[36:57] is um essentially soul sourced uh
[37:00] because of the timelines on this but uh
[37:03] there are uh nine of us in total and the
[37:07] pricing that we were provided was
[37:08] contingent on uh all of the
[37:11] municipalities that have committed to uh
[37:13] working together and um uh the contract
[37:18] as we understand it will say that it's
[37:20] for one year and there will add there
[37:22] they will also includes potentially
[37:23] there will include provisions for we
[37:27] believe two one-year extensions. So I
[37:29] think the intention of what we've heard
[37:31] from uh most of the municip or some of
[37:33] the municipalities is that they just
[37:34] want to do it for one year and see how
[37:35] it goes and then uh at the end of the
[37:38] first year re-evaluate where things sit.
[37:40] Um and then uh if we all want to extend
[37:43] um the pricing presumably would stay the
[37:45] same. If some drop out there might be
[37:47] some negotiation again for a second year
[37:49] but this is being taken as a one-year
[37:51] see how it works first.
[37:55] Go ahead, Council Homestead, please.
[37:57] >> Um, so just just to be clear on the two
[38:00] » Um, so just just to be clear on the two
[38:00] lines, the garbage collection fee and
[38:02] the recycling collection fee, the $168
[38:05] fee is for both recycling and garbage,
[38:08] right, for for households.
[38:11] >> So the 168 um is for garbage collection.
[38:15] » So the 168 um is for garbage collection.
[38:15] Um, and it, uh, dare I say this, carries
[38:17] some of the costs for like the household
[38:19] hazards waste depot. Um, uh, some of the
[38:22] costs for the landfill. So that's that's
[38:25] the essentially it's mostly the two bags
[38:27] you put out for garbage and then access
[38:29] to the landfill for garbage. The second
[38:32] line is just recycling. So if you recall
[38:35] the 168, the garbage collection fee, um,
[38:38] the township is no longer responsible
[38:40] for delivering recycling for for
[38:44] residents. So that is not a part of
[38:45] that. No.
[38:47] >> Okay. And um so on the second line,
[38:50] » Okay. And um so on the second line,
[38:50] they're not going to be paying the 446
[38:52] plus the 168. It's just the straight
[38:54] 446. Correct.
[38:56] >> It would be um 168 for garbage and
[39:00] » It would be um 168 for garbage and
[39:00] access to the landfill. And the four
[39:05] sorry 446 is just recycling and
[39:08] recycling access to the landfill. So on
[39:11] their tax bill, they're going to see
[39:13] >> two lines, 168 and 446.
[39:16] » two lines, 168 and 446.
[39:16] >> Correct.
[39:17] » Correct.
[39:17] >> Thank you.
[39:20] » Thank you.
[39:20] >> Any other questions on this single
[39:22] » Any other questions on this single
[39:22] slide?
[39:24] No, I I I just want to make sure that we
[39:26] are clear on the funding of this because
[39:29] we haven't spoken about that yet. There
[39:31] was a proposal uh I think councelor Bell
[39:34] put it forward to see whether or not we
[39:36] could take that 446 and distribute it in
[39:38] a different way.
[39:40] um that has not proven to be an option
[39:44] for us based on some legal advice. Uh so
[39:49] from a council perspective, what's back
[39:50] on the floor is this as what council
[39:52] Mstead just said, each business, each
[39:55] church, each each of these 153 places
[39:59] will receive both of these charges as
[40:02] part of their tax bill. Now, they won't
[40:03] see it until August, according to the
[40:05] treasurer, even though we're going to
[40:08] start to incur those costs last week.
[40:13] From a council perspective, what are
[40:15] your thoughts on how we manage this new
[40:18] expense?
[40:31] » Council Bell, please. So, we spoke to
[40:33] increasing that garbage collection fee
[40:36] 168. It would would have ended up to be
[40:40] 187 or something if I remember that
[40:42] correctly. Um,
[40:45] that's what you're speaking to is it's
[40:47] proven through legal advice that's that
[40:49] that's probably not the right avenue.
[40:51] Um, what about would there be a way to
[40:55] add
[40:59] not that I want to increase the fees at
[41:02] the landfill, but would there be a way
[41:04] to do
[41:07] a portion of a fee whenever you go into
[41:10] the landfill as a means of collecting
[41:12] revenue to pay for this program on an
[41:16] annual basis? And what I mean by that is
[41:20] would we be able to look at the revenue
[41:21] generated from the landfill
[41:24] as look at what percentage increase we
[41:28] would need for every user that goes in
[41:32] there on a every Wednesday and Saturday
[41:35] to make up the difference of that 446
[41:38] per ICI property. So it this wouldn't
[41:42] just as a you wouldn't be seeing this as
[41:45] an increase on a on the 168, but we pay
[41:49] a fee whenever we go to the dump and
[41:52] dump a half ton, dump a trailer. Would
[41:55] there be a way to add a small percentage
[41:57] onto each one of those loads as a means
[42:00] of collecting revenue to pay for this
[42:02] specific fee?
[42:06] staff.
[42:09] >> It kind of would fall into the same type
[42:11] » It kind of would fall into the same type
[42:12] of thought process or same
[42:14] recommendation of legal as the original
[42:17] thought of putting it onto the garbage
[42:18] collection fee because it's not just
[42:22] residential properties or not just
[42:24] commercial properties that are coming in
[42:25] there. the the the the fee itself.
[42:29] That's the challenge of of putting it
[42:30] onto to to adding it to different fees
[42:33] because the the we'd have to review
[42:35] again whether the recycling cost itself
[42:38] could be attributed into the cost of the
[42:40] landfill. Potentially it could, but that
[42:42] would be my initial thought would be it
[42:44] would fall similar to the original
[42:46] recommendation from legal
[42:49] >> councelor bill.
[42:52] » councelor bill.
[42:52] So, I just keep cycling back to this
[42:55] because I I don't want to see our small
[42:56] businesses and our churches pay an
[42:59] additional user fee tax if we can avoid
[43:02] it by small some percentage by raising
[43:05] the revenue in a small percentage
[43:07] somewhere else. Um,
[43:13] correct me if
[43:15] I'm looking at this as if the township
[43:20] collects revenue to pay for this, even
[43:23] if it's not if if if by through the
[43:26] budget discussions today, we decided as
[43:29] a council that Whitewater region as a
[43:33] corporation is just going to take care
[43:34] of this fee, this $446,
[43:37] not necessarily stating where where it's
[43:40] coming from, but recognizing that we
[43:43] need to generate that 446*
[43:47] 159 properties for 2026 to pay for this
[43:51] for for the ICI,
[43:54] increasing the user fee at our landfill,
[43:57] not necessarily with a special
[43:59] assessment to go towards that, but
[44:02] recognizing that to make up for this
[44:04] shortfall of 446* 159 9. We look at that
[44:09] by increasing our our landfill charges
[44:12] by x percentage to generate that revenue
[44:15] without without account not putting a
[44:18] specific line for accounting for that.
[44:22] Is that not a way that we could like we
[44:25] we adjust user fees based on you know
[44:31] based on a bunch of different decisions
[44:33] every year.
[44:35] Could we not just adjust that user fee
[44:38] recognizing that we just need to collect
[44:39] that that extra percentage this year to
[44:42] to pay for that program?
[44:45] >> If you'll allow me, I think I think the
[44:47] » If you'll allow me, I think I think the
[44:47] um so the first thing is is that um the
[44:51] the actual cost of this won't be
[44:55] implemented until the final billion as
[44:57] treasur noted. So there's a bit of time
[44:59] to look at different options. So I would
[45:01] just say that uh the discussion with the
[45:03] the superintendent is that the
[45:05] strategies to come back with a bylaw to
[45:07] determine whether or not you could opt
[45:08] in, opt out. So there's some time to
[45:10] work through things. Um uh so I think
[45:13] that is one way that we could look at to
[45:16] see how we could generate more revenue
[45:17] cost per visit $1 or something like that
[45:20] generate that into the and then vet that
[45:23] with legal to see if it would make
[45:24] sense. So noteed I would say um as an
[45:28] alternative way to fund it. Um you think
[45:30] of like uh we we I wasn't in the call
[45:32] but I was talking to the treasure
[45:34] McGonagal before today's meeting about
[45:36] this discussion. I said what about the
[45:38] arenas? You know arenas you pay $143 for
[45:41] your hour and taxation pays for the
[45:43] other proportional cost of that arena.
[45:46] And the there was a the the lawyer kind
[45:49] of had the sense well the the arena's
[45:51] accessible by all population all of the
[45:53] population. So I think we just need to
[45:55] look at it a bit more but this is a a
[45:57] mechanism by which we could generate
[45:58] revenue. Let's look into it in greater
[46:00] depth and see if it's an alternative and
[46:01] how would you actually implement
[46:02] implement that? Is it a dollar per
[46:04] visit? Is it a cost additional cost on
[46:05] tonnage? There's a few ways to do it. So
[46:08] if that if that's okay, we could
[46:09] continue to investigate that
[46:11] >> followup. Yeah. Sorry if I may, mayor.
[46:13] » followup. Yeah. Sorry if I may, mayor.
[46:13] Um and that that's my only concern is
[46:15] that we're discussing this right now
[46:17] recognizing that we need to like we're
[46:20] going to pay for this no matter what,
[46:21] but I just want to make sure by the
[46:24] sounds of it that the bylaw is coming.
[46:26] We can we can discuss this further. Like
[46:28] this isn't set in stone that that all
[46:30] ICI properties are getting a $446 extra
[46:33] fee on their bill come October whatever
[46:37] the
[46:38] >> the present fees and charges bylaw
[46:40] » the present fees and charges bylaw
[46:40] that's attached to the council agenda
[46:41] has no amount in it for this. So it's
[46:44] blank at present moment and it will
[46:47] amend that fees and charges bylaw when
[46:49] we make a decision on the how we're
[46:50] going to fund this.
[46:52] >> I'm just going to jump in before I give
[46:54] » I'm just going to jump in before I give
[46:54] the floor to councelor Trim. Um, from a
[46:57] council perspective, could the argument
[46:59] be we have made the decision to provide
[47:01] this level of service to our ICI
[47:05] residents?
[47:06] We're not sure how that's going to jig
[47:08] out for another 6 months. Could we make
[47:11] the commitment to cover it with general
[47:13] taxation
[47:14] until we sort it out
[47:18] at uh the the time that the bylaw is
[47:20] presented whether or not there's another
[47:22] source of revenue?
[47:26] I would say it's possible. Um the piece
[47:28] that would be noted would be is if
[47:30] because technically taxation can pay for
[47:32] any service that the township deems to
[47:34] provide. Um, so then the taxation piece
[47:37] would the total cost was around 63,000 I
[47:40] believe if memory serves. Um, so let's
[47:43] say we're in March or so whenever it
[47:45] happens. So one quarter of that. So
[47:47] you'd see about a
[47:50] quarter of a percent not quite of a
[47:52] overall increase to the to the overall
[47:54] levy instead of the 5.8 it would have to
[47:56] be added in to bring us closer six 6.05
[47:59] somewhere in that range. Mhm.
[48:02] And and the argument being that we're
[48:03] trying to make sure that we divert
[48:05] recycling away from the landfill, which
[48:06] is a benefit to all residents.
[48:08] >> Correct.
[48:09] » Correct.
[48:09] >> Yeah. Uh council, it puts it in it puts
[48:12] » Yeah. Uh council, it puts it in it puts
[48:12] its in a little bit of a gray area, but
[48:14] at least we are acknowledging that yes,
[48:16] we are accepting the cost. We are not
[48:19] directing that it be uh put on the ICI
[48:23] identified users at this point in time
[48:25] and we'll make that final decision as
[48:26] part of the bylaw. Good. And I'll go to
[48:29] Sorry, CO. Do you want to counter first?
[48:30] >> I could just to the treasur ask the
[48:32] » I could just to the treasur ask the
[48:32] question is can we leave it unfinanced
[48:35] and deal with it at the tax rate in May.
[48:38] That was kind of be the so we're not
[48:40] actually going to present that we're
[48:41] increasing the levy by another.3% now
[48:43] when we
[48:45] >> communicate this to the public the
[48:46] » communicate this to the public the
[48:46] budget to the public it would be dealt
[48:48] with at a tax rate time
[48:49] >> in May. Thanks.
[48:50] » in May. Thanks.
[48:50] >> Good.
[48:53] » Good.
[48:53] Thank you councelor Trim.
[48:55] >> Yes. Uh, that's all fine and I certainly
[49:00] » Yes. Uh, that's all fine and I certainly
[49:00] am not disagreeing with it, but I'm
[49:02] reminded that the philosophy of the
[49:04] province, they did this on purpose. They
[49:07] want this the the ICIs to contribute to
[49:12] the cost of recycling. That's what they
[49:14] want. Uh, it's it's not an accident.
[49:16] It's their philosophy, their plan.
[49:19] What's unfair about it is that everybody
[49:22] gets charged the same rate whether
[49:23] you're a a big business or a small
[49:26] business or a a little church or a big
[49:29] church.
[49:30] That's the unfair part about it. But the
[49:33] philosophy it it the province is very
[49:36] clear on it. They do want the businesses
[49:39] to contributing to the cost of
[49:41] recycling. So I don't know how we we
[49:45] squiggle and squeeze around that. Uh but
[49:48] we need to be what I'm want is to be
[49:52] very very transparent with the people
[49:54] who are actually going to pay for it the
[49:56] taxes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
[49:59] >> No and again that's the process by which
[50:02] » No and again that's the process by which
[50:02] we make that that implement that bylaw
[50:05] will is it one price for everyone? Is
[50:08] there opt out? Is there opt in? There's
[50:11] a there's a whole bunch of things that I
[50:12] think will have to get ironed out as
[50:13] part of that bylaw will help answer that
[50:16] that point that you've raised.
[50:18] >> Anything CEO?
[50:19] » Anything CEO?
[50:19] >> Yeah. And maybe the strategies to fund
[50:21] » Yeah. And maybe the strategies to fund
[50:21] it from revenue from elsewhere is like a
[50:24] you know you you do that over three
[50:26] years and then they'll pay you know 75%
[50:28] of that and 85% and then you could you
[50:30] know you could we'll look at those
[50:32] options if you
[50:33] >> Yeah. So I think it's great discussion
[50:35] » Yeah. So I think it's great discussion
[50:35] because I think it's given staff some
[50:36] perspective as to our viewpoint on the
[50:38] problem. Good. Are we good to carry on
[50:41] past this? Oh, councelor Homestead.
[50:44] >> No, just a sticky point. Um, I'm again
[50:46] » No, just a sticky point. Um, I'm again
[50:46] trying to understand coming from a
[50:48] business side as well. Is it accurate to
[50:50] say that it was legal
[50:54] before the new laws come out to share it
[50:57] across because everybody paid the 168
[51:00] and now due to the new changes it
[51:03] they've made it illegal. Is that what
[51:05] advice we're receiving from our from our
[51:08] legal team?
[51:12] >> Which staff?
[51:13] » Which staff?
[51:13] >> I treasur I can. So the the issue was is
[51:17] » I treasur I can. So the the issue was is
[51:17] that before recycling was provided by
[51:20] the township because we were the actual
[51:21] payer of the contract to every property.
[51:24] So that cost was disseminated to all
[51:27] properties that benefited from the
[51:28] service. We were providing recycling. We
[51:30] were providing garbage. We were
[51:32] providing uh the actual contractor that
[51:33] picked it up. What is and but in it the
[51:37] other side of it was the government was
[51:38] providing us a grant to help us do the
[51:40] recycling piece. Now it is switched
[51:42] around that we are not receiving money
[51:44] from the government as a grant because
[51:46] they've removed themselves removed us
[51:48] completely from the recycling equation.
[51:51] So since we're not doing that service
[51:52] for all 3,800 or 780 properties anymore,
[51:57] we're only going to do recycling for
[51:59] these 153. That's where it becomes
[52:01] challenging because it's no longer a
[52:04] majority of seeing it or of incurring
[52:06] these costs. That's where the issue
[52:08] comes in is the the fee for service
[52:10] through the municipal act is it's a fee
[52:12] for the service of the people who
[52:14] benefit from that service. So if you're
[52:16] not receiving the service or Q can't
[52:18] receive the service, there's no need for
[52:19] the for a resident to receive recycling
[52:21] from us. They're already getting it from
[52:23] the province. So it's not a service that
[52:24] the municipality needs to provide to
[52:26] them. We're only providing it to these
[52:29] 153. That's where the the issue comes in
[52:31] is we're it's not part of the overall
[52:34] collection cost anymore. It's a we're
[52:36] doing a separate collection because it's
[52:37] even a separate truck that goes out on a
[52:38] Friday to pick up your your commercial
[52:40] stuff now. It's not even with your
[52:42] garbage the way it used to be.
[52:45] I hope that
[52:46] >> Yeah, that that's clear. Thank you.
[52:48] » Yeah, that that's clear. Thank you.
[52:48] >> Good. And when we come back to talk
[52:50] » Good. And when we come back to talk
[52:50] about this bylaw, we're going to have to
[52:52] make sure there's a legal component to
[52:53] that discussion.
[52:56] >> Good. Councelor Trim.
[52:58] » Good. Councelor Trim.
[52:58] >> Yes. And I asked that very question of
[53:03] » Yes. And I asked that very question of
[53:03] the minister in a workshop
[53:05] at AMO
[53:07] and Minister Flax's answer was we never
[53:11] paid for the commercial garbage pickup.
[53:15] Uh and I don't I didn't get an
[53:19] explanation of that because I understood
[53:22] it was the way the grant was structured.
[53:25] And so uh as far as the ministry is
[53:27] concerned, there's no change. Um it's
[53:31] just the administration of it and what
[53:34] people see uh is is definitely a big
[53:37] change. So that's the answer I got for
[53:40] the question that councelor Mstead is
[53:43] asking.
[53:45] >> No. Great points. Good. Have we got
[53:48] » No. Great points. Good. Have we got
[53:48] enough on this point from a staff
[53:49] perspective?
[53:51] I just want to make sure. Okay. We have
[53:53] to I want to be able to move this budget
[53:56] on. Okay, good. So, that we are going to
[53:59] be coming back to that is a great big
[54:01] placeholder for that discussion in the
[54:03] future. So, are there any other
[54:04] questions before I go to the specific
[54:06] slides here? Any other general questions
[54:08] on slides 1 to 28?
[54:15] Okay, I'm going to go to slide 14,
[54:20] which is the the public comments on
[54:22] operating. And um I just wanted to make
[54:27] sure that we as a council publicly
[54:28] acknowledge this feedback that we've
[54:30] received from a number of different
[54:32] residents. And is there anything like
[54:35] the treasur has already articulated, we
[54:38] are investigating the op billing as part
[54:40] of uh advocacy through Roma and AMO.
