Transcript: Special (Open) Council - 2026/04/08

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker B · Good evening everyone and welcome. It's Wednesday, April 8th. This is the special open council meeting. I'll call the meeting to order. We have regrets from Councillor Graham and I believe Councillor King. Perhaps unless he arrives, and I believe Councillor Newton will be here shortly. And we begin by respectfully acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Saanich people, which includes the SARTLEP and SEW First Nations. I need a motion to approve the agenda as circulated for this evening, please. Any seconder? Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. Any opposed? Also none. Motion carries.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker B · Motion to convene a committee of the whole, please. Any discussion? Any desire to see anyone else chair the meeting? No. All right, by all means, speak up if you must without anyone speaking up. I'll call the question.

Speaker B · Any opposed? None. That carries. We have the 2026 draft financial plan to be presented by a number of staff members. So I'll turn it over to our CAO.

Speaker C · Thank you. Through the mayor. As we enter year three of our four year implementation plan, the 2026 financial plan continues to reflect discipline, consistency and long term thinking and confirms that we are on track and aligned with Council's direction. Tonight I want to focus on capital investment. At its core. Our approach is guided by the integrated Planning and reporting framework, ensuring that capital planning is aligned with our strategic priorities, Asset management and Long term Financial plan. The majority of our capital program is routine and essential. It is focused on the replacement and renewal of existing infrastructure, roads, underground utilities, facilities and fleet, ensuring service reliability and avoiding more significant costs in the future.

Speaker C · This is supported through the Asset management plan with 1. 25% dedicated annually to meet the District's financial strategy in replacement of existing assets. At the same time, we are making targeted strategic investments. These include new infrastructure such as active transportation supported by an additional 0. 5% investment. Ensuring we are not only maintaining what we have, but also responding to growth, community priorities and changing standards. Importantly, this is a balanced approach. We are sequencing investments, aligning them with service capacity and delivering them through a stable and predictable financial plan. Once again, I want to express my gratitude to Council for their leadership and to staff for their dedication to delivering excellent service. I will now turn the presentation over to Ms. Tryon, the Chief Financial Officer and Mr.

Speaker C · Puskas, Director of Engineering. Thank you.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker E · Oops.

Speaker D · There we go. Council previously reviewed the overview and operating budget on March 30th. Tonight's agenda moves through asset management, reserves, debt capital program and amendments. These sections address how the District. District plans, funds and maintains capital over time.

Speaker D · First, we will start with asset management. Asset management ensures the District assets are maintained in a healthy state of repair. Financially supported over their full life cycle. Optimized to meet public safety, service and economic needs. Asset management is the District's most significant long term financial responsibility. The infrastructure portfolio includes over 46 municipal buildings, 140 km of roads, 4040 plus parks, 125 km of water mains, 89 km of gravity, sewers, lift, pump, lift and pump stations. The total replacement value of these assets exceeds 565 million. The District the District adopted its first asset management and long term financial plan in 2017. The plan was updated in 2022 to reflect increased costs and asset age required.

Speaker D · Annual Investment increased to 10. 7 million and the target is to reach full funding by 2032. The district is now entering a significant replacement period for infrastructure largely built in the 1960s and 80s. The next asset management plan is due to be anticipated to be updated in 2027. This slide summarizes the District's annual spending target for asset replacement. Currently, the District can fund about 70% of these costs annually through 2032.

Speaker D · Available fund funding varies from year to year based on replacement needs. Increasing revenue is essential to close the funding gap and maintain reliable cost effective services. The District maintains reserves funds for financial stability, risk management and infrastructure.

Speaker D · The reserve and surplus policy sets minimum amounts and target levels for long term financial resilience. Revenues are added to reserves from general operating water utility, sewer utility funds as well as investment income, land sales and and development cost charges. Surplus provides working capital for project specific work. This reserve strategy balances infrastructure needs, affordability and sustainability. From the overall reserve strategy, I'll now touch on the water and sewer utility plan for capital. The District's water and sewerage Systems use a 15 year funding plan just like the main capital strategy. This means that we plan to finance over a long period of time to ensure it's enough money for upgrades and maintenance.

Speaker D · Money to pay for water and sewer projects come from three sources. Utility rates, contributions to reserve funds from investments and borrowing, which is used for large projects where there isn't enough save. The District plans to spend more on water infrastructure, aiming to invest 1. 5 million per year by 2032. Similarly, spending on sewer infrastructure is set to increase by 2. 1 million per year by 2032. Because much of the sewer system is old and underground, the District will now bar will need to borrow money over the next decade to fund replacements while gradually increasing reserve contributions. By spreading out these costs and using a Mix of savings and borrowings the District avoids sudden jumps in utility rates for residents.

Speaker D · Debt the District uses debt to supplement reserves for major infrastructure replacement projects when when annual reserve funds are insufficient. Debt aligns costs with asset lifespan so both current and future residents contribute to funding. The District balances debt limits under provincial legislation with municipal borrowing governed by the Community Charter and municipal liability regulation. The District cannot incur liabilities if annual debt servicing costs and exceed 25% of annual calculation of revenue within this limit. Borrowing without elector approval is permitted as long as the annual servicing costs remain within the approval free limit zone now set at 10% of the annual calculation of revenues increased from 5% in 2025.