[54:44] Uh we have a continued effort to look at
[54:48] shared services and fee for services
[54:50] from the county and other agencies.
[54:54] Point number one there.
[54:57] Is there any other direction or
[54:59] questions or comments from members of
[55:01] council and any other public feedback?
[55:10] Good. Councelor Moore,
[55:13] um, can somebody refresh my memory of
[55:15] what we decided about funding Penrook
[55:18] Pool? Did we ever have an have a talk
[55:21] about that or was it just sort of put
[55:22] off till another meeting and we never we
[55:24] never did it?
[55:27] Yeah,
[55:28] >> I would just say the the the staff are
[55:30] » I would just say the the the staff are
[55:30] continuing to engage together with the
[55:31] city of Pemrook and the town of Renfruit
[55:33] of recreational services and I think our
[55:35] our manager spoke to the city of Pemrook
[55:38] as recently as this week or late last
[55:40] week. Maybe you could provide an update.
[55:44] » So, the city of Pemrook is interested in
[55:47] pursuing a type of agreement for this
[55:49] summer. Um, and uh we would look forward
[55:51] to see what we can put forward. Um, it
[55:54] sounds like it's going to probably be a
[55:55] matter of us coordinating more and uh
[55:58] them providing confirmation of the
[56:00] registrations, but uh we would look
[56:03] forward to that in the budget.
[56:04] >> And will it be annual or just summer um
[56:07] » And will it be annual or just summer um
[56:07] um learning how to swim type thing?
[56:09] >> Summer, the same type of program that
[56:11] » Summer, the same type of program that
[56:11] ran in 2023.
[56:12] >> Okay. Thank you.
[56:17] » Okay. Okay, if there's no other
[56:18] questions or comments, then I I can say
[56:20] that we have duly acknowledged the
[56:22] public input into the operating
[56:24] component of the budget. Thank you,
[56:26] treasurer, for doing that. The next
[56:28] slide I would like to go to is slide
[56:30] number 16, which is the public comments
[56:33] that we received from capital
[56:36] and the associated response from staff
[56:38] on slide 17. Is there any comments,
[56:42] questions or points that council wants
[56:44] to make on this public comment, these
[56:46] public comments?
[56:51] Yes, sorry. Councelor White.
[56:53] >> Yes. Um, regarding Zion Line, excuse me,
[56:57] » Yes. Um, regarding Zion Line, excuse me,
[56:57] and Government Road. So, in this year's
[57:00] budget, we're proposing $660,000
[57:03] for Government Road and nothing for Zion
[57:06] Line. Correct.
[57:08] >> That's correct.
[57:09] » That's correct.
[57:09] >> Okay. So, um, for Zion Line, if I add up
[57:13] » Okay. So, um, for Zion Line, if I add up
[57:13] these three numbers, we have spent $2.3
[57:15] million on Zion Line. And in that same
[57:18] amount of time, how much money have we
[57:20] spent on government road? Do we know?
[57:23] >> I'm sorry. The Are you talking the
[57:26] » I'm sorry. The Are you talking the
[57:26] sheets that I handed out?
[57:28] >> So, it's not an addup.
[57:30] » So, it's not an addup.
[57:30] >> Um, so it's different costings. So the
[57:32] » Um, so it's different costings. So the
[57:32] top one is costing of a million dollars
[57:34] ashfalt if the road was widened to meet
[57:36] the act of transportation for the same
[57:39] chunk of road. It's Fortress Fault to
[57:41] West Ross. Same chunk of road if we were
[57:43] to do just ashvault and not widen the
[57:46] road $700,000 which is unwidened and
[57:48] wouldn't meet the uh active
[57:50] transportation plan. And then if we were
[57:52] to just do ashvault from Papen Road or
[57:55] sorry DST from Papen Road to Forers
[57:57] Falls Road be 660,000. They're
[57:58] individual costs. They're not added up.
[58:00] That would be the cost if we were to do
[58:02] that road over government road this
[58:03] year.
[58:07] » Okay.
[58:09] >> So, we've done work on Zion line in 200
[58:14] » So, we've done work on Zion line in 200
[58:14] since early 2000 since 2006.
[58:17] >> You got it. Yeah.
[58:18] » You got it. Yeah.
[58:18] >> Okay. What about government road? What
[58:20] » Okay. What about government road? What
[58:20] have we done on government road in
[58:22] between 2006 and now?
[58:24] >> I'll pass that to the manager public
[58:26] » I'll pass that to the manager public
[58:26] works.
[58:27] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, Government Road, uh,
[58:29] » Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, Government Road, uh,
[58:29] sorry, in 2016,
[58:32] um, they did a DST and then they, uh,
[58:34] surfaced, uh, portion of the road, but
[58:37] all done in one year in 2016.
[58:42] » So, DST and
[58:44] >> and and a a a single surface all in one
[58:48] » and and a a a single surface all in one
[58:48] year.
[58:48] >> Do we know the cost of what that was
[58:51] » Do we know the cost of what that was
[58:51] roughly?
[58:53] >> Not total cost. I have the cost just for
[58:55] » Not total cost. I have the cost just for
[58:55] what what they paid for the contractor,
[58:56] but I didn't have the cost for the
[58:58] gravel, anything else.
[58:59] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[59:04] » Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[59:04] >> Any other comments from members of
[59:05] » Any other comments from members of
[59:05] council?
[59:08] >> Yeah, councelor Trim.
[59:11] » Yeah, councelor Trim.
[59:11] >> I I'm just wondering at is this the time
[59:14] » I I'm just wondering at is this the time
[59:14] that we're going to be deciding
[59:17] uh uh with respect to uh these two
[59:21] roads? Is this is this the point where
[59:24] we're going to be having the discussion
[59:26] to decide as it is now? Um the uh uh the
[59:32] recommendation is government road but I
[59:35] don't want to be
[59:38] interfering with what you have planned
[59:39] Mr. Mayor.
[59:41] >> No, this is the point in time that we
[59:43] » No, this is the point in time that we
[59:43] want to discuss this and it rolls up
[59:44] into the the resolution that we have at
[59:46] the end of the meeting. So yes, if you
[59:49] want to discuss this road Zion line
[59:52] versus what's been proposed in the
[59:54] budget, this is the time to do it.
[59:56] >> May I continue then?
[59:57] » May I continue then?
[59:57] >> Yes, please.
[1:00:00] » Yes, please.
[1:00:00] >> Okay. To prepare myself for this
[1:00:03] » Okay. To prepare myself for this
[1:00:03] meeting, I did have a chat with the
[1:00:05] director of public works and but I was
[1:00:09] I've know much of this information
[1:00:11] that's being presented today. Uh, also
[1:00:14] that isn't included here is is the um uh
[1:00:18] the the traffic count and uh and so
[1:00:23] personally I need to make a decision on
[1:00:27] some some facts. It I I know that there
[1:00:31] are probably people living on government
[1:00:33] road that could come and make an
[1:00:36] impassion plea for us to do that road.
[1:00:39] According to the director, both roads
[1:00:42] are in similar disrepair. Uh we can't
[1:00:46] say one is uh significantly worse than
[1:00:50] the other. And so I'm not prepared to
[1:00:52] flip a coin here. I I want to base my
[1:00:56] decision on other facts. Uh the traffic
[1:00:59] count is somewhat more on ZIL. Uh, I'm
[1:01:06] not going to say twice as much, but it
[1:01:08] is considerably more. The um
[1:01:11] >> Sorry to interrupt, but it is on this
[1:01:12] » Sorry to interrupt, but it is on this
[1:01:12] sheet.
[1:01:13] >> Oh, sorry. I missed it. I I was told it,
[1:01:16] » Oh, sorry. I missed it. I I was told it,
[1:01:16] but I'm not. Okay. And and the the um
[1:01:19] dates of um
[1:01:23] rehabilitation
[1:01:25] are older for the Z line. So, based on
[1:01:30] um all of those facts, uh Mr. Mayor, I'm
[1:01:34] going to say now before you ask me that
[1:01:37] I'm going to recommend that we do spend
[1:01:40] our
[1:01:42] uh budget money this year on um the
[1:01:46] rehabilitation of the Zel line, whatever
[1:01:49] that means. And uh because I know that
[1:01:52] included there could be some culvert
[1:01:54] work. I know the brushing has been done,
[1:01:56] but there could be some culvert work and
[1:01:58] some gravel. And so whatever it means is
[1:02:02] what I'm going to be voting for. Thank
[1:02:06] you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:02:11] » Any other comments on timeline? Sorry.
[1:02:13] And I've seen you already, so I'll go to
[1:02:14] other people. Councelor Moore,
[1:02:18] >> I know it was discussed at the time that
[1:02:20] » I know it was discussed at the time that
[1:02:20] um um Government Road was the older of
[1:02:23] the two and that we had thought maybe um
[1:02:27] we would continue with doing that road
[1:02:29] and then we had the delegation of design
[1:02:32] line. I'm sure we could get another
[1:02:33] delegation from Government Road to say
[1:02:36] the same thing. Um, and it's not to to
[1:02:39] pick a fight between the the two, but
[1:02:41] we've we found this in many years of
[1:02:43] council, whether it be Sturgeon Mountain
[1:02:46] Road or whatever, um, anytime we go to
[1:02:48] do work on it, somebody always feels
[1:02:50] that there's another road requires more
[1:02:53] urgent help. So,
[1:02:56] in keeping with the staff point of view,
[1:02:58] the staff are saying it's time to do
[1:03:00] government road. And of the complaints
[1:03:03] that I've received in the last 3 years,
[1:03:06] um, majority are from government road,
[1:03:08] but other counselors are getting the
[1:03:11] complaints from Z line. So, probably
[1:03:14] equals out just as well. But, um, in
[1:03:17] order for our staff to make a decision
[1:03:20] on what we as council want them to do,
[1:03:23] uh, we're up in the air. So, how can our
[1:03:25] how can our staff make a decision? So,
[1:03:27] uh, right now I'm behind my staff member
[1:03:29] who says government road is next in
[1:03:31] line.
[1:03:35] » Good. Any other feedback from Council
[1:03:37] Homestead?
[1:03:38] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um,
[1:03:41] » Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um,
[1:03:41] I do know that I've seen a schedule of
[1:03:44] upcoming um, budgets.
[1:03:48] Do we have Zion on 2027's current
[1:03:51] budget?
[1:03:53] >> Right now, it's 2028. 2028.
[1:03:57] » Right now, it's 2028. 2028.
[1:03:57] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[1:04:02] » Good. Any other council feedback?
[1:04:06] >> We have one suggesting a change.
[1:04:10] » We have one suggesting a change.
[1:04:10] Councelor White, if you'd like to go,
[1:04:12] there's no one else.
[1:04:12] >> Um, is there another recommendation
[1:04:15] » Um, is there another recommendation
[1:04:15] coming forward from anyone from any
[1:04:17] staff member or are we leaving it as
[1:04:20] only for um Government Road?
[1:04:25] CEO
[1:04:27] >> um I think as it stands the so so the
[1:04:31] » um I think as it stands the so so the
[1:04:31] maybe I'll just bring it back to the
[1:04:33] original recommendation to do government
[1:04:35] road so the reason you know as councelor
[1:04:39] trim noted is the AADTS are somewhat
[1:04:41] higher on Z line the conditions are
[1:04:44] generally in disrepair for both roads
[1:04:46] among many other roads in our in our
[1:04:48] community um one of the constraints
[1:04:51] which led to the recommendation for
[1:04:52] government road is the the financial
[1:04:55] amount of money we have the 660 $660,000
[1:05:00] it aligns itself well with the length of
[1:05:03] road for government road um being ashalt
[1:05:07] um what you have before you treasure
[1:05:10] McDonald could share on the screen um
[1:05:13] this sheet of paper um
[1:05:17] gives essentially three options if you
[1:05:19] will under costing
[1:05:22] hyphen Z line, Z line, Z line. Those are
[1:05:25] three options. And
[1:05:27] the reason why we were in some sense not
[1:05:30] recommending Z line is because the cost
[1:05:32] to do Z design
[1:05:36] um based on the current policies of
[1:05:40] council, namely the active
[1:05:42] transportation plan. Z Line's intended
[1:05:45] to be an active transportation route,
[1:05:47] which means it's a widen road.
[1:05:50] And the costing for that widen road to
[1:05:53] to comply and meet our active transport
[1:05:56] would be around a million dollars. So we
[1:05:58] don't have a million dollars. So if
[1:06:00] we're going to do a road and government
[1:06:02] road is is being recommended at this
[1:06:04] point in time and and remains. If
[1:06:07] council chooses at their discretion,
[1:06:09] they could do a less widen road which
[1:06:13] does not meet their active
[1:06:14] transportation plan and it would cost
[1:06:15] $700,000 and would more or less fit in
[1:06:18] the budget. we could alter some other
[1:06:20] capital items. So that's kind of where
[1:06:22] the original recommendation came from.
[1:06:25] Um
[1:06:26] the question that we pose as staff to
[1:06:28] council is uh the active transportation
[1:06:31] plan is to some degree maybe an
[1:06:34] increased level of service. It's a need.
[1:06:36] I mean it it impro improves the quality
[1:06:37] of life of our residents, safety of our
[1:06:40] roads and the like. So, um, in the 2028
[1:06:43] and I'll just have the the I'll close
[1:06:44] out with this to the directors. The the
[1:06:48] in 2028 Zion line at $1.1 million, does
[1:06:51] that include the widening of the road?
[1:06:55] >> That is correct.
[1:06:55] » That is correct.
[1:06:55] >> That's correct. So, I mean, basically
[1:06:58] » That's correct. So, I mean, basically
[1:06:58] what is before council is this $660,000.
[1:07:02] We could um do government road this year
[1:07:05] and it's within the budget. We could do
[1:07:07] design line at a reduced scope for 700
[1:07:10] which would fit within the budget or we
[1:07:12] we postpone it to 2028 in the in the
[1:07:16] chart the unfunded big capital list here
[1:07:18] that's unfunded and might change uh for
[1:07:21] 2028 which includes the widening of the
[1:07:23] road. So uh I think the deliberations on
[1:07:26] this projection and levels of service
[1:07:28] it'll look at this active transportation
[1:07:30] plan a little bit closer and whether or
[1:07:31] not we want to increase levels of
[1:07:32] service and follow that. Uh but that's
[1:07:34] kind of what's before council is the
[1:07:36] government road 660 fits in the budget.
[1:07:38] Reduce scope of design line from
[1:07:41] Foresters Falls to West Ross. You're in
[1:07:43] that $700,000 for Ashvalt as well. So
[1:07:46] that's that's where it stands. So our
[1:07:48] recommendation to answer the original
[1:07:49] question stands at Government Road. If I
[1:07:51] look at my my director uh that that's
[1:07:53] kind of where we stand.
[1:07:55] >> Thanks.
[1:07:57] » Thanks.
[1:07:57] >> Good question.
[1:07:58] » Good question.
[1:07:58] any comments as a result of the CEO's
[1:08:01] and I will come to you councelor Trim if
[1:08:02] there's no one else at this point in
[1:08:05] time. Yeah, councelor Bell first then
[1:08:06] councelor trim. This is just a general
[1:08:08] comment but I feel like at this point
[1:08:11] the widening of roads the extra costs
[1:08:14] that are going to be associated with
[1:08:15] doing this year-over-year because I know
[1:08:16] we have a number of roads we talked
[1:08:18] about doing it on Grand Settlement Road
[1:08:19] that's that got dialed back that's no
[1:08:21] longer on the on the schedule now for
[1:08:24] the next few years. Um, this is going to
[1:08:27] be a topic of conversation for the next
[1:08:30] next group of council members and
[1:08:32] probably the council members after that.
[1:08:34] If the intent is to continue to increase
[1:08:36] that level of service on the roads, then
[1:08:38] we're going to have to decide that we're
[1:08:40] not doing the basics on other roads. So,
[1:08:44] I feel like at this point in time when
[1:08:45] we're looking at these 5-year
[1:08:46] projections and we can't afford anything
[1:08:48] moving forward, like I I don't know if
[1:08:53] we should be making a decision today
[1:08:56] based on an increased level of service
[1:08:58] that I'm assuming in a year or two,
[1:09:00] we're still going to be looking at
[1:09:02] scaling those decisions back to make
[1:09:04] sure that they fit within the budget.
[1:09:06] Um,
[1:09:08] so from my perspective, I know both
[1:09:10] roads are in disrepair. We heard uh the
[1:09:14] delegation from Zion Line the other day.
[1:09:16] They make a bunch of good points looking
[1:09:18] at the average daily drivers um for 469
[1:09:22] versus 269. Um,
[1:09:26] just looking at this from like a general
[1:09:29] uh taxpayer perspective, there's 469
[1:09:32] drivers on that road a day that are
[1:09:35] going to appreciate an update in the
[1:09:37] surface and and
[1:09:40] not driving over a road that's in
[1:09:42] disrepair versus the 269 on government
[1:09:44] road. I I'm happy to leave it up to the
[1:09:49] expertise of of the individuals that do
[1:09:53] this on a daily basis. Um, but I
[1:09:56] recognize that Zion Line obviously has
[1:09:58] more more daily traffic. And honestly,
[1:10:02] the the residents of the Zion line
[1:10:05] probably don't care about the widened
[1:10:07] portion of the road. They just want to
[1:10:09] make sure that they can get to and from
[1:10:11] their houses on a daily basis without
[1:10:12] taking the oil pans out of their cars.
[1:10:14] So, um I I just whenever we talk about
[1:10:18] this increased scope of of widening the
[1:10:21] road for active transportation, well, it
[1:10:23] basically doubles the cost of of doing
[1:10:25] it in DST, right? Um
[1:10:29] I know that doesn't really give any
[1:10:31] solutions, but it's just I
[1:10:33] I don't want to be making decisions
[1:10:35] today based on something that we
[1:10:38] probably can't afford in a year or two.
[1:10:40] just looking into the next year, year or
[1:10:43] two of budgets of knowing that this is
[1:10:46] going to be an issue, affordability
[1:10:47] issue moving forward.
[1:10:51] » Good. Thank you for sharing your
[1:10:52] thoughts on that one. And I'll go to
[1:10:54] councelor Trim.
[1:10:55] >> Uh yes, the comments I was going to make
[1:10:59] » Uh yes, the comments I was going to make
[1:10:59] were made by uh councelor Bell. Uh I
[1:11:03] generally am opposed to uh increasing
[1:11:08] levels of service
[1:11:10] uh on not increasing levels of service
[1:11:13] until we are doing well with the
[1:11:16] services we're committed to. Uh and so I
[1:11:20] know that bicycle lanes and walking uh
[1:11:23] shoulders uh would be
[1:11:26] a benefit. I I'm not saying that they
[1:11:28] wouldn't be. However, uh until we have
[1:11:32] all of our roads up to scratch, uh then
[1:11:35] I I think that that's something we can't
[1:11:37] afford. However, having said that, I'm
[1:11:40] wondering if the director, Mr. Lane
[1:11:43] could could tell us how much if if his
[1:11:47] cost estimates includes
[1:11:49] the extra width that the last section of
[1:11:54] the design line got because uh I think
[1:11:57] we should try to accommodate farm
[1:11:59] machinery at the very least. Um so
[1:12:02] perhaps he could give us that
[1:12:04] information. Maybe not today. Thank you,
[1:12:06] Mr. Mayor.
[1:12:09] » Noted.
[1:12:12] Perfect. Any other discussion on this?
[1:12:16] Sorry.
[1:12:19] >> Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was waiting for the
[1:12:21] » Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was waiting for the
[1:12:21] CEO to throw that ball to Lane. So,
[1:12:24] good. We'll give it to manager of public
[1:12:26] works.
[1:12:26] >> Yes. If I can add um yes, both roads are
[1:12:29] » Yes. If I can add um yes, both roads are
[1:12:29] in poor condition as we're all aware. Um
[1:12:33] why originally why we're following
[1:12:36] policy as the for the act of
[1:12:39] transportation. Um that's why uh Zline
[1:12:43] did not fit in this year's budget within
[1:12:46] the the allocation for for roads. Um
[1:12:52] in talking to our our our uh public
[1:12:57] works staff that uh government road is
[1:13:00] patched more often than Z line. um
[1:13:06] resign line I it's been on for the last
[1:13:09] three four years it has been selected um
[1:13:12] but talking to uh the the the road super
[1:13:16] um even today um I travel with both of
[1:13:19] them again today's to ensure that
[1:13:22] junction was coming up um I can tell you
[1:13:25] that government road is in worse shape
[1:13:27] today with potholes as we patched than
[1:13:31] it is design line so I think I think
[1:13:33] originally
[1:13:34] Um, Zing need needs to be done. I think
[1:13:36] it needs to be but I think uh with the
[1:13:40] the the condition of Government Road, it
[1:13:43] needs to be done sooner than Z line. Um
[1:13:46] I've been back and forth. I talking to
[1:13:48] councelor Trim yesterday. I am back and
[1:13:50] forth. I you can be we can do either one
[1:13:52] of them need both both be done. But um I
[1:13:56] think to at this point I think my
[1:13:58] recommendation is to carry on with with
[1:14:01] Government Road.
[1:14:08] Good. Does that bring any other
[1:14:10] comments?
[1:14:11] Now, I'll just recognize uh um one
[1:14:15] comment about 2028. Councelor Mstead
[1:14:17] brought it up. When is Xylon Zion
[1:14:20] forecasted for in the 5-year plan?
[1:14:24] The challenge is 2027 isn't fully
[1:14:26] funded. So, 2027 runs us into a deficit.
[1:14:31] 2028 runs us into another deficit. So,
[1:14:35] uh, resting on the fact that, oh yeah,
[1:14:38] don't worry, we have it. We we don't
[1:14:39] have it scheduled. It's it is written in
[1:14:42] sand on the beach and and that's what
[1:14:46] our our budget committee is going to
[1:14:48] have to look at in the coming months
[1:14:50] because you we're just we're just
[1:14:52] pushing the problem out one more year.
[1:14:56] >> Good. Uh, sorry. Uh, back to manager of
[1:14:58] » Good. Uh, sorry. Uh, back to manager of
[1:14:58] public works.
[1:15:00] >> Yes. I have to add one thing. This was
[1:15:01] » Yes. I have to add one thing. This was
[1:15:01] brought up this uh councelor White
[1:15:05] brought up uh in one of the first or
[1:15:07] second meetings is um also addition with
[1:15:11] as you see in 2027 um there's there is
[1:15:14] some uh some third lifts or a a single
[1:15:17] surf put on to DST for example um Brmley
[1:15:22] Road Bramley line sorry needs it's right
[1:15:25] on the it's very similar to what we did
[1:15:28] um with uh
[1:15:32] um sorry
[1:15:33] >> road.
[1:15:33] » road.
[1:15:34] >> Rapid road. Thank you. Um it's very like
[1:15:36] » Rapid road. Thank you. Um it's very like
[1:15:36] rapid road was probably a year past this
[1:15:38] point. We did save it. We spent a bit
[1:15:41] extra money making it good enough to be
[1:15:43] single surface over top. Bromem line has
[1:15:46] come to a point maybe past this point as
[1:15:49] it's in there. Um there is a cost
[1:15:51] savings if we do a third lift versus
[1:15:53] doing the whole road DST. There is as
[1:15:55] shown in the on on the slides. um where
[1:16:00] that really should be done this year,
[1:16:01] but again with with the with the
[1:16:03] constraint
[1:16:05] um where we are picking a worse road
[1:16:07] over keeping one of our roads bring it
[1:16:10] back to to good again. So next year is a
[1:16:12] challenge like as Mayor Nicholson stated
[1:16:15] that there is a 2027 is even a a
[1:16:19] financial uh shortfall even even that at
[1:16:22] that where a design line needs to be
[1:16:24] done also. So it is a challenge.
[1:16:31] » Thank you. This is good discussion and
[1:16:33] important um for us to be doing this
[1:16:35] publicly. I think so. Is there any other
[1:16:38] councelor Bell? Sorry, but uh yeah, and
[1:16:42] just going back looking at the previous
[1:16:43] presentation, these five-year
[1:16:45] projections, the reason Zion line isn't
[1:16:47] on for 2027 is because ash fault is also
[1:16:53] scheduled to go back go down between
[1:16:55] Fletcher and P road next year as well.
[1:16:59] So, we're spending that 660 this year,
[1:17:01] 737 next year on ashvault for government
[1:17:05] road. And then we've already had these
[1:17:08] discussions, but then it gets back to
[1:17:10] should we just be doing the whole road
[1:17:12] in DST this year to open up the funding
[1:17:16] to resurface another road next year in
[1:17:18] DST? Recognizing the life cycle of that,
[1:17:22] it is what it is with DST. Like it's
[1:17:24] hard to believe that that was that
[1:17:26] government road was done in 2016 and
[1:17:28] we're 2026 talking about it again for
[1:17:33] $660,000 project.
[1:17:36] But is that something that we should be
[1:17:38] considering instead of doing ashvault on
[1:17:41] the two portions over the next two
[1:17:43] years? Do DST for the entire portion
[1:17:46] this year to open up funding to get Zion
[1:17:49] Line done within the next two because
[1:17:51] they brought up a lot of the delegation
[1:17:52] brought up a great point is you know
[1:17:54] it's we're having issues with the
[1:17:56] traffic in Beachburg because trucks
[1:17:58] don't want to be traveling on Zion line
[1:17:59] because of the condition of Zion Line.
[1:18:01] Um there's a fairly significant business
[1:18:04] or very significant business at the end
[1:18:06] of the Zion line that brings in a lot of
[1:18:08] heavy equipment uh on you know through
[1:18:11] both sides of Zion line. The the traffic
[1:18:14] that's seen with the agricultural
[1:18:16] equipment on government road is the same
[1:18:17] as the the the agricultural equipment
[1:18:20] that's driving on on the Zion line. Um
[1:18:25] just again looking at to what we can
[1:18:28] actually afford. Can we actually afford
[1:18:29] to put ashvalt down the entire stretch
[1:18:31] of of government road before we do
[1:18:35] anything with Zion line? That's, you
[1:18:38] know, I brought out that presentation
[1:18:39] from the last budget and I know we've
[1:18:42] already had these discussions, but
[1:18:45] we're making the decision now. So, is
[1:18:47] that something that we should be
[1:18:48] considering instead?
[1:18:56] » Good. Thank you for throwing all of this
[1:18:58] out into the middle of the discussion,
[1:18:59] but this is what a committee is for. Uh
[1:19:02] you're supposed to be able to do these
[1:19:03] things. Uh sorry, council, I'm going to
[1:19:06] throw one thing out and then we'll come
[1:19:08] to councelor Mstead and then we'll do
[1:19:10] this. Is that we do have to make a
[1:19:12] decision today. We we need to It may not
[1:19:14] be the perfect decision. We have
[1:19:17] gathered the information. You've
[1:19:18] received information from the public.
[1:19:20] We've we've drilled into the staff's
[1:19:22] recommendation. We have a staff
[1:19:24] recommendation. Um, but I'll come back
[1:19:26] to both councelor Trim and councelor
[1:19:28] Bell. If you want to put a motion on the
[1:19:29] floor to revisit the existing proposed
[1:19:32] budget, we will we will take a look at
[1:19:34] that. Good. Councelor Mstead.
[1:19:36] >> Yeah. Um, just an overarching comment, I
[1:19:40] » Yeah. Um, just an overarching comment, I
[1:19:40] guess, in that uh number one. Um,
[1:19:44] sorry. And I didn't see this on my my uh
[1:19:47] desk earlier, but we do have a 5-year
[1:19:49] proposal in front of us um for for um
[1:19:54] roads. First time I think I've ever seen
[1:19:57] that. So, hats off to the input that
[1:20:00] went into it. Um I think it's very
[1:20:03] important that as we go through an asset
[1:20:05] management plan and the input that goes
[1:20:08] into it and the expertise of the people
[1:20:11] that that uh are inputting that
[1:20:14] information that once we get it close we
[1:20:17] have to stick to it otherwise what the
[1:20:20] hell are we doing? Why even have an
[1:20:22] asset management plan? So I think it's
[1:20:24] very important that we're down that road
[1:20:27] now. We got a great 5-year. Is it bang
[1:20:31] on? Who knows? I'm sure there's going to
[1:20:33] be little bits of puts and takes, but
[1:20:35] I've heard as much from government road
[1:20:39] uh texts and phone calls to me as I did
[1:20:41] probably more than Zion Line. So, and
[1:20:45] that's going to continue through the
[1:20:46] next bunch of councils that everybody
[1:20:47] that lives on that road is going to come
[1:20:49] to us. And that that's that's good.
[1:20:51] They've got they're they're invested and
[1:20:52] they're interested. But I think at some
[1:20:54] point you've got to go, okay, here's the
[1:20:56] plan. And you know, we're not really
[1:20:58] straying from it other than if there's
[1:21:00] some extenduating circumstances that we
[1:21:02] have to we have to uh stray from it. Um,
[1:21:07] and again, it's one of the first times
[1:21:10] I've seen ashalt all over the page here.
[1:21:13] I've been on council, this is my 12th
[1:21:15] year, and I think I've only seen ashalt
[1:21:17] on a list other than if it's in town
[1:21:19] maybe twice, once or twice. So, it's
[1:21:22] great that we're we're getting to a
[1:21:24] point we're actually seeing ashalt,
[1:21:25] which has to take place on these these
[1:21:27] welltraveled roads versus DST. As
[1:21:30] councelor Bell said, uh, you know, we're
[1:21:33] we're 8 years, 7 years in. I remember
[1:21:36] Zion line, I think we were patching it
[1:21:37] the second year after we we put DST on
[1:21:40] it. So, it we just can't go down the DST
[1:21:43] path on uh these welltraveled roads. So,
[1:21:47] what I would propose is we stick to what
[1:21:50] uh they've have in the plan for 2026.
[1:21:53] Uh we look at 2027, review it, and see
[1:21:56] if there's any changes that can be made
[1:21:57] there. But again, at some point, we've
[1:21:59] got to go, this is the 5-year plan that
[1:22:01] we're going with, and bearing a whole
[1:22:04] lot of uh issues, we have to stick by
[1:22:07] that because it's and again, it's not
[1:22:10] just roads we're dealing with, it's the
[1:22:11] entire freaking township that we're
[1:22:12] trying to get into this asset management
[1:22:14] plan. So, um, anyway, that's my two
[1:22:16] cents. Thank you.
[1:22:17] >> Good. Thank you. And this is perfect.
[1:22:19] » Good. Thank you. And this is perfect.
[1:22:19] Again, this is what committees are for.
[1:22:22] Okay. I'm going to turn it back to
[1:22:23] Councelor Trim and Councelor Bell. Both
[1:22:25] of you had made suggestions about
[1:22:27] changing the current. Is that something
[1:22:29] that you'd like to put on the floor?
[1:22:31] >> Uh, yes. I would like uh to move that uh
[1:22:36] » Uh, yes. I would like uh to move that uh
[1:22:36] that this construction season we we
[1:22:39] spend our the
[1:22:41] uh our funds on the uh section of the
[1:22:45] design line that's been indicated and uh
[1:22:48] uh just uh uh a little further to what
[1:22:52] councelor Olmstead said uh I do believe
[1:22:55] in planning and I do believe that we
[1:22:57] should be sticking to uh our our plans.
[1:23:00] Um, however,
[1:23:03] new in when new information comes in, I
[1:23:06] think that it's appropriate to re
[1:23:10] rethink uh the plan. And so the new
[1:23:13] information today was that the cost for
[1:23:16] the design line included the active
[1:23:19] living uh the what
[1:23:21] >> active transportation
[1:23:22] » active transportation
[1:23:22] >> active transportation
[1:23:24] » active transportation
[1:23:24] um part. Now if we are if we agree to um
[1:23:31] eliminate that which is what I propose
[1:23:35] then the um then all of sudden the plan
[1:23:39] changes then it then to me it makes more
[1:23:43] sense to do the design line because of
[1:23:46] the traffic count and the the age of the
[1:23:48] road and so on and so on. Um a and so
[1:23:54] with that in mind, I'm going to move
[1:23:56] that we make that change.
[1:23:58] >> Good. Thank you. Do I have
[1:23:59] » Good. Thank you. Do I have
[1:23:59] >> And I'm looking for a seconder. Yes.
[1:24:01] » And I'm looking for a seconder. Yes.
[1:24:01] >> Do I have a seconder?
[1:24:04] » Do I have a seconder?
[1:24:04] >> And I see no seconder. So your motion is
[1:24:06] » And I see no seconder. So your motion is
[1:24:06] not recognized. Uh councelor Bell, would
[1:24:10] you like to move any of your
[1:24:12] suggestions?
[1:24:16] » No. I think I I tend to agree with uh
[1:24:19] councelor Olmstead. Um I just wanted to
[1:24:22] throw it out on the table just to just
[1:24:25] to see what other counselors thought.
[1:24:28] But um in listening to what our public
[1:24:32] works manager has to say like
[1:24:36] we're going to make the wrong decision
[1:24:37] in a number of people's eyes. We're
[1:24:39] going to make the right decision in
[1:24:41] some. So, I I tend to agree our our
[1:24:47] public works manager, he's he's been
[1:24:50] considering this. He knows all the
[1:24:52] issues on these roads. Um we're going to
[1:24:55] fit it into the budget. We're laying
[1:24:57] ashall down. I think that is that's a
[1:24:59] that's a good thing. Um just recognizing
[1:25:02] we're we're going to get some some
[1:25:04] backlash from the members on Zion line.
[1:25:07] I looking at this five-year plan, it's a
[1:25:10] plan and like councelor Olmstead said, I
[1:25:13] think once we put it into motion, I
[1:25:15] think sticking to it is important. So
[1:25:18] it's good
[1:25:27] instead of on
[1:25:30] the we're we are we're going to close
[1:25:32] discussion on this item pages page 17
[1:25:36] basically. Um, direction stands as was
[1:25:40] recommended by staff, but I am going to
[1:25:42] propose that we give staff direction on
[1:25:45] a couple things uh when it comes to our
[1:25:48] committee. And the first one is uh we
[1:25:52] need to re-examine active transportation
[1:25:55] and the impact it has on the level of
[1:25:57] service.
[1:25:59] Uh in my opinion, I'm I'm sharing
[1:26:02] councelor Bell's thoughts. I think it's
[1:26:05] unaffordable. Councelor Trim brought it
[1:26:07] up. It's a it's a level of service that
[1:26:09] we are not prepared. It's going to keep
[1:26:11] taking our main roads identified for
[1:26:13] active transportation off of the list
[1:26:14] because we just we don't have the funds
[1:26:16] to do them. Uh so I think that's one
[1:26:19] thing that the budget committee should
[1:26:20] look at in the future.
[1:26:23] Uh the second one is uh the three other
[1:26:27] points
[1:26:30] sorry at least the middle two and I'll
[1:26:32] take committee input on the fourth one
[1:26:34] but about the fireh halls about the
[1:26:37] extended life equipment of of current
[1:26:39] assets. I think we make that a task for
[1:26:41] our budget committee and our discussion
[1:26:43] about a five-year plan. How do we take
[1:26:45] how do we consider those comments in our
[1:26:48] discussions for our five-year plan?
[1:26:50] Uh, and at the fourth one about
[1:26:52] re-rolling our arenas, if you would like
[1:26:56] to have that included, we can add that
[1:26:57] if there's anyone that wants to add that
[1:26:59] in.
[1:27:01] Okay. I don't see any. So, we'll just
[1:27:03] take the first three as as provided. Is
[1:27:05] any feedback from the committee on that
[1:27:07] direction to staff?
[1:27:10] No. And I'll just I don't know if
[1:27:12] there's any public watching or we can
[1:27:14] pass this on to the members of Zion Line
[1:27:16] that came and did the delegation. I
[1:27:17] think that's exactly the type of public
[1:27:20] involvement that council needs. It made
[1:27:22] us go back and tear this apart and
[1:27:26] consider a whole bunch of different
[1:27:28] variables. And that's exactly what we
[1:27:30] want in a democracy is the ability to
[1:27:32] have that interaction between public
[1:27:35] input and necessary decisions. I don't
[1:27:38] think there's ever going to be the
[1:27:40] correct decision. There's always going
[1:27:42] to be the decision that you have to take
[1:27:44] given the parameters you have at that
[1:27:45] moment in time. and we have to proceed.
[1:27:49] But the delegations, the public input is
[1:27:52] is exactly what we need. Good. With
[1:27:55] that, we are concluding pages 1 through
[1:27:57] 28. I think there's another 30 pages to
[1:28:00] go, but maybe we're going to take a
[1:28:02] quick bio break and uh just five
[1:28:05] minutes, please, and then we'll come
[1:28:06] back.
[1:36:57] and welcome back to the Township of
[1:36:59] Whitewater regions budget committee
[1:37:01] meeting and we are going to continue.
[1:37:03] Now, if you're if you're watching and
[1:37:06] and looking for the regular council
[1:37:08] meeting that was supposed to start at
[1:37:09] 1:00,
[1:37:10] we are going to start the regular
[1:37:12] council meeting as soon as we finish the
[1:37:15] budget committee meeting. The two are
[1:37:17] intertwined. We have a recommendation
[1:37:19] that we will be making at the conclusion
[1:37:21] of the budget committee for the council
[1:37:22] meeting and it is the 2026 budget.
[1:37:25] Therefore, important if not vital for us
[1:37:28] to try to address today if uh if at all
[1:37:31] possible.
[1:37:32] So just be patient please and we'll
[1:37:34] continue our deliberations here at the
[1:37:36] committee level and then we'll move into
[1:37:37] council. Excellent. And with that we are
[1:37:41] going to turn the floor back to the CEO
[1:37:42] and the treasurer and continue on. I
[1:37:44] think we're at slide number 29.
[1:37:47] Thank you. We're actually going to the
[1:37:49] CIO's question. We're going to pop back
[1:37:50] to slide 26 just for one second. Um just
[1:37:54] to illustrate the where the 1.6% comes
[1:37:57] from uh with the total operating
[1:37:59] expenses of $9.35 million. So that's the
[1:38:02] total cost to operate the township uh
[1:38:04] which includes the uh the costs for the
[1:38:07] OP uh and and all other costs to to
[1:38:10] operate uh as well as our uh our uh
[1:38:13] other u internal costs of salaries uh
[1:38:17] contracts and things like that. So the
[1:38:19] amount the balance to fund the levy is
[1:38:20] the $5.9 million. That's the operating
[1:38:23] levy. Uh as you can see the prior year
[1:38:25] was 200 or 5.77 million. So overall the
[1:38:28] the levy is increasing by 2.5% uh less
[1:38:31] the expected growth uh which has almost
[1:38:34] been finalized. It's a little higher
[1:38:35] than 0.9 but I for calculation purposes
[1:38:38] I left it that way. And then so it
[1:38:40] equals about a 1.6% overall increase. Um
[1:38:43] I will note I think I mentioned this
[1:38:45] before but I'll just put it out there
[1:38:46] for the public again. By taking the
[1:38:49] growth uh category out and showing it
[1:38:52] this way, it makes the percentage that
[1:38:54] we're dictating out to the public more
[1:38:56] accurate as to what they will actually
[1:38:58] see as an increase on their taxation. Uh
[1:39:00] if I was to just say 2.5% and the 4.2,
[1:39:03] that's the levy, but it does it doesn't
[1:39:05] tie directly into your what you actually
[1:39:07] see on your tax bill. By t removing the
[1:39:10] growth portion from it and talking about
[1:39:11] the 1.6 and the 4.2 specifically, that's
[1:39:14] what the the your actual tax bill will
[1:39:17] see. uh within plus or minus a half a
[1:39:20] percent. So that that's the reason we we
[1:39:23] use the capital or the expected growth
[1:39:25] portion in there to to illustrate that.
[1:39:29] So the next part we move into is the
[1:39:30] capital and special projects portion of
[1:39:32] the budget. Uh I've left the slides in
[1:39:34] here just to again illustrate our
[1:39:36] funding sources for capital. So there's
[1:39:38] the OCIF which is uh for 2026 was
[1:39:42] $817,64.
[1:39:44] uh of that we split it due to the fact
[1:39:47] that there's water wastewater assets and
[1:39:49] road assets which is classified as our
[1:39:51] core infrastructure that's why we get
[1:39:53] the funding uh because it's a uh
[1:39:55] calculation based funding. Uh so
[1:39:57] $420,000
[1:39:58] 135 is being allocated to the general
[1:40:00] capital budget and then 396,929
[1:40:03] is allocated between water and
[1:40:05] wastewater.
[1:40:06] uh W water gets about 118,000
[1:40:09] uh if memory serves and then wise water
[1:40:11] gets about 240,000.
[1:40:15] Uh the other side is the other funding
[1:40:16] we receive is the Canada community
[1:40:18] building fund which is CCBF
[1:40:20] others might remember it as the can the
[1:40:22] gas tax funding uh the provincial or the
[1:40:25] federal funding I should say. Uh so
[1:40:27] 236,620
[1:40:28] again confirmed for 2026. Um that
[1:40:32] eligible uh funding breaks beyond just
[1:40:36] core infrastructure and allows for other
[1:40:38] infrastructure to be uh addressed which
[1:40:40] is normally why we uh tie it to
[1:40:43] infrastructure such as uh recreation uh
[1:40:46] fire systems uh and then uh roads and
[1:40:49] and waste water too as well.
[1:40:53] So the last chunk of the funding sources
[1:40:55] is the actual taxation. Um so with the
[1:40:57] 4.2 that has been occurring
[1:40:59] year-over-year, uh right now that
[1:41:01] balance uh once the 2026 budget is
[1:41:04] approved will be $1.212 million uh in
[1:41:08] taxation towards capital. So we're
[1:41:10] pulling 887,000 from the prior two years
[1:41:13] uh three years actually. And then
[1:41:15] 325,437
[1:41:17] is what's coming for the 2026 budget. Uh
[1:41:21] 1.0 04 million or 004 million, sorry, is
[1:41:25] currently tied up in debenture costs uh
[1:41:27] out of our levy. And then we released a
[1:41:30] one debenture this year uh of 81,000. So
[1:41:32] that part is being tied into the upper
[1:41:34] budget, the 1.2 uh to tie to create more
[1:41:37] capital fund working funds.
[1:41:40] Uh so we've just add a little note here.
[1:41:42] The the orange line is the constraint uh
[1:41:44] for affordability, the 3.4%.
[1:41:47] Uh this chart originally talked about
[1:41:49] how every year we put add 4.2% 2% to the
[1:41:52] levy and in order to try and achieve
[1:41:54] that goal of the $9 million required as
[1:41:57] stipulated in the asset management plan
[1:41:58] for the total uh current replacement
[1:42:01] value of all of our assets. Uh you can
[1:42:03] see by the time we reach that that line
[1:42:05] we hit in 2028 and we cap out at about $
[1:42:09] 1.9 million $1.8.9 million.
[1:42:12] Um so that's where that affordability
[1:42:14] threshold comes in.
[1:42:18] So the capital and special projects um
[1:42:21] one piece we did I think it was
[1:42:23] presentation three is where we talked
[1:42:25] about whenever we started calculating
[1:42:27] for how to create the uh capital plan
[1:42:30] for the going forward for the future for
[1:42:31] the 5 years was we had to have a place
[1:42:33] to start with and that was more or less
[1:42:35] the pots of money that could be
[1:42:36] allocated to certain categories. Um so
[1:42:39] based on the actual assets that we have
[1:42:41] in the asset management plan as well as
[1:42:43] staff input uh it was determined that we
[1:42:47] put it as 50% for the road network, 5%
[1:42:49] for storm water, 10% for buildings, 10%
[1:42:53] for machinery equipment, 20% for
[1:42:54] vehicles, 5% for land improvements,
[1:42:57] which brings us to a total of 100%.
[1:43:00] Um so the first column you'll see uh
[1:43:03] past those percentages that's the uh
[1:43:05] total capital funds uh levy and grants.
[1:43:08] Um total capital funds includes the
[1:43:11] debentures. Um so if we were to take the
[1:43:14] total capital money that we spend every
[1:43:15] year which is the bottom number 2.85
[1:43:17] million um and break it down into each
[1:43:20] category. So there's 1.425 425 that's
[1:43:23] spent on roads 142,000 for for storm
[1:43:26] water buildings 285 machine equipment
[1:43:30] 285 vehicles 570 land improvements 142
[1:43:34] then we remove the portions that we've
[1:43:36] already uh from prior years committed
[1:43:39] that capital funding to through the
[1:43:41] ventures so when I say debenture per
[1:43:43] category the 647,979
[1:43:46] that is uh principal and interest
[1:43:48] payments that we making uh this year for
[1:43:51] the road network. Uh same thing for
[1:43:53] machinery equipment. So there's $110,000
[1:43:56] out of the overall levy that's going to
[1:43:57] pay deb or uh principal and interest
[1:44:00] payments. Uh 141 for vehicles and
[1:44:02] equipment. Uh there's a debenture slide
[1:44:05] I'll show uh later on that'll kind of
[1:44:07] illustrate this more. So what the
[1:44:09] leftover funding uh for 2026 is 777,136
[1:44:14] for roads 142,511 for storm water 285,23
[1:44:20] for buildings machine equipment 1474,942
[1:44:24] vehicles and equipment 428254
[1:44:27] and then land improvements 142511. Um so
[1:44:30] you'll see on each of the slides that
[1:44:31] I've that I present uh again no change
[1:44:34] from the prior but just as a as a
[1:44:36] illustration to the public it talks
[1:44:37] about a remaining and left in reserve.
[1:44:40] So anytime we don't use up this funding
[1:44:43] it would be left and be pushed into
[1:44:45] reserve to be used in the the future
[1:44:47] years if we don't reach the the the
[1:44:50] total use of the funding uh in that
[1:44:52] category. Um and what will happen is
[1:44:54] whenever we uh staff bring forward um a
[1:44:57] reserve policy uh we'll actually be
[1:44:59] talking about these mounts and then
[1:45:00] adding that chunk in as to uh creating
[1:45:02] the reserves to to allocate these
[1:45:04] fundings appropriately.
[1:45:07] So the first project list is the under
[1:45:09] the roads category. So Crawford Street
[1:45:12] is still on the list. Uh the total cost
[1:45:14] of that project the road portion which
[1:45:15] is the surface itself uh is 858,000
[1:45:19] uh funded out of the levy would be
[1:45:21] 27,135
[1:45:23] and the remainder would be a debenture
[1:45:26] um the next one is Pine Road Park Road
[1:45:29] culvert uh $40,000 fully funded Lacquay
[1:45:33] road design 50,000 fully funded and then
[1:45:35] government road which is forers falls to
[1:45:37] Fletcher road um
[1:45:40] as ashvalt $660,000
[1:45:43] And per the prior discussion, there's
[1:45:45] there was no noted changes there. Um,
[1:45:48] mayor, do you want me to stop at the end
[1:45:50] of each of these categories or would you
[1:45:51] like me to run through all categories
[1:45:53] and come back?
[1:46:00] » I'm good either way. Does council have a
[1:46:02] preference?
[1:46:04] >> Yes, council.
[1:46:06] » Yes, council.
[1:46:06] >> You left us with a task last time, Mr.
[1:46:08] » You left us with a task last time, Mr.
[1:46:08] Mayor, with respect to the percentage.
[1:46:11] Uh I don't know when you want to talk
[1:46:13] about that. I want to talk about it uh
[1:46:16] for sure and so uh I'll leave it to your
[1:46:19] discretion.
[1:46:20] >> Okay. Just to recognize we're going to
[1:46:22] » Okay. Just to recognize we're going to
[1:46:22] bounce around. Let's get through all of
[1:46:24] these tables and we have presented
[1:46:26] you've presented these to us three times
[1:46:28] now. Yep.
[1:46:29] >> So if you can go through and just
[1:46:30] » So if you can go through and just
[1:46:30] articulate changes that you've made
[1:46:32] since the last presentation.
[1:46:33] >> Okay.
[1:46:34] » Okay.
[1:46:34] >> That will probably allow us to go
[1:46:36] » That will probably allow us to go
[1:46:36] through with questions at the end more
[1:46:38] quickly.
[1:46:38] >> Perfect. Um so the next slide is the
[1:46:41] » Perfect. Um so the next slide is the
[1:46:41] again Crawford Street being done. This
[1:46:43] is the stormwater network. There is no
[1:46:45] change here from the prior presentation.
[1:46:47] The still funded amount is 142,511.
[1:46:50] Uh so the remainder chunk goes to a
[1:46:52] debenture of 317,000.
[1:46:54] Um buildings again no changes here from
[1:46:57] the prior uh presentations. Uh, so we're
[1:47:00] funding the furnace HVAC, the Cobb Arena
[1:47:02] compressor, the beam painting in the
[1:47:04] Cobb Arena, structure repairs in the
[1:47:06] three arenas for the cement work, the
[1:47:08] Cobb arena HVAC, and then the museum
[1:47:10] snow roller shed. Um, so it leaves a
[1:47:13] remainder in the in that reserve fund of
[1:47:15] $523.
[1:47:17] Um, machinery and equipment, no changes
[1:47:20] again. Uh, $50,000 for RWIS CCTV, which
[1:47:24] it goes to our road patrol system.
[1:47:26] training equipment for the fire fire
[1:47:28] department uh for in-house CPR and first
[1:47:29] aid is $25,000. And then the breathing
[1:47:32] air compressor, which we uh got a grant
[1:47:34] for and purchased in 2025, uh was
[1:47:37] unfunded. So this is just to fund that
[1:47:38] last portion of 16,000. Um so it leaves
[1:47:41] $83,000 in the reserve at the end of
[1:47:43] 2026.
[1:47:45] Uh under vehicles, uh so we're looking
[1:47:48] at a tandem plow truck and a fire
[1:47:50] tanker. Uh so there was a change here,
[1:47:52] just a a clerical note that I want I
[1:47:54] made. Um, so the total cost of the truck
[1:47:56] is $425,000.
[1:47:58] We don't have the money in that fund
[1:48:00] based on the current percentages to be
[1:48:02] able to finance both it and the fire
[1:48:04] tanker, which we need to finance as we
[1:48:06] have received the fire tanker now. Um so
[1:48:09] in order to do that um we'd only be able
[1:48:12] to fund 378,254
[1:48:14] towards the the tandem plow truck and it
[1:48:17] would leave 4 46,746
[1:48:19] as unfunded into the 2027
[1:48:23] uh fiscal year which through the the
[1:48:25] capital plan that we've presented so far
[1:48:28] we can fund in 2027 uh due to the the
[1:48:30] way the equipment goes. Um, and I've
[1:48:33] noted on if you look at schedule D uh of
[1:48:35] the actual capital projects, that's
[1:48:37] where all these are listed and where
[1:48:38] their their funding is, uh, allocated.
[1:48:40] You'll notice that there's $46,000
[1:48:42] that's left as unfunded. So, that'll
[1:48:43] automatically be picked up and added
[1:48:45] into the 2027 budget.
[1:48:48] Uh, land improvements. Uh, there's no
[1:48:50] change here. Uh, based on the prior uh
[1:48:52] prior presentation, leaves no money left
[1:48:55] in reserves after the the play structure
[1:48:57] at the Cobb and/forers Falls Park.
[1:49:00] Uh and then this one again, no changes
[1:49:02] because these have all been pre uh
[1:49:04] presented in prior years. Uh this is
[1:49:06] just bringing it back to council's uh um
[1:49:09] awareness that the the projects are
[1:49:11] going on and where they're coming from
[1:49:12] reserves. So one of the new only new
[1:49:14] project here is the uh Ross uh landfill
[1:49:17] monitoring well. That one's being fully
[1:49:18] funded from the waste reserve of 35,000.
[1:49:21] Uh our website upgraded 17 furnace HAC
[1:49:25] is 50. The fire tanker. So over the last
[1:49:28] three years we put money into reserve
[1:49:30] for the purchase of the fire tanker. So
[1:49:32] this is the year whenever we get to
[1:49:33] actually spend it and we already have uh
[1:49:35] 485,000
[1:49:37] and then Westme boat launch rehab
[1:49:39] 100,000 and the Cobb Narina the
[1:49:41] electrical the ice electrical plant ice
[1:49:42] plant electrical panel at 45,000 which
[1:49:45] was already a project a project in 2025
[1:49:47] and is now uh just being shown here is
[1:49:50] where it's coming from reserve and I
[1:49:52] will note that you'll notice that the
[1:49:54] last two projects actually came from our
[1:49:55] CCBF reserve so in 2025 we allocated
[1:49:58] money from CCBF towards these projects
[1:50:01] them not being done. They're just being
[1:50:02] pulled out of that reserve this year.
[1:50:03] But that's just an illustration of where
[1:50:05] that CCBF money gets gets used.
[1:50:08] And any questions?
[1:50:10] >> Excellent. Thank you, treasure. And with
[1:50:12] » Excellent. Thank you, treasure. And with
[1:50:12] that, I'm going to go we'll go back to
[1:50:14] slide 34, which is what councelor Shim
[1:50:16] would like to ask a question on.
[1:50:26] » Uh yes, Mr. Mayor. Um
[1:50:29] at the end of our last budget
[1:50:31] discussion, you asked all of us to come
[1:50:34] back today with our thoughts on the
[1:50:36] percentage allocation. And so I've been
[1:50:39] thinking about it and um I would like to
[1:50:42] propose that instead of a 50%
[1:50:46] um allocation to the road network that
[1:50:49] it be 60%.
[1:50:51] Now, when I say that,
[1:50:54] what I'm implying is that the management
[1:50:58] staff
[1:50:59] will uh
[1:51:02] go back into the budget and find a a way
[1:51:05] to reallocate that money. And uh that
[1:51:09] might be a virtually impossible task
[1:51:12] without coming back to get some
[1:51:14] decisions from us, some very difficult
[1:51:17] decisions from us.
[1:51:20] um because there's only so much money
[1:51:22] and in our last discussion about roads,
[1:51:25] I don't know if it was obvious to
[1:51:28] everybody, we we're not giving
[1:51:32] uh our director Lane Claroo enough money
[1:51:37] to work on the roads and the streets and
[1:51:40] the sidewalks we have. If we don't give
[1:51:43] him enough money, he just can't do the
[1:51:45] job. That's all there is to it. there's
[1:51:48] the and we can't get the money. Uh we
[1:51:51] can't burden the taxpayers more. So
[1:51:55] something has to give. Um I know
[1:51:57] councelor Olstead alluded to this at our
[1:52:00] last discussion. So I don't know if it's
[1:52:03] a motion, Mr. Mayor, that is
[1:52:06] appropriate, but I just uh want you to
[1:52:10] have my answer to your your uh direction
[1:52:13] last time. I propose 60% goes to roads.
[1:52:17] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:52:20] >> Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Trim. Um,
[1:52:24] » Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Trim. Um,
[1:52:24] I'm just going to clarify because we are
[1:52:26] trying to
[1:52:28] have the 2026 budget approved for this
[1:52:32] for this year. You're talking about ch
[1:52:34] making changes into the future, not for
[1:52:36] 2026
[1:52:38] because it would necess necessitate
[1:52:40] taking the whole budget back to staff to
[1:52:43] rejig this and coming back to budget
[1:52:45] committee to talk about 2026.
[1:52:53] Well, just I I know this is another
[1:52:56] example of us just putting the always
[1:53:01] putting the the the the problem forward.
[1:53:04] I didn't understand your request.
[1:53:07] I should have, but I didn't. Uh I'm
[1:53:13] I'm I don't want the budget amount to
[1:53:15] raise. I just want the allocation to
[1:53:17] change. Um
[1:53:20] I I I don't know where where I am on
[1:53:23] this now. Uh I don't want to impose a
[1:53:26] whole bunch more work onto staff. That
[1:53:30] wasn't the idea. Uh and I don't want to
[1:53:33] prolong
[1:53:35] our budget deliberations.
[1:53:37] But something has to happen here.
[1:53:40] um uh we're not providing the services
[1:53:44] we're committed to because we're not
[1:53:46] giving our staff the money to do it. So
[1:53:49] I I don't know where what you I would
[1:53:52] suggest, Mr. Mayor. I'm I think I
[1:53:54] misunderstood your direction.
[1:53:58] >> No, and thank you for the point and it's
[1:54:00] » No, and thank you for the point and it's
[1:54:00] just a terms of trying to ma match what
[1:54:02] we'd like to do with what we we have to
[1:54:05] do. 2026 has already started. We're
[1:54:07] already starting to spend money in 2026.
[1:54:10] We want to lean in and do the 2026
[1:54:12] portion of the budget, but I think we
[1:54:14] have to acknowledge that the
[1:54:15] prioritization of our capital funds
[1:54:18] isn't optimal. We have to figure out
[1:54:20] that part part of it. Let's see if
[1:54:22] there's other discussion and we'll come
[1:54:23] back to it. Yes, councelor White.
[1:54:26] >> Not very good at math, so maybe Chris
[1:54:28] » Not very good at math, so maybe Chris
[1:54:28] can answer this.
[1:54:30] >> What would be 10% if we went from 50 to
[1:54:34] » What would be 10% if we went from 50 to
[1:54:34] 60%? What would that amount?
[1:54:36] >> An additional 285,000.
[1:54:38] » An additional 285,000.
[1:54:38] >> Pardon? an additional 28. See the bottom
[1:54:40] » Pardon? an additional 28. See the bottom
[1:54:40] number, the total 200 2.85 million,
[1:54:43] >> right?
[1:54:44] » right?
[1:54:44] >> Well, you'd be adding $285,000 more to
[1:54:47] » Well, you'd be adding $285,000 more to
[1:54:47] the road network then.
[1:54:48] >> So, we would have to take out $285,000
[1:54:50] » So, we would have to take out $285,000
[1:54:50] from somewhere else in the budget.
[1:54:51] >> That's right.
[1:54:51] » That's right.
[1:54:52] >> Okay.
[1:54:52] » Okay.
[1:54:52] >> You see the buildings and machinery that
[1:54:53] » You see the buildings and machinery that
[1:54:54] are at 10%. There there's your number
[1:54:56] right there.
[1:54:59] Council
[1:55:00] Moore,
[1:55:02] >> just wondering in what councelor Trim
[1:55:04] » just wondering in what councelor Trim
[1:55:04] just said if somewhere in there our
[1:55:06] discussion last meeting was increasing
[1:55:10] gravel road upgrades from 15 years to 10
[1:55:13] years if that could be included in that
[1:55:16] 10% increase or is it already in this
[1:55:20] budget?
[1:55:22] >> No, it's in operating and we closed that
[1:55:26] » No, it's in operating and we closed that
[1:55:26] out already.
[1:55:27] >> Okay. Now we can we can we'll put that
[1:55:29] » Okay. Now we can we can we'll put that
[1:55:29] on the back burner and we can come back
[1:55:31] to it at the end. But now it's not in
[1:55:32] capital.
[1:55:34] >> Considering we were talking percentage
[1:55:35] » Considering we were talking percentage
[1:55:35] change, I just wondered what happened to
[1:55:36] that discussion. Yeah.
[1:55:38] >> Um improving our gravel roads. That's
[1:55:40] » Um improving our gravel roads. That's
[1:55:40] >> good. If treasure, if you can put a pin
[1:55:42] » good. If treasure, if you can put a pin
[1:55:42] in that, we'll come back to it when
[1:55:43] we're done. The capital piece.
[1:55:44] >> Good. Uh any other comments on the
[1:55:48] » Good. Uh any other comments on the
[1:55:48] division of capital funds?
[1:55:50] >> Yeah, councelor Moore.
[1:55:52] » Yeah, councelor Moore.
[1:55:52] >> I had one on uh
[1:55:55] » I had one on uh
[1:55:55] I lost my place now.
[1:55:59] Well, that helps. Um, slide 39, we're
[1:56:03] talking about a tandem plow truck. Um,
[1:56:05] just wondering then if um if there
[1:56:08] wasn't enough money to perhaps purchase
[1:56:11] this year, does it go on the next year
[1:56:12] or are we still purchasing this year but
[1:56:14] with less money and be more debt?
[1:56:17] >> So, the the design is is that we have
[1:56:20] » So, the the design is is that we have
[1:56:20] $378,000 of the 425. So, it would be
[1:56:24] purchased in this year. Uh, as long as
[1:56:25] we take delivery in this year, that's
[1:56:27] hard to say. Sometimes it we could take
[1:56:29] delivery technically in 2027 because of
[1:56:31] the the length of actually build the
[1:56:33] truck. Um, but should we take delivery
[1:56:36] this year, there would be $46,000 that
[1:56:38] we don't have the funding for that would
[1:56:40] be then collected in 2027. It would
[1:56:42] remain unfunded. Similar to how we did
[1:56:44] the the breathing air compressor, we
[1:56:47] unfunded $16,000. So, we didn't have
[1:56:49] actually have that funds in 2025. And
[1:56:52] now we're fill refilling that that void
[1:56:54] or that unfunded portion in 2026.
[1:56:58] >> Okay, understand. Thank you.
[1:57:00] » Okay, understand. Thank you.
[1:57:00] >> Good. Any other questions?
[1:57:03] » Good. Any other questions?
[1:57:04] >> Sorry, councelor White, you're looking
[1:57:05] » Sorry, councelor White, you're looking
[1:57:05] at me.
[1:57:07] >> I'm just wondering if it says unfunded,
[1:57:08] » I'm just wondering if it says unfunded,
[1:57:08] so that means that we just didn't pay
[1:57:10] the bill.
[1:57:11] >> I'm not sure I understand that then.
[1:57:13] » I'm not sure I understand that then.
[1:57:13] >> So, we pay the bill. So on a income
[1:57:16] » So, we pay the bill. So on a income
[1:57:16] statement side or the actual revenue
[1:57:18] versus expenses side, we are incurring
[1:57:20] the expense but we're not taking in the
[1:57:22] revenue to offset the budget for it for
[1:57:24] the year. So when I say unfunded, it
[1:57:26] technically becomes a uh an expense that
[1:57:29] needs to be picked up in the next year.
[1:57:31] We don't we need to make the revenue up
[1:57:33] to cover that expense. It it's it's an
[1:57:35] effect on our overall working capital.
[1:57:37] Um, so what happens is in one year we
[1:57:39] have this outstanding chunk that needs
[1:57:41] to automatically be associated and
[1:57:43] included into the next year's budget
[1:57:45] 2027.
[1:57:46] >> We borrowed from ourselves.
[1:57:47] » We borrowed from ourselves.
[1:57:47] >> Exactly.
[1:57:48] » Exactly.
[1:57:48] >> That's that's okay.
[1:57:49] » That's that's okay.
[1:57:49] >> Yeah.
[1:57:50] » Yeah.
[1:57:50] >> Good. Any other comments
[1:57:54] » Good. Any other comments
[1:57:54] >> on this part? So I'm just going to come
[1:57:57] » on this part? So I'm just going to come
[1:57:57] back to councelor Trim's points then on
[1:57:59] the division of the capital funds and I
[1:58:01] know um it it is a discussion that we
[1:58:04] need to have
[1:58:06] and uh I for one am in favor of
[1:58:09] increasing the amount of roads. Roads is
[1:58:12] our number one strategic priority. It's
[1:58:14] it's a key function. It's not the only
[1:58:16] one. It can't be the only thing we fund,
[1:58:19] but just on our experience we've had
[1:58:21] with the debate on Zion and and
[1:58:23] Government Road, we know we don't set
[1:58:25] enough money aside for this. Maybe we
[1:58:27] need to change the scope, the width of
[1:58:29] the roads, all these other kind of
[1:58:31] factors. Um, but bottom line, there's
[1:58:35] still not enough money to do the 130 km
[1:58:38] of DST and 50 km of ashvalt that we have
[1:58:42] in the township. Um however I am loathed
[1:58:46] to make these changes today on 2026
[1:58:49] budget. That means that as an example
[1:58:52] the point councelor Moore just said we'd
[1:58:54] be taking money out of the vehicle
[1:58:56] allocation either unfunding it or
[1:59:00] reallocating it from somewhere else.
[1:59:02] You're we'd be pushing it back to staff
[1:59:05] to go back probably take at least a week
[1:59:08] if not more. the CEO was like, but it
[1:59:10] would take time for them to go back and
[1:59:13] rejig it. Uh, that's my thought on it,
[1:59:17] but this is a committee and so we need
[1:59:21] to we need to come up with a consensus
[1:59:23] on it.
[1:59:24] Councelor Bell.
[1:59:26] >> Yeah, just my understanding on it was
[1:59:29] » Yeah, just my understanding on it was
[1:59:29] these are the percentages that we have
[1:59:30] laid out for this year, but going along
[1:59:33] with the five-year projections, that's
[1:59:35] how we can manipulate this moving
[1:59:36] forward. So I think I was comfortable
[1:59:39] with these percentages the way it was
[1:59:40] laid out in the previous presentations.
[1:59:43] Um knowing that these discussions are
[1:59:46] moving forward as it pertains to that
[1:59:49] 5-year projection and how we make that
[1:59:52] how we how we want to to make this look
[1:59:55] moving forward. So, I'm comfortable with
[1:59:57] the percentages as they're laid out and
[2:00:00] uh how it's been presented to us before
[2:00:04] knowing that these are up for discussion
[2:00:06] moving forward.
[2:00:09] >> Other feedback.
[2:00:11] » Other feedback.
[2:00:11] I'll go to the treasurer.
[2:00:13] >> Yeah, I'm just going to make one note
[2:00:14] » Yeah, I'm just going to make one note
[2:00:14] that the other side too is whenever we
[2:00:16] present and bring forward the the 2026
[2:00:18] asset management plan, it's going to
[2:00:20] have a financing schedule in it for the
[2:00:22] next 10 years. So like the the budget
[2:00:24] committee is and is going to have a lot
[2:00:26] of input into that. So that's where the
[2:00:29] new amounts will be set out. It may not
[2:00:30] be a straight 50%. It might look like
[2:00:32] 54% just based on the number of assets
[2:00:35] and how the funding works in order to
[2:00:37] maintain set level of service because
[2:00:39] that's the goal of the asset management
[2:00:41] plan is supposed to council dictates the
[2:00:44] level of service that wants to be
[2:00:45] achieved and the assets that want to be
[2:00:48] uh included in that in that asset
[2:00:50] management plan. level service up, level
[2:00:52] service down. That was where that sits.
[2:00:54] And then they take that and they come
[2:00:56] back with the funding method of how to
[2:00:58] fund it because we can't have unfunded
[2:01:00] assets and still maintain level service
[2:01:01] because you're not. So they have to come
[2:01:03] back to that number. So then whenever
[2:01:05] they come back, that's where this is our
[2:01:07] first attempt without the finalized
[2:01:09] document of putting it. But whenever we
[2:01:11] come into 2026 and they present that
[2:01:14] capital plan, it has to fund everything.
[2:01:16] So it's going to show a breakdown and
[2:01:18] here's the deficits in such categories
[2:01:20] and the the downfalls of assets and then
[2:01:24] things will tie from there as to the the
[2:01:26] percentages. So this is our first
[2:01:28] attempt at it from a staff level. The
[2:01:31] consultants input will will make that
[2:01:33] change number change again. Even if we
[2:01:35] were to change it to 60% now, it could
[2:01:36] technically change again to say 75%.
[2:01:39] Just throwing it out there of a of a
[2:01:41] number that they that the consultant
[2:01:43] recommends in order to maintain whatever
[2:01:46] asset is deemed as the most important.
[2:02:02] Oh,
[2:02:04] >> now it's turned green. Sorry, I went
[2:02:06] » now it's turned green. Sorry, I went
[2:02:06] from flashing red to green. I wrecked
[2:02:08] clerk's microphone.
[2:02:12] » Okay. Thank you, treasure. Um,
[2:02:16] any other comments with respect to
[2:02:17] councelor Trim's proposal? because I
[2:02:20] will highlight one other thing
[2:02:23] is that when you go into the other
[2:02:25] tables that are listed in here, the land
[2:02:28] improvements, the the vehicles, the
[2:02:31] equipment, the buildings,
[2:02:35] if you were to lean forward, like if
[2:02:36] you're of the opinion, oh, I think we
[2:02:38] should go roads to 60% and cut these
[2:02:41] other ones, but maybe we don't have time
[2:02:42] to do that for 2026,
[2:02:44] you could suggest that some of these uh
[2:02:48] projects
[2:02:50] be not be not be done this year and just
[2:02:53] keep that money in a reserve in that
[2:02:55] category
[2:02:57] pending a future decision. That that is
[2:03:00] that is one way to look at it um to to
[2:03:03] meet your intent without having to rejig
[2:03:06] everything. So you could put a pause on
[2:03:09] something if that was something you
[2:03:11] wanted to do. and and and again it may
[2:03:14] not be a decision that we need to take
[2:03:15] today
[2:03:17] but we could come back to
[2:03:20] good. So with that, councelor Trim,
[2:03:23] what's your thought? Are you okay with
[2:03:25] an approach of 2027 for reallocation of
[2:03:28] the percentages?
[2:03:28] >> Uh yes, that is a very good compromise.
[2:03:33] » Uh yes, that is a very good compromise.
[2:03:33] Uh you know, and I'm just thinking just
[2:03:36] off the top of my head, playground
[2:03:38] equipment that gets us very close to the
[2:03:41] 10%. It's good a good way to the pathway
[2:03:45] to the 10%. Uh I I'm not saying it's not
[2:03:47] important. All of this stuff is
[2:03:49] important. The staff spent a lot of time
[2:03:52] on on this and every single one is
[2:03:55] important, but we got to get some kind
[2:03:58] of priority going here and uh uh
[2:04:03] and and we've got to get more money to
[2:04:07] roads. Um because everybody needs roads
[2:04:13] and I'm just wondering if I I don't know
[2:04:16] the situation here in common that well
[2:04:18] but school has playground equipment uh
[2:04:21] maybe in in West Me the kids play in the
[2:04:25] schoolyard uh on the equipment and so
[2:04:29] for a different situation I understand
[2:04:31] but uh we got to do something different
[2:04:36] Lee and uh so That's a wonderful
[2:04:40] suggestion, Mr. Mayor. It seems like a
[2:04:41] good compromise. Um, so thank you for
[2:04:44] that.
[2:04:45] >> Good. Is there any other feedback and
[2:04:47] » Good. Is there any other feedback and
[2:04:47] anyone else on any of these projects
[2:04:48] listed?
[2:04:50] >> So this the the recommendation I throw
[2:04:52] » So this the the recommendation I throw
[2:04:52] to staff on this is that as part of our
[2:04:54] future budget committee meetings, we
[2:04:56] will examine the reallocation even if it
[2:04:58] is temporary to a future AM that could
[2:05:01] come higher. I think it's worthwhile us
[2:05:03] going through the exercise
[2:05:05] and if staff if there are projects that
[2:05:09] we they may be the that may that may
[2:05:11] that may be impacted by a change in
[2:05:14] percentage allocation maybe we can put
[2:05:16] those up as potential discussion points
[2:05:18] at a future budget committee meeting.
[2:05:20] >> Is that fair CEO? Yeah, I think it's I
[2:05:23] » Is that fair CEO? Yeah, I think it's I
[2:05:23] think it's noted and I mean the the the
[2:05:26] challenge we're having is that there's
[2:05:28] the the capital investment that we're
[2:05:31] making is not enough to support our
[2:05:32] assets period. So at some point we have
[2:05:35] to decide what is our priority what are
[2:05:37] our priority areas and we need to move
[2:05:38] forward with that. So the budget
[2:05:40] committee could deliberate on that uh
[2:05:42] moving forward and including the
[2:05:44] reallocation and uh maybe the rep
[2:05:46] prioritization of projects for 2026. I
[2:05:48] think the strategy is is makes sense
[2:05:50] moving forward. Let's let's adopt and
[2:05:51] then uh consider it in the next couple
[2:05:53] months. Thanks.
[2:05:56] >> It's good fair approach. This the the
[2:05:58] » It's good fair approach. This the the
[2:05:58] only other point I'll make um for those
[2:06:00] people that might be watching is the
[2:06:01] Lacqua Bay road design and and please
[2:06:04] manager Claroo if I've got this wrong,
[2:06:06] but the reason we need to have that
[2:06:09] significant investment in that road
[2:06:10] design is because of the storm water
[2:06:13] underneath it.
[2:06:15] So it has storm water systems underneath
[2:06:19] it and therefore it needs an engineering
[2:06:21] component. Is that correct? Am I hitting
[2:06:23] that on the
[2:06:25] >> That's correct. Part of it. Um there
[2:06:27] » That's correct. Part of it. Um there
[2:06:27] also it is an urban section. Um so
[2:06:30] there's
[2:06:31] sidewalks and gutters and the whole how
[2:06:34] it fits in designwise. Um it's not like
[2:06:37] a a rural section that we can do in
[2:06:40] house.
[2:06:41] >> Yeah. Good. So again, just an important
[2:06:44] » Yeah. Good. So again, just an important
[2:06:44] some of the roads in our communities
[2:06:45] have got these requirements that exceed
[2:06:48] the typical rural design requirements.
[2:06:52] >> Good. Yeah. Councelor White,
[2:06:54] » Good. Yeah. Councelor White,
[2:06:54] >> Laqua Bay Road, isn't that the one that
[2:06:56] » Laqua Bay Road, isn't that the one that
[2:06:56] comes off of
[2:06:59] >> Gord?
[2:07:01] » Gord?
[2:07:01] >> Yeah, but doesn't it? And it goes all
[2:07:03] » Yeah, but doesn't it? And it goes all
[2:07:03] the way down and
[2:07:04] >> down to Greenway.
[2:07:06] » down to Greenway.
[2:07:06] >> Oh, is that Greenway there?
[2:07:07] » Oh, is that Greenway there?
[2:07:07] >> Goes down to Greenway. Yeah.
[2:07:08] » Goes down to Greenway. Yeah.
[2:07:08] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah.
[2:07:09] » Oh, yeah. Yeah.
[2:07:09] >> Okay.
[2:07:10] » Okay.
[2:07:10] >> Pause. Now I think the the 50,000 is
[2:07:13] » Pause. Now I think the the 50,000 is
[2:07:13] specifically for the the urban component
[2:07:15] which is within LAS. Is that correct?
[2:07:18] Yeah.
[2:07:19] >> Right.
[2:07:21] » Right.
[2:07:21] Good. All right. Well, keep moving then.
[2:07:25] >> Capital projections and and again please
[2:07:27] » Capital projections and and again please
[2:07:27] treasur just highlight what you think
[2:07:29] are the changes or issues that you need
[2:07:32] to raise publicly.
[2:07:32] >> We'll do uh so yeah capital projections.
[2:07:35] » We'll do uh so yeah capital projections.
[2:07:35] So the first one I roll into is
[2:07:36] debentures and debt. We kind of did a
[2:07:38] little bit of a reallocation here of the
[2:07:40] the slides. Um the only reason we bring
[2:07:42] this forward is because I always want to
[2:07:43] show what the debenture is and because
[2:07:45] there is a debenture on the books that
[2:07:47] will be added because we're doing
[2:07:48] Crawford Street. I wanted to note this.
[2:07:51] So uh currently the the million4,000
[2:07:55] uh for our total payment for the
[2:07:57] taxation is listed there and those are
[2:07:59] the debentures that we currently have on
[2:08:00] the books. Uh you'll see that in 2026 is
[2:08:04] the last year for two of them. So
[2:08:06] there's uh $100,000 worth of technically
[2:08:09] debenture payment room that will be re
[2:08:11] recouped by the township um which will
[2:08:13] roll into the new debenture uh for lack
[2:08:16] of a better term in the 2027 for the uh
[2:08:18] the debenture on Crawford Street.
[2:08:21] Uh this is a slide to show our total
[2:08:23] debentures and the only reason I show
[2:08:24] this here because it shows water and
[2:08:26] wastewater as well um is to the next
[2:08:28] slide for estimated annual payment
[2:08:30] limit. Um, so I did some quick math
[2:08:34] based on what the project that we're
[2:08:36] looking at for Crawford,
[2:08:39] uh, at this point in time, uh, the
[2:08:41] current rate if we did 20 years, which
[2:08:43] is what the water wastewater study
[2:08:45] originally planned as. So I'm using
[2:08:46] those kind of same, uh, pieces. So
[2:08:49] anybody looking between the documents
[2:08:50] has a similar yearing. Uh, so right now
[2:08:53] uh, amortization is 4.52%.
[2:08:56] He's on the loan value. Uh so you can
[2:09:00] see here it'd be one of the highest uh
[2:09:03] loans shy of the Cobden Halealley water
[2:09:06] treatment plant. However, the rates have
[2:09:08] gone up and gone down a lot uh recently.
[2:09:11] Um so by the time we actually close this
[2:09:13] debenture, which would be early 2027, um
[2:09:16] hard to predict what the rates will be
[2:09:18] then, but likely not higher than than
[2:09:20] what we're currently projecting.
[2:09:22] Uh so the total annual payment including
[2:09:26] the water and wastewater portion um
[2:09:28] would be $145,182
[2:09:31] uh because the do total debenture is uh
[2:09:34] around $1.92 million
[2:09:37] uh to to fund that project. Um so then
[2:09:41] the uh total interest um over the term
[2:09:45] of the loan because I always want to
[2:09:47] stipulate this out there for the public
[2:09:48] side. uh it looks at about a million
[2:09:50] dollars of added interest over the 20
[2:09:52] years.
[2:09:55] So the next thing under the projection
[2:09:57] side we flow into assumptions. Um so in
[2:10:00] doing the assumptions uh then this is to
[2:10:03] create the operating uh capital or
[2:10:06] operating uh projection for 5 years as
[2:10:08] well as tie into the capital side uh to
[2:10:11] show that 3.4% and then uh where our
[2:10:13] affordability factors come in. Uh so our
[2:10:16] assumptions is 2% uh the increased
[2:10:18] capital levy to continue at the 4.2%
[2:10:21] until the affordability limit is reached
[2:10:23] and then 1% thereafter to maintain fund
[2:10:27] uh that was a stipulation uh from the
[2:10:29] mayor's uh side after whenever we reach
[2:10:31] that 3.4%. uh assessment growth of 1% uh
[2:10:36] median income growth at 1% uh county
[2:10:38] levy increase capped at around four or
[2:10:41] projected at 4.5%. And then the
[2:10:44] education levy which at 0% which is what
[2:10:47] has been traditionally uh its rate
[2:10:49] increase over the last five years. So uh
[2:10:51] the likelihood of it actually changing
[2:10:53] is uh unlikely at this point in time uh
[2:10:56] just based on uh just history. So the
[2:10:59] capital and operating 2027 to 2030 uh
[2:11:02] shows operating revenue more or less
[2:11:04] stays the same uh due to the fact that
[2:11:06] things go up and things go down in
[2:11:08] different categories but the net
[2:11:09] difference is normally uh the same. Uh
[2:11:12] operating expenses uh they are
[2:11:15] increasing based on those assumptions.
[2:11:18] So you see $9.4 million for 2027, 9.5
[2:11:21] for 2028, 9.729 and then 9.8 for 2030.
[2:11:25] Uh so then it creates the operating levy
[2:11:27] required and the capital levy required.
[2:11:29] So you'll see the total levy is the uh
[2:11:31] second from the bottom uh row. So $ 8.7
[2:11:34] million is what 2027 would be. 2028
[2:11:37] would be 9.13143.
[2:11:40] Uh 9.378 for 2029 and 2030 would be
[2:11:43] 9.618. Uh so we reached the 3.4% 4% um
[2:11:48] affordability factor in 2028 and then
[2:11:52] with that 1% and then the just general
[2:11:54] CPI needed growth uh or increase
[2:11:57] required for the operating uh brings us
[2:12:00] to 3.44 for 29 and 3.48 for 2030. Um so
[2:12:04] that's barebone increases but no
[2:12:06] substantial increases where all we're
[2:12:07] doing is maintaining levels of service
[2:12:09] at that point in time.
[2:12:12] So on those uh five-year budget
[2:12:14] forecasts and awareness um I'll mention
[2:12:18] to you to refer to the documents that
[2:12:19] was provided to you. So there was an
[2:12:20] operating document um as well as our
[2:12:23] capital list uh the water and then the
[2:12:25] wastewater uh and it all includes the
[2:12:27] 5-year budget forecast. It's this big
[2:12:30] one that everybody has. Um so it goes
[2:12:33] through again it's unfunded um because
[2:12:36] due to the lack of overall funds and the
[2:12:39] the allocation as uh councelor trim
[2:12:41] noted uh which couldn't change that's
[2:12:44] where that part um staff made a list of
[2:12:47] projects but in order to actually fund
[2:12:49] them the priorities need to be set by
[2:12:50] council. Um so our overall constraints
[2:12:53] uh limited re revenue generated by the
[2:12:55] 3.4 for ability thresh affordability
[2:12:57] threshold uh overall incre increasing
[2:13:00] replacement values of assets our core
[2:13:02] infrastructure infrastructure and
[2:13:04] supplemental stuff um that is required
[2:13:06] to maintain but it's not the the actual
[2:13:08] infrastructure uh deteriorating overall
[2:13:11] asset conditions uh as the years pro
[2:13:13] progress before things can be replaced
[2:13:16] they deteriorate to such a point um that
[2:13:19] they can't be renewed they have to be
[2:13:20] replaced and that's one of the one of
[2:13:22] the the issue the constraints
[2:13:24] Um the manager mentioned it already
[2:13:27] about Brumal line being one of those one
[2:13:29] of such roads where it's the it
[2:13:31] deteriorates too fast that it can't be
[2:13:33] renewed. It has to be fully replaced. Um
[2:13:36] increasing levels of service
[2:13:37] expectations. Um so that kind of ties
[2:13:40] into the uh active transportation piece
[2:13:42] where the wider road is one of the
[2:13:44] expectations and then to to tie into
[2:13:46] that and then the other piece is the
[2:13:48] clear direction from the council
[2:13:50] strategic direction uh to prioritize
[2:13:52] infrastructure investment in core asset
[2:13:54] renewal uh rather than all assets. Uh
[2:13:56] understand current and future needs and
[2:13:58] provide resolutions on key facilities.
[2:14:00] Uh and we say facilities we don't just
[2:14:02] mean arenas, there's fire halls, there's
[2:14:05] public works, garages there. it's all
[2:14:06] all facilities as a whole. Uh and then
[2:14:09] understand resident expected levels of
[2:14:11] service and their delivery.
[2:14:14] Um I brought this slide back in again
[2:14:16] just to show where we were talking about
[2:14:18] that that invisible glass ceiling as you
[2:14:21] might say of where 3.4% comes in and
[2:14:24] where we kind of we start pushing past
[2:14:26] that um with capital growth. So we cap
[2:14:30] out around $1.8.9 8 1.9 million
[2:14:33] um of overall taxation which can be
[2:14:35] funded towards capital. So as soon as we
[2:14:37] hit that that top end threshold, it
[2:14:39] would then be allocated based on the
[2:14:41] percentages and that would be the it for
[2:14:43] the the future if we wanted to hold to
[2:14:46] that 3.4.
[2:14:48] Um so next steps um so it's continue the
[2:14:51] development of the 10-year uh capital
[2:14:53] plan based on the funding uh and the
[2:14:55] 2026 ashman asset management plan with
[2:14:57] the budget committee. uh finalize the
[2:14:59] asset management plan with the support
[2:15:00] of Dylan consultant. Um examine policies
[2:15:03] to um guide financial decisions and
[2:15:06] infrastructure. So the ones that staff
[2:15:08] have noted so far is amend the reserve
[2:15:10] policy, the tangible capital asset
[2:15:12] policy and the surplus equipment
[2:15:13] disposal policy and then adopt two new
[2:15:15] policies. Uh these are just the main
[2:15:17] ones noted is the venture policy and
[2:15:19] investment policy. Um I can give a quick
[2:15:21] thing. The reserve policy is looking to
[2:15:24] create uh what we have currently have
[2:15:26] one but it doesn't stipulate what
[2:15:28] amounts should be in reserves. Uh so it
[2:15:30] would be to create that that piece of
[2:15:31] what the com the municipality and the is
[2:15:34] comfortable in having in reserve to plan
[2:15:36] for emergencies or plan for future uh
[2:15:38] future projects. Tangible capital asset
[2:15:41] is the length of time we actually hold
[2:15:42] on to an asset before we uh end the its
[2:15:46] service life its useful life and
[2:15:48] amortize it down over the over the
[2:15:50] period. And then the surplus equipment
[2:15:51] disposal policy would be looking to uh
[2:15:53] have something uh in that policy of what
[2:15:56] happens more with more dictates what
[2:15:58] happens with the revenue that's received
[2:15:59] whenever we sell such assets uh where
[2:16:01] it's dictated back. Uh the debenture
[2:16:04] policy would be what can actually be
[2:16:06] eligible for a debenture where right now
[2:16:08] we have debentures for equipment, we
[2:16:10] have debentures for a road of all sorts.
[2:16:12] We have debentures for so it it would
[2:16:14] stipulate what qualifies what value
[2:16:16] qualifies and what asset actually
[2:16:18] qualifies for a debenture and which ones
[2:16:20] we have to council has to always fund
[2:16:22] 100% via taxation it it would make it
[2:16:25] ineligible for a debenture and just due
[2:16:28] to its life expectancy and that which
[2:16:30] ties in again to the TCA policy the
[2:16:32] tangible capital asset and the last one
[2:16:34] is investment policy um and this was one
[2:16:36] I' I've added to the list uh due to the
[2:16:38] fact that in the years whenever we don't
[2:16:41] use said money um for a certain capital
[2:16:45] asset. Do we invest that money in a
[2:16:47] certain way and make money on our money?
[2:16:50] That's the the goal of of uh this policy
[2:16:53] is to try and maximize the taxpayers's
[2:16:55] dollar. Um, right now we're not in a
[2:16:58] situation where we can do in this, but
[2:16:59] it'd be good to have it ahead of time to
[2:17:01] kind of dictate if we start to build
[2:17:03] reserve funds and balances into the
[2:17:06] future, but they're not needed for say 5
[2:17:08] years that we start looking at an
[2:17:09] investment portion of that in order to
[2:17:12] use it. Um, same thing with uh and what
[2:17:16] as an eligible investment.
[2:17:19] Any questions?
[2:17:22] >> Thank you, treasurer. Is there any
[2:17:24] » Thank you, treasurer. Is there any
[2:17:24] questions or comments from council on
[2:17:27] this section? Yeah, councelor White.
[2:17:29] >> Just out of curiosity. Um I know you
[2:17:32] » Just out of curiosity. Um I know you
[2:17:32] have an investment policy, but can we
[2:17:34] invest our taxpayers money if but what
[2:17:35] if we lose it all?
[2:17:37] >> So there's a mandated uh what we're
[2:17:39] » So there's a mandated uh what we're
[2:17:39] allowed to actually invest in. So
[2:17:41] there's a qualified list and we're not
[2:17:43] we can't it's but you can't invest in
[2:17:45] the stock market. It's it's all secured.
[2:17:48] It's just the term of said secure said
[2:17:50] security as in um whether we go a
[2:17:53] certain level and whether then if cash
[2:17:56] flows were fall below a certain level do
[2:17:58] we borrow in between that point in time
[2:17:59] like the it's the the what stipulates
[2:18:01] that of how long do we have to have a
[2:18:04] projection for for cash flows at x
[2:18:06] dollars and how much can we put forward
[2:18:08] and like what's our level of risk more
[2:18:10] or less is what it stipulates.
[2:18:12] >> Thank you.
[2:18:13] » Thank you.
[2:18:13] >> Right. So, if we've got a million
[2:18:14] » Right. So, if we've got a million
[2:18:14] dollars in our working capital and we it
[2:18:18] sits there earning on a checking
[2:18:21] account, we could be using it to make
[2:18:24] more money for future purposes. That's
[2:18:27] But there's a bunch of guidelines that
[2:18:29] have to be established for that. Yeah.
[2:18:31] Look at Council Homestead. His eyes just
[2:18:33] got really big.
[2:18:35] >> Okay.
[2:18:37] » Okay.
[2:18:37] >> 4.2% on cash.
[2:18:40] » 4.2% on cash.
[2:18:40] >> Yeah.
[2:18:41] » Yeah.
[2:18:41] And but the problem is is that we're not
[2:18:43] in a position now. We're still trying to
[2:18:45] figure out how to fund a road. Uh
[2:18:48] once we get once we get out of the
[2:18:50] woods, we can start to to really make
[2:18:52] really some sound decisions financially.
[2:18:54] Is there any other comments on this
[2:18:56] section? Councelor Mstead. Yeah, just
[2:18:58] back I know it's it's semantics, but
[2:19:01] just on um slide 47,
[2:19:04] I I know you went through that pretty
[2:19:06] quickly and I I I saw a lot of uh a lot
[2:19:09] of confusing looks on it. Just a couple
[2:19:11] of uh changes to the titles if you would
[2:19:15] and I think it just going forward to
[2:19:17] clear up some um understanding of the
[2:19:20] slide.
[2:19:21] >> Um so just down at the bottom there are
[2:19:22] » Um so just down at the bottom there are
[2:19:22] debt charges. Do you mind calling that
[2:19:25] current debt charges or current Yeah.
[2:19:28] >> current debt?
[2:19:29] » current debt?
[2:19:29] >> Yep.
[2:19:29] » Yep.
[2:19:29] >> And then on estimated ARIRL,
[2:19:32] » And then on estimated ARIRL,
[2:19:32] uh can we can we term that um estimated
[2:19:35] ARIRL remaining?
[2:19:36] >> Yep.
[2:19:37] » Yep.
[2:19:37] >> So just so council understands that the
[2:19:39] » So just so council understands that the
[2:19:39] debt charges so that 1.5 million is what
[2:19:42] our current uh payments are including
[2:19:45] principal and interest. And so it means
[2:19:47] that we have $1.69 69 million remaining
[2:19:51] that we could in in payments that we
[2:19:54] could take on. So, uh, and if I don't
[2:19:58] know, yeah, I don't want to add an extra
[2:19:59] column, but it basically we're paying
[2:20:01] about 12.5% of our, uh, of the 25%. So,
[2:20:06] we're paying about half the the limit
[2:20:09] that we're allowed right now. So, it
[2:20:10] means we have a lot of room. Not that
[2:20:11] you want to go out on a spending spree,
[2:20:13] but we're in good shape on this this
[2:20:16] particular slide. But I think I just did
[2:20:18] a clarify um if we just change those
[2:20:20] descriptions a little bit at the bottom.
[2:20:23] >> Noted.
[2:20:23] » Noted.
[2:20:23] >> There's a lot of numbers on that page so
[2:20:25] » There's a lot of numbers on that page so
[2:20:25] it kind of gets gets lost.
[2:20:29] >> Noted. Um the other thing I will note
[2:20:31] » Noted. Um the other thing I will note
[2:20:31] too is that they this is based on the
[2:20:33] ministries's um
[2:20:36] request and that's why like you'll see
[2:20:37] total revenue SLC 1099. That's the
[2:20:41] actual code that comes off their page
[2:20:42] and that's where I pulled this
[2:20:43] originally from. Um, we've received this
[2:20:46] through the FIR every year. 25% is where
[2:20:49] they set it as of the net revenues less
[2:20:51] all their grants. A lot of local
[2:20:54] municipalities who are bringing in their
[2:20:56] debt policies also put in a new limit,
[2:20:59] not the 25%. I've seen 15%, I've seen
[2:21:02] 20% uh kind of goes between the two
[2:21:05] because the idea is that you leave that
[2:21:07] either 5% or that last 10% for emergency
[2:21:10] purposes. So, it's not on just a general
[2:21:13] project that you're doing, say an arena,
[2:21:15] that you're able to borrow that that the
[2:21:18] money and have that repayment limit that
[2:21:20] you top out your debenture limit. Uh,
[2:21:22] like similar municipal, some other
[2:21:23] municipalities can go to the point where
[2:21:25] they've maxed out their debenture limit,
[2:21:27] then get an emergency project that they
[2:21:30] have no way to fund. You have to get
[2:21:32] special permission from the ministry in
[2:21:34] order to go over this limit and it it
[2:21:36] puts a lot of constraints on it and then
[2:21:38] it also affects the overall financial
[2:21:40] stability of the municipality. So that's
[2:21:41] why a lot of municipalities put in their
[2:21:42] own limit a lower to leave a a limit
[2:21:46] opening. Um and the other piece I didn't
[2:21:49] speak about and I should have is this is
[2:21:52] the annual overpayment limit. So it's
[2:21:55] the payment on the loan. It's not the
[2:21:57] total amount we can borrow. So whenever
[2:22:00] it says 1.69 69 million if we were to
[2:22:02] say 20 years uh of a debenture
[2:22:06] going to do some rough math here in my
[2:22:07] head about say 4 and a.5% I think that
[2:22:10] worked out to be
[2:22:14] 10 or 15 or $18 million I think but
[2:22:17] don't quote me but that's like we could
[2:22:18] borrow at set amount of dollars that's
[2:22:20] the total amount that we have to pay
[2:22:21] every year is the the 1.69 69 million.
[2:22:24] So that's our payment every year. Um
[2:22:27] like all of the ventures we have right
[2:22:28] now, actually I'll go back up one. Right
[2:22:30] now we have $13 million on the books and
[2:22:33] we pay 1.5 towards that.
[2:22:37] So that $13 million equates to our ARIRL
[2:22:40] of having a 1.5 million. Um but there's
[2:22:44] a lot of different rates in there. So if
[2:22:46] we were to do that again, more or less
[2:22:47] it's double again. And so yeah, it'd be
[2:22:49] about $15 million potentially that we
[2:22:51] could borrow and then it would top out
[2:22:54] our limit at the at the 25% category. So
[2:22:57] that's our room at this point in time.
[2:23:00] Um the only thing I stipulate is I'm
[2:23:02] using that number, but some of these
[2:23:03] deventures are 10-year deventures. So
[2:23:05] the the repayment amount is higher. Some
[2:23:07] of them are are 30-year deventures. So
[2:23:10] like a lot of factors come into it and I
[2:23:12] can bring that back to council whenever
[2:23:13] I do the venture policy of saying what
[2:23:16] that limit equals and what how much
[2:23:18] money we could borrow uh just as an
[2:23:20] information for council but uh in a
[2:23:22] future date
[2:23:24] >> government like like banks seem like
[2:23:27] » government like like banks seem like
[2:23:27] they want you in debt
[2:23:30] and in fact part of that's true because
[2:23:32] when we apply for grants it's important
[2:23:35] that uh you show that you more or less
[2:23:39] need the grant. So, if you don't have
[2:23:41] any like if you don't have the $ 1.5
[2:23:43] million in debt charges, you're probably
[2:23:45] not going to acquire some grants, right?
[2:23:47] Because they're saying you can pay for
[2:23:49] it yourself. So,
[2:23:51] >> it's a game.
[2:23:52] » it's a game.
[2:23:52] >> Yep. Exactly.
[2:23:56] » Yep. Exactly.
[2:23:56] >> Good. Um any other questions on this
[2:23:59] » Good. Um any other questions on this
[2:23:59] one? Yeah, Councelor Trim.
[2:24:02] >> Yes. Just quickly on um page 25, I guess
[2:24:07] » Yes. Just quickly on um page 25, I guess
[2:24:07] slide 50, the last um the last bullet at
[2:24:11] the bottom, clear direction
[2:24:15] um from council to staff. And I think uh
[2:24:19] that that's a reminder for me from now
[2:24:21] on because uh we gave direction um at
[2:24:26] two staff and I guess it was clear about
[2:24:29] active transportation and I don't know
[2:24:33] what I was thinking. We can't afford
[2:24:35] active transportation. So, uh, we've got
[2:24:38] to be careful about what we ask council,
[2:24:42] uh, a ask staff to do.
[2:24:45] >> I've got to be very, very careful. So,
[2:24:51] » just to be clear, because I heard some
[2:24:53] murmurings. I think that was the
[2:24:54] previous term that gave the direction of
[2:24:56] the act of transportation. Councelor
[2:24:57] Tabard, you're off. Councilor Trim,
[2:25:00] you're off. Councelor Bell, you weren't
[2:25:02] here for it. Uh, but it is. You make the
[2:25:04] point. It's valid. We have to put a lens
[2:25:08] of affordability
[2:25:09] on each decision that we take. There is
[2:25:12] no easy decision where somebody else
[2:25:14] just going to pay for it in the future.
[2:25:17] Good. Councelor Trim. Sorry. Yes. I know
[2:25:20] it was I wasn't here, but I was being
[2:25:23] kind because I probably have made those
[2:25:28] decisions in the past. So,
[2:25:31] >> good. Any other comments? Okay. I just
[2:25:34] » good. Any other comments? Okay. I just
[2:25:34] have a couple on this one and I
[2:25:35] apologize but just to set the framework
[2:25:37] going forward slide 49 when we talk
[2:25:39] about capital and operating uh and this
[2:25:42] is really the the operating portion
[2:25:45] this is a this is a wonderful slide it
[2:25:47] looks the numbers all match up and
[2:25:49] balance beautifully but we are
[2:25:52] constraining the operating for the next
[2:25:54] 5 years we have squeezed the operating
[2:25:57] to basically
[2:25:59] fall behind a little bit every year yes
[2:26:01] it's CPI indexed Yes, there's a little
[2:26:04] 1% growth, but we're we're talking about
[2:26:07] someone comes to us and says, "Hey, can
[2:26:09] we pick up can we do a large item pickup
[2:26:11] for there's no money like there's no
[2:26:13] room and we've done that on purpose and
[2:26:16] put all of them all of the taxes that we
[2:26:19] raise are going into capital.
[2:26:22] So, we may we may get through the
[2:26:25] capital portion of the discussion for
[2:26:27] the five-year plan, but at at the end of
[2:26:30] that, we we we have a responsibility to
[2:26:32] go back and say, is this really
[2:26:34] realistic for for operating or are there
[2:26:36] other things we need to consider for
[2:26:38] operating? So, staff have put the work
[2:26:40] into this, but the implications are
[2:26:43] we've really squeezed the operating.
[2:26:47] Fair. Yeah. Councelor Trim.
[2:26:50] >> Yes. And that translates into
[2:26:52] » Yes. And that translates into
[2:26:52] maintenance. And um I I I don't want to
[2:26:57] exaggerate here, but we seem to have a
[2:27:00] default way of making decisions.
[2:27:03] We squeeze operating so that we're not
[2:27:06] doing maintenance and then an asset
[2:27:09] fails and then our decision is made. We
[2:27:12] can't replace the asset so it's failed.
[2:27:15] So it's gone and uh then nobody can be
[2:27:18] mad at us. I think the better strategy
[2:27:22] strategy would be to get rid of the
[2:27:26] asset and stop paying maintenance and
[2:27:29] then we uh we have more money for
[2:27:32] capital.
[2:27:33] >> Yeah. Or operating in some cases.
[2:27:37] » Yeah. Or operating in some cases.
[2:27:37] >> Good. Okay. I just framed that and I
[2:27:39] » Good. Okay. I just framed that and I
[2:27:39] know CEO was like, "Oh, good. He's
[2:27:42] realizing this." Okay. Good. Uh the
[2:27:44] other comment I'll make is just on the
[2:27:45] 5-year forecast. So this beautiful
[2:27:47] document that the uh treasurer put a lot
[2:27:49] of effort into is a very valuable one um
[2:27:52] to take a look at but there is good news
[2:27:54] in it
[2:27:56] I think and treasurer please correct me
[2:27:58] the last page the one that talks about
[2:28:00] water and wastewater it does balance
[2:28:05] it does because the uh actual amounts
[2:28:07] that go forward all the projects that
[2:28:10] have been listed in there based on the
[2:28:11] water wastewater study again that's the
[2:28:13] what we're going to be going for for the
[2:28:15] asset management plan for all other
[2:28:17] assets. They had to create a fin a
[2:28:20] financing plan that makes it finance our
[2:28:22] assets. And that's what Watson has done
[2:28:24] in that part. I've done a few little
[2:28:25] tweaks to it, but otherwise that's why
[2:28:28] it it balances out because they that's
[2:28:30] why water will see 5% increase for the
[2:28:32] next 10 years. That's why wastewater
[2:28:34] will see an increase of 3% for the next
[2:28:36] two then down sorry yep 3% then down to
[2:28:39] two sorry 4% then down to 3% then down
[2:28:42] to 2%. and they staggered that in as to
[2:28:44] the projects because we listed the main
[2:28:46] projects that need to be done, inflated
[2:28:48] them up, then put them into the year
[2:28:51] that they need to be paid for and that's
[2:28:52] how that that document came to exist.
[2:28:56] So, good news, we do have the work done
[2:28:58] on water and wastewater. And we know
[2:29:01] that that's been,
[2:29:03] you know, a result of the circumstances
[2:29:05] that we're working through with
[2:29:06] wastewater right now. But we do have it
[2:29:08] done. We know we can do it. We've done
[2:29:10] it for two very complicated asset
[2:29:12] classes. We just have the remainder now
[2:29:15] to do. Um and and that's what I think
[2:29:18] our budget committee is going to really
[2:29:20] bite off in the coming months.
[2:29:23] >> Good. If there's no other comments then
[2:29:25] » Good. If there's no other comments then
[2:29:25] we will go we'll keep going on. If you
[2:29:28] can do a quick summary of the slides as
[2:29:30] you go through please.
[2:29:31] >> We'll do. Uh so this slide has not
[2:29:34] » We'll do. Uh so this slide has not
[2:29:34] changed from prior because there is no
[2:29:35] change in the actual overall rate still
[2:29:36] at the 5.8. Um, so an estimated effect
[2:29:40] on taxes.
[2:29:42] Uh, so for $100,000 assessment, you'd be
[2:29:44] looking at an increase of $44.71.
[2:29:47] Uh, median singingle family detached
[2:29:50] 179. I realized I should have updated
[2:29:52] this slide to the 182. My mistake. Um,
[2:29:56] to to match what the affordability side
[2:29:58] said, but so it's increase of $804.
[2:30:02] Uh, and then we'll flow into water and
[2:30:03] waste water.
[2:30:04] >> Oh, sorry. Just pause there for a
[2:30:05] » Oh, sorry. Just pause there for a
[2:30:05] second. And sorry, and I'm doomsday
[2:30:08] today, so I'm not feeling
[2:30:11] glass half full. Uh that 14 $173 that
[2:30:17] we're talking about lower tier taxation
[2:30:19] on our $170,000 house,
[2:30:23] that only represents 47% of the property
[2:30:26] tax we collect from that house
[2:30:30] because that's only the lower tier
[2:30:31] portion. So we're asking the owner of
[2:30:33] that $170,000 home. Okay? So, please
[2:30:36] correct the numbers, but make the point,
[2:30:37] please.
[2:30:38] >> Sorry. Yeah. Uh, not 47. It would be the
[2:30:39] » Sorry. Yeah. Uh, not 47. It would be the
[2:30:39] 47 plus the nine because policing is
[2:30:41] included in this.
[2:30:43] >> Yeah. Sorry.
[2:30:44] » Yeah. Sorry.
[2:30:44] >> 56%.
[2:30:45] » 56%.
[2:30:45] >> You got it. 56%.
[2:30:48] » You got it. 56%.
[2:30:48] But you can see the the affordability
[2:30:50] piece that 17 $179,000 home is going to
[2:30:54] be paying
[2:30:56] essentially double that. $3,000 plus
[2:30:59] water plus waste water plus
[2:31:02] uh waste pickup plus recycling if they
[2:31:05] got a small business there.
[2:31:09] Good.
[2:31:11] Keep going please. Thank you.
[2:31:14] Um so I'm going to water race
[2:31:15] wastewater. Do we want when did you want
[2:31:18] to bring back the uh councelor Mo's
[2:31:20] comment about gravel? Did you want to
[2:31:22] still do it within this portion or do
[2:31:24] you want me to wait till the end?
[2:31:25] >> Let's get this PowerPoint done please.
[2:31:27] » Let's get this PowerPoint done please.
[2:31:27] We'll do uh so water wastewater uh so
[2:31:30] here's the pieces with the water so
[2:31:32] water is 5% uh wastewater increase is
[2:31:35] 4%. And this is actually the slide I was
[2:31:38] trying to come from memory. Um so for
[2:31:41] the rates so we did our new water
[2:31:43] wastewater study in 2026
[2:31:45] uh or 2025 sorry and it presented from
[2:31:48] 2026 onward. Uh so we're matching the wa
[2:31:51] the race rate studies for both uh 4% for
[2:31:54] water for waste water and then 5% for
[2:31:56] water and you'll see projected out for
[2:31:59] the next 10 years from 2027 to 2034 it's
[2:32:02] 5% annually for water. uh and then we
[2:32:05] would recommend the exact same thing.
[2:32:07] And then for uh wastewater it's 4% uh I
[2:32:11] believe that goes to 2027 then it turns
[2:32:13] to 3% from 28 29 and then 2030 to 2034
[2:32:18] is 2%. uh and we would aim to match that
[2:32:21] that same amount uh going forward uh
[2:32:23] because the the um assets are funded and
[2:32:26] financed uh as long as capital projects
[2:32:29] and things like that hold within the
[2:32:30] inflated values that have been that have
[2:32:32] been set out.
[2:32:34] Um this is just a quick slide to show
[2:32:36] what debentures are currently on the
[2:32:38] books. So in water and wastewater uh our
[2:32:41] 2026 total payment is $525,000. So, of
[2:32:45] the money that we collect from from the
[2:32:47] residents for all these systems, we pay
[2:32:50] $525,000 of that back to, in this
[2:32:53] instance, the province for the
[2:32:55] debentures that we've taken out. Um,
[2:32:57] because the total ending balance is a
[2:32:59] little over $7 million.
[2:33:02] Uh so the water rates for 2026
[2:33:05] uh effective January 1 would be 1,268.96
[2:33:09] uh total increase of $6043.
[2:33:12] Uh billing change of $107 and a monthly
[2:33:15] change of 504. Uh then small commercial,
[2:33:18] medium commercial, all have seen the
[2:33:20] same uh 5% increase. The newest category
[2:33:23] in here which was uh proposed by the
[2:33:25] Watson study uh for the 2026 year is the
[2:33:28] high commercial tier 2 um which would
[2:33:31] account for uh $12,68957
[2:33:34] annually.
[2:33:37] Uh these are the projects that are
[2:33:38] projected for 2026. Uh there's no
[2:33:41] changes here from the original uh
[2:33:43] presentation. Uh the debenture would go
[2:33:46] to uh the Crawford Street. Um annual
[2:33:50] payment around uh $56,000
[2:33:54] um on the water side. Uh water meters
[2:33:57] would be installed uh fully funded
[2:33:59] through OSF uh based on last year's uh
[2:34:01] 2025's uh contribution from OSF as well
[2:34:04] as the this current year. Uh beachwork
[2:34:07] water main fully funded from our reser
[2:34:08] from our reserves.
[2:34:10] Uh and then the cob water treatment
[2:34:12] plant would receive uh uh one one thing
[2:34:14] of $20,000. And then the the leak
[2:34:16] detector and uh frequency locator under
[2:34:19] the lines would be 12,515,000.
[2:34:22] Uh those are all user fee financed. Uh
[2:34:25] wastewater uh they would see the 4%
[2:34:27] increase. Uh so it goes from 195878
[2:34:31] to 23713. So it's a total increase for
[2:34:34] the annually of $78.35.
[2:34:37] Billing is 1306. When I say billing,
[2:34:39] that's every two months. Uh and then
[2:34:41] monthly change is $653.
[2:34:43] And again, tier 2 was the recommendation
[2:34:46] uh from Watson's uh through the the
[2:34:49] consultant the rate study is 20,37131
[2:34:54] uh for the annual cost. Uh there's only
[2:34:57] one project that's looked at for the
[2:34:58] wastewater treatment plant at this point
[2:34:59] in time. It's the centerfuge pump. Um a
[2:35:02] replacement cost of 58,500 and it's
[2:35:05] financed through user fees for the year.
[2:35:08] So here's the combined cost. Uh so this
[2:35:11] is resident Cobden uh specific. Um
[2:35:14] residential would be $3,369.
[2:35:17] So a total increase of $13878 or billing
[2:35:20] increase of 2313. And then high
[2:35:23] commercial uh would be a total cost of
[2:35:25] tier two of would be a cost of $33,60.88
[2:35:28] 88
[2:35:30] or annual or a billing ch increase of
[2:35:33] 4,45418.
[2:35:38] So this is a slide that the mayor was
[2:35:40] kind of not noting to before. Um so this
[2:35:42] one is based off $182,000 assessment. Um
[2:35:46] so you'll see the first column is
[2:35:48] municipal and tax uh includes municipal,
[2:35:51] county, and tax portions. So it's 22 uh
[2:35:55] 262188.
[2:35:57] It's for 2026. uh increase of 13440 over
[2:36:01] 2025
[2:36:02] uh monthly change of 1120 and this is
[2:36:04] where the 3.23 is where we're currently
[2:36:06] sitting. I will note this does not
[2:36:08] include the garbage charge. This is
[2:36:10] taxation based taxation water and
[2:36:12] wastewater uh is only the things noted
[2:36:14] here. Um so then the municipal county
[2:36:16] taxation and water. So our Beachburg and
[2:36:18] Haley's properties would look at a bill
[2:36:20] total for the year if their assessment
[2:36:22] is 182,000 of $3,890.84 84 cents
[2:36:26] increase of 1948 83. Uh so they're
[2:36:28] sitting about a 5% affordability factor.
[2:36:31] And then the last one would be our
[2:36:33] Cobden residents again $182,000 property
[2:36:37] be looking about 5,92797.
[2:36:40] So it's a total increase of $273.18.
[2:36:44] Uh and then the affordability sitting at
[2:36:45] 7.52. And then my next slide is
[2:36:48] questions. So before that,
[2:36:52] >> good questions on water wastewater from
[2:36:54] » good questions on water wastewater from
[2:36:54] council.
[2:36:57] » Yes, deputy mayor.
[2:36:58] >> Thank you. Um the high commercial tier 2
[2:37:04] » Thank you. Um the high commercial tier 2
[2:37:04] uh sorry 161. What um you go from 3,900
[2:37:10] to 20,000. What is that? I I'm confused.
[2:37:14] So the tier everybody used to be under
[2:37:16] high commercial which was two times the
[2:37:18] residential rate. Um through the Watson
[2:37:21] study there was certain businesses that
[2:37:22] were noted that use substantially more
[2:37:24] water than just two times what a uh a
[2:37:27] regular residential unit uses. Um so
[2:37:30] this new rate was proposed uh to be
[2:37:33] implemented into this budget and would
[2:37:34] be passed through this council and the
[2:37:36] the council uh when it actually comes to
[2:37:38] council with through the user fee bylaw
[2:37:40] to be 10 times the rate. So whenever I
[2:37:43] say 2025 uh that's why both amounts are
[2:37:46] the same. So if you're on slide 63 for
[2:37:48] example
[2:37:49] um both in 2025 I have both the
[2:37:53] commercials tier 1 and tier 2 is the
[2:37:55] same amount the 633580
[2:37:58] um 2026 rate sees the tier one just get
[2:38:02] its standard uh increase of about 4 and
[2:38:05] a half%. The tier 2 actually implements
[2:38:08] the 10 times rate b of the 10 times the
[2:38:11] residential rate. So you'll notice the
[2:38:12] residential rate for the year is 336. So
[2:38:15] 10 times that is the 33,6088.
[2:38:18] Um so it affects uh stipulated through
[2:38:22] the um whenever the the
[2:38:25] report was um approved
[2:38:28] um the areas are arenas. So part of it
[2:38:31] affects the the municipality itself. our
[2:38:34] two arenas fall into this category as
[2:38:36] well as uh two business categories at
[2:38:39] this point in time are are tied into
[2:38:41] this this amount. Um one here in Cobden
[2:38:44] and then one in Beachburg at this point
[2:38:46] in time and that those are the
[2:38:47] categories that fall in. Uh other major
[2:38:49] businesses are on meters and then that's
[2:38:51] where the commercial meters are put in.
[2:38:53] um so that whenever we install those
[2:38:55] meters come 2027 hopefully uh once we
[2:38:58] have the data re received we can start
[2:39:00] implementing based on the actual usage
[2:39:02] they have rather than uh estimates based
[2:39:04] on uh the consultants uh work. So this
[2:39:07] is kind of the stepping stone to that
[2:39:09] next step of implementing those those
[2:39:10] meters uh because there's certain
[2:39:12] businesses that use that substantial
[2:39:14] amount of water.
[2:39:17] >> Thank you.
[2:39:20] » Thank you.
[2:39:20] >> Any other questions on water wastewater?
[2:39:22] » Any other questions on water wastewater?
[2:39:22] Yeah, councelor Moore,
[2:39:25] >> just in keeping with that same chart on
[2:39:27] » just in keeping with that same chart on
[2:39:27] 63, the one that's there. Um,
[2:39:31] on this list, what will be me metered
[2:39:33] this year? Will it be small commercial,
[2:39:35] medium commercial, high?
[2:39:37] >> What about the multi-residential? Will
[2:39:39] » What about the multi-residential? Will
[2:39:39] it be going metered?
[2:39:40] >> No. So, at this point in time, the
[2:39:42] » No. So, at this point in time, the
[2:39:42] >> just commercial.
[2:39:42] » just commercial.
[2:39:42] >> Just commercial. Yep.
[2:39:44] » Just commercial. Yep.
[2:39:44] >> Thank you.
[2:39:47] » Thank you.
[2:39:47] >> Good. Any other questions?
[2:39:51] Good. The only point I'll make is that
[2:39:53] uh
[2:39:55] when you take a look at that wonderful
[2:39:57] chart that talks about uh 5%
[2:40:01] if you're on water and 7.52%
[2:40:04] affordability for those that are on Oh
[2:40:07] yeah, thank you. on uh water and
[2:40:09] wastewater. Uh we're continuing to work
[2:40:12] both of these cases through advocacy. We
[2:40:15] have another uh delegation with Ministry
[2:40:18] of of Infrastructure. I think this will
[2:40:21] be my seventh on the topic of water and
[2:40:24] wastewater. Uh they're continuing to
[2:40:26] receive our delegation. So that is a
[2:40:28] positive note. Um we're working with FCM
[2:40:32] and AMO L so that we're not just putting
[2:40:36] these figures out and saying, "Oh gosh,
[2:40:37] just live with it." We are doing
[2:40:39] everything within our power to pull
[2:40:42] whatever lever is out there to try to
[2:40:44] provide some relief. Uh and as soon as
[2:40:47] we know more information, we'll be able
[2:40:48] to share it.
[2:40:50] Good.
[2:40:52] Okay. Uh
[2:40:54] at that point, let's go back to
[2:40:56] councelor Moore's uh question. Let's
[2:40:58] talk about gravel for a moment. And uh I
[2:41:01] I think what we had in a previous
[2:41:04] committee meeting was a was a point that
[2:41:06] was included in a cart alakart option to
[2:41:10] increase the number of kilometers that
[2:41:12] we redo of gravel roads each year. Right
[2:41:16] now the program is 10. um could we go
[2:41:20] higher than 10 kilometers in a year?
[2:41:22] What would that cost? So, treasurer, can
[2:41:24] I hand the floor over to you and just
[2:41:25] take that?
[2:41:26] >> Sure. Sure. Um so, the original alocart
[2:41:28] » Sure. Sure. Um so, the original alocart
[2:41:28] piece um noted it was $60,000 in order
[2:41:31] to bring it from the current cycle time
[2:41:33] of 15 years down to back to the 10-year
[2:41:36] period. Uh $60,000 equals a.77%
[2:41:39] increase to our overall budget. Um so,
[2:41:42] in order to implement that, so the 5.8%
[2:41:44] 8% would effectively become 6.57 should
[2:41:48] that be uh implemented as one lump sum
[2:41:51] into the year uh or some other variation
[2:41:53] of that. Um that's that would be the way
[2:41:56] to bring the program back to the the
[2:41:57] 10-year recirculation back to uh for
[2:42:00] graph roads.
[2:42:07] » I'm in full agreement with that. Um, the
[2:42:10] last couple of, as I said previously,
[2:42:12] the last couple of rainstorms we've had,
[2:42:13] like we're getting a lot of complaints
[2:42:14] because the soup's the roads turning
[2:42:16] into soup and we can't do anything with
[2:42:18] it as long as it stays soup. So, if we
[2:42:21] could initiate this program today to
[2:42:25] start doing more roads with fresh
[2:42:27] gravel, uh, we should alleviate some of
[2:42:29] that soupness and unable to even grade
[2:42:32] at that point. So, if if what councelor
[2:42:36] Trim stated before about increasing our
[2:42:38] our money for our roads that this would
[2:42:40] be a good place to start.
[2:42:45] Any other comments from anyone else.
[2:42:49] So, I'm not in disagreement with uh with
[2:42:52] what you're saying, councelor Moore. I I
[2:42:55] hesitate to increase taxation to achieve
[2:42:58] it. treasurer, CEO, could you offer
[2:43:02] other ways that funding could be found
[2:43:05] or what considerations council could
[2:43:07] have if we wanted to rep prioritize
[2:43:10] funds into gravel?
[2:43:14] And from a council perspective, if
[2:43:16] you're thinking of a a a lower priority
[2:43:19] item that we've already discussed, you
[2:43:21] could bring it forward as well. Yeah, I
[2:43:23] I'm I'm just like I'm trying to process
[2:43:26] whether or not we increase the levy for
[2:43:28] the purposes of gravel roads when we
[2:43:30] know very well we you know there's not
[2:43:32] only gravel roads, there's DST roads and
[2:43:35] there's ashalt roads and this whole
[2:43:37] complexity. Um would it benefit
[2:43:42] uh the replacement of assets if we
[2:43:44] increase to the 7% specifically for
[2:43:47] capital or or gravel roads? I mean
[2:43:50] certainly we we'd get ahead but I don't
[2:43:52] think we're that much further ahead. So
[2:43:54] um aside from just that note like I mean
[2:43:57] out of like can we rep prioritize
[2:43:59] operating expenses at this stage? I mean
[2:44:02] we'd have to do some more investigation
[2:44:04] but I I would the answer is really no. I
[2:44:07] was just messaging our our manager just
[2:44:09] because we're talking water meters.
[2:44:10] We're talking Beachburg water main. We
[2:44:12] have a water project underway in
[2:44:14] Beachburg. We have Crawford. We have
[2:44:16] gravel road program. We have government
[2:44:18] road like that alone for the department
[2:44:21] is is a lot of work. I mean that's a lot
[2:44:23] of work. Um and the success I mean the
[2:44:29] the human resources applied to that. I'm
[2:44:32] not sure like I am confident that we'll
[2:44:34] probably achieve it but it's going to be
[2:44:36] a lot of work. It's going to be a lot of
[2:44:37] time a lot of commitment. So I mean if
[2:44:40] we keep doing more work how do we apply
[2:44:42] the human resources and needed to
[2:44:43] support that work? So, I I'm just I I'm
[2:44:46] having a hard time just processing and
[2:44:48] figuring out what would be the best
[2:44:49] approach, but um
[2:44:52] yeah, I don't know. I mean, I'd pass it
[2:44:54] over to my treasurer or manager or any
[2:44:56] other managers to provide additional
[2:44:57] input by all means.
[2:45:01] » Yeah, I would just echo the the CEO's
[2:45:04] point of it'd be hard to integrate it
[2:45:07] into the current budget to not have an
[2:45:09] increase like associated to it. Um, one
[2:45:12] of the only things that uh we had kind
[2:45:14] of looked at uh from a management
[2:45:16] standpoint is um potentially like
[2:45:19] phasing it in over years instead of
[2:45:21] going right from like adding the full
[2:45:23] $60,000 in one year to going say $20,000
[2:45:26] per year or something like that of
[2:45:28] instead of seeing as big of an increase
[2:45:30] to the overall budget. Um it still would
[2:45:32] be a very hard amount to integrate into
[2:45:34] the budget because we have the operating
[2:45:37] budget to the most point I would say is
[2:45:39] bare bones. um meets the level of
[2:45:42] service. You start trying to pull out of
[2:45:44] some other area to fund this one to a
[2:45:46] higher level, you're going to see a
[2:45:48] decreased level of service that council
[2:45:50] would have to approve in some other
[2:45:52] category. Whether it be within the road
[2:45:55] budget that something else gets adjusted
[2:45:56] to adjust more to cap to the the gravel
[2:45:59] roads program or whether it's another
[2:46:00] budget line item. Um right now we're
[2:46:03] able to meet meet the uh the current
[2:46:07] levels of service. any changes to to
[2:46:09] decrease those areas to fund this would
[2:46:11] see a decrease in those levels of
[2:46:12] service in order to more or less
[2:46:14] increase this level of service
[2:46:15] currently.
[2:46:17] >> If I could through you the mayor is uh
[2:46:21] » If I could through you the mayor is uh
[2:46:21] not to postpone the discussion of
[2:46:24] increasing tax. I think we're at I mean
[2:46:27] from my perspective we're at a point
[2:46:28] where I think the budget as presented
[2:46:30] today at the 5.8% is is generally
[2:46:34] palpitable by council. Uh perhaps the we
[2:46:38] we just leave it with staff to analyze
[2:46:41] the what's the $30,000 is what you
[2:46:43] mentioned $20,000
[2:46:46] um as part of our deliberations
[2:46:49] with the budget committee with the
[2:46:50] projections other priorities and and all
[2:46:53] of these other things. Um and if there's
[2:46:56] a decision to um increase to that
[2:47:01] $20,000 we could do so as part of our
[2:47:03] tax rate implementation. uh not the best
[2:47:06] approach but it is a mechanism by which
[2:47:08] we could we could look at that and then
[2:47:11] also maybe we look at perhaps it's rep
[2:47:13] prioritizing other other projects I'm
[2:47:15] not sure but just so we could keep the
[2:47:18] progress of the budget discussion moving
[2:47:19] forward but if that's acceptable to
[2:47:21] yourself mayor and through the mover
[2:47:23] that'd be great
[2:47:25] >> council more and just a comment on that
[2:47:28] » council more and just a comment on that
[2:47:28] and and and I understand what you're
[2:47:30] saying um but with the current rate of
[2:47:35] graveling roads every 15 years. What
[2:47:38] happens to inflation and how much gravel
[2:47:40] are we losing because we haven't
[2:47:42] increased the rate of pay per se into
[2:47:44] that GL account and we're going
[2:47:47] backwards not forwards. So in keeping
[2:47:49] with what councelor Trim suggested that
[2:47:51] we add more money to the roads budget um
[2:47:53] I think this should take part of that
[2:47:56] conversation when it comes up at next
[2:47:58] budget.
[2:48:00] Okay. Thank you.
[2:48:02] So I'll just add to that before we throw
[2:48:04] it back to staff or any other member of
[2:48:06] council is the I think the approach is
[2:48:09] that gravel we have to recognize gravel
[2:48:11] as a unique item although it's
[2:48:13] classified as an operating expense. I
[2:48:17] think from a from a council directive
[2:48:19] from a level of service perspective we
[2:48:21] need to consider it a capital asset. I
[2:48:23] know that's going to mess with the
[2:48:24] treasurer's charts. you. I'm sure you'll
[2:48:27] figure out a way to, but I think we put
[2:48:29] it on the agenda for the budget
[2:48:31] committee to consider as part of the
[2:48:32] five-year plan. Um, we can explore to
[2:48:36] see if there might be a rep
[2:48:37] prioritization. I like the idea of
[2:48:39] phasing something in. Um, but I don't
[2:48:41] think I'm not prepared to increase the
[2:48:44] the uh the the budget at this point in
[2:48:47] time. I don't know if there's any
[2:48:49] appetite for council to consider that.
[2:48:52] None. Okay, good. Is there anybody wants
[2:48:54] to make a comment to that before I open
[2:48:55] up to staff? Councilor Mstead.
[2:48:57] >> Yeah, completely in agreement with you,
[2:48:58] » Yeah, completely in agreement with you,
[2:48:58] Mayor. Um, and the the other um
[2:49:03] issue is weather. We can't control
[2:49:05] weather. I'm I'm looking here. It's plus
[2:49:07] three outside. It's January 14th. I
[2:49:09] think it's the 14th. And it's plus three
[2:49:12] outside. Yesterday was plus 4. Uh, and
[2:49:15] we've had probably 10
[2:49:18] thaw freeze cycles. My my lane was the
[2:49:20] same thing. It It's a mess. and I've got
[2:49:23] a good laneway. So, it's sometimes no
[2:49:24] matter how much material you throw at
[2:49:27] it, it's just the weather doesn't
[2:49:28] cooperate. So, the surface is terrible.
[2:49:30] But, uh I'm going to agree. I don't
[2:49:32] think we touched the budget. Thank you.
[2:49:36] >> Other members of council before I open
[2:49:38] » Other members of council before I open
[2:49:38] up to staff, I saw manager public works.
[2:49:42] >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh uh I'm councilstead.
[2:49:46] » Yeah. Thank you. Uh uh I'm councilstead.
[2:49:46] The one I think what hot it's on our
[2:49:48] topic because last fall was we had a
[2:49:52] more of a unique situation and we're not
[2:49:53] the only township. Every township around
[2:49:55] had the same uh um social media posts as
[2:49:59] we did. Um it we we got we got
[2:50:05] uh rain then it froze and it was very
[2:50:07] tough challenging. We our staff uh put
[2:50:11] in a lot of overtime and a lot of
[2:50:12] weekend work uh to try to get the roads
[2:50:16] half decent gravel roads before freeze
[2:50:18] up. and I um and I um thank him for
[2:50:22] that. The one item that I we've talked
[2:50:25] as staff internally um is any um with
[2:50:30] GRA roads how it's done it's it's it's
[2:50:32] estimated how much tonnage we need per
[2:50:34] per road and it's added up um within our
[2:50:38] budget. One thing I would suggest and
[2:50:40] I've talked to Charger about this is any
[2:50:43] surplus if you surplus from a year and
[2:50:45] and for example this year um there is a
[2:50:48] surplus in sorry in 2025 there was
[2:50:50] surplus because we didn't do the entire
[2:50:52] road network that that we were going
[2:50:54] through that that went into a reserve
[2:50:57] that we could pull from the following
[2:50:59] year. So for example, if we use instead
[2:51:01] of previous years, it would just go into
[2:51:02] working funds at the end of the year in
[2:51:04] a general surplus, if we pull it out and
[2:51:07] put it into a into a fund that for
[2:51:10] example, if if there's an extra 20,000
[2:51:12] from 2025, we could we could we could
[2:51:15] I'm bringing a a report back and if if
[2:51:20] if we can do one more road with that
[2:51:22] with that money. Um I know uh the one
[2:51:26] thing we were trying to do better is um
[2:51:28] could we do gra tickets and brought in
[2:51:30] and determine
[2:51:32] um like if we in the fall if we do it
[2:51:35] soon enough we know how much money's
[2:51:36] left in the in the in the budget. The
[2:51:38] one issue with that is that we do
[2:51:41] schedule our work um like do a work plan
[2:51:44] for the year and sometimes it's it's too
[2:51:46] much time in in the fall. So what by
[2:51:48] having reserve anyone come we can do it
[2:51:50] early enough to to program that in make
[2:51:52] sure there's enough time to program that
[2:51:53] in
[2:51:57] » good and that's the kind of that's the
[2:51:59] kind of thinking that we want. I think
[2:52:00] we have to come up with some other ways
[2:52:03] than just increasing taxation to achieve
[2:52:05] it. Um so yeah please I would encourage
[2:52:09] uh staff to consider that as a as an
[2:52:11] option. It's good. Anything else? Okay,
[2:52:15] final call on the budget 2026 as
[2:52:19] presented.
[2:52:22] Good. Uh I just can you put up the slide
[2:52:24] at the So just to review the resolution
[2:52:27] that's on the floor and I can't remember
[2:52:29] the mover. Oh, councelor Olmstead was
[2:52:31] the mover. Councelor Moore was the
[2:52:34] seconder. Those are the three
[2:52:37] um elements of that resolution that's on
[2:52:41] the floor.
[2:52:43] I'll just let council take a moment to
[2:52:45] review it. I know it was three hours
[2:52:47] ago.
[2:53:00] Good. So, if there was if if I know it
[2:53:02] was a huge package. So, if you want to
[2:53:04] make an amendment to it that that we can
[2:53:07] accept that now. Otherwise, I will call
[2:53:10] for the vote.
[2:53:13] Good. Call for the vote. All those in
[2:53:14] favor? And it's carried unanimously.
[2:53:17] With that, I just want to first off
[2:53:19] thank the staff. I know this has been a
[2:53:21] tremendous amount of work, especially
[2:53:23] with the additional asks this year,
[2:53:25] five-year forecast, and forcing us to
[2:53:27] have these tough discussions. Thank you
[2:53:29] for doing that, and I think council I
[2:53:31] think future councils are going to
[2:53:32] appreciate it. So, thank you.
[2:53:35] >> Okay. What else is on this agenda? I can
[2:53:37] » Okay. What else is on this agenda? I can
[2:53:37] adjourn.
[2:53:40] » Yes. Unless it's something else. Yes.
[2:53:42] >> No.
[2:53:45] » No.
[2:53:45] >> Oh. Uh, yes. This was provided. Is that
[2:53:49] » Oh. Uh, yes. This was provided. Is that
[2:53:49] just an example of what the, uh, the
[2:53:53] bylaws?
[2:53:53] >> Yeah, I think that's what's going to go
[2:53:55] » Yeah, I think that's what's going to go
[2:53:55] forward to council.
[2:53:57] >> Perfect. So, this is what's being
[2:53:58] » Perfect. So, this is what's being
[2:53:58] brought forward to the council meeting.
[2:54:00] >> Item number two, I think it was on the
[2:54:04] » Item number two, I think it was on the
[2:54:04] recommendation.
[2:54:05] >> Good. If there's no other final
[2:54:07] » Good. If there's no other final
[2:54:07] comments, we are adjourned at 2:51. For
[2:54:11] those people that are watching, we will
[2:54:13] initiate our council meeting at 300 p.m.
[2:54:16] Thank you.