Speaker D · Debt levels are rising due to recent projects that the District is currently at about 9% of electoral consent threshold with approximately 5 million in borrowing capacity remaining before reaching the 10% limit. The district expects to remain below the electoral consent threshold in 2026. Five year financial plan Debt servicing and funding options will be reviewed during the next Asset Management Plan update in 26 and 27. Next I'll pass it over to our Director of Engineering to walk us through the capital program.

Speaker F · Thank you, Ms. Tryon. The 2026 draft financial plan five year capital plan is mostly a continuation of the 2025 financial plan. The District creates capital plans. That's okay. Stay there. Yeah. The District creates capital plans based on master plans and needs by prioritizing and sequencing works based on urgency and when designs and inputs are required, taking advantage of timing of other projects, considering staff capacity and identifying and utilizing funding sources like DCCs, grants and reserves.

Speaker F · Capital plans are made up of individual capital projects. Projects are typically multi year and are conceived by condition assessments, residents highlighted needs and wants issues observed by staff and to maintain existing service levels. Just a quick definition Level of service are the standards and expectations for the performance, quality and efficiency of assets and the services they deliver which equate to safety, capacity and reliability. When we start our planning capital projects, we take the level of service as one of the design considerations and and whether the level of service needs to change. For example, when evaluating a road like Tyona Road, we look to the current and future corridor users and anticipate volumes, desired and anticipated speeds and propose standard solutions to meet the vehicle and pedestrian needs.

Speaker F · As part of the 2025 financial plan, the District introduced routine and strategic capital in the approval of a three year infrastructure programs like routine water main and road pavement replacement or strategic projects like Mount Newton Path Multi Use Pathway or the East Saanich Road and Central Saanich Road water main replacements with the CRD Routine capital works are projects to maintain existing levels of service, usually multi year programs.

Speaker F · They usually have low risk and are procured and managed with standard procurement procedures and delegated authority. Strategic capital projects on the other hand usually create new or improved services, involve greater risk because they are new, follow discretionary progress with staged decisions and approval in phases and require oversight from council. An example of a strategic is Central Saanich water main replacement with a sidewalk or the Brentwood Bay sewer project. Routine capital works have funds allocated annually like the pavement restoration and strategic capital works happen once and usually require special funding for usually one time budget allocations. Typically when developing a five year capital plan we try to integrate with other jurisdictions projects and stack and integrate infrastructure projects to reduce impacts to the neighbourhoods.

Speaker F · Additionally, projects are prioritized based on risks and available resources like staff and budget. As can be seen here. We do have a Gantt chart with the different color codings of different infrastructure types of projects, water, sewer, roads, active transportation and then a bunch of planning projects to supplement those. You can see with the interconnecting arrows how they are connected. From page 90 of the draft 2026 financial plan. The proposed total in capital expenditures for the five years is $142 million in asset renewal and in upgrades. This is across roads, drain fleet, water, sewer and active transportation. We'll get into some of the key projects over the next few slides.

Speaker F · Here we have some highlights from the 2026 capital program which we will have some further slides with additional details, but just to show the variance in the strategic and routine projects that we have, the funding that they come from and some of the budgets.

Speaker F · We do have some of those projects that are intermingled with the early approval that we had from October 20, 2025. There are a lot of the projects there that have started and are currently intermingled with the key project. Going to some of the key project specifics with routine capital the District is proposing fleet vehicle replacement. There are a number of carry forward items that have been approved by Council meeting in March as well as items that a police frontline vehicle and three light and medium duty vehicles for replacement this year. Water mains can be both routine and strategic capital works. The Tanner Road water main replacement is routine whereas having the CRD carry out the works for the District to replace asbestos cement pipe along East Sanich Road and Central Saanich Road is strategic.

Speaker F · The Tanner and East Sanich Road project is anticipated to be complete this year with most of the Central Saanich Road to be substantially completed this year with the CRD. Wharf and dock reconstruction for the James island dock. Steel pyro steel pile replacement and minor repairs to the Brentwood Bay dock are going to be undertaken this year. These occur during the summer fisheries window between July 15 and end of September. We've been working with the seat on notification as well as James island development on that as well. We'll be starting reconstruction concept design for Keating Road. Keating Crossroad where we'll be incorporating 2022's Keating Parking Study and engage with the community to develop options for the transit corridor so that when the pavement is replaced we can possibly undertake some value added work.

Speaker F · The outcome is some options for future financial planning as well as hopefully some additional work like parking along the area, improved, possibly some improved sidewalk and improved signage.

Speaker B · Just before you move on. With respect to Keating, there have been investments in the road over the last number of years. What is the scope of what's on this slide? So is it more than what we've seen in past years?

Speaker F · So in the last few years we've spent a lot on just pavement restoration. There's a large chunk of pavement east of Central Saanich intersection before Van S where the subgrade is failing. So that's approximately between where the island and Central Saanich is. That subgrade will need to be addressed. We've noticed some drainage issues along there which may be causing some piping. That road is kind of built up almost like a berm. So like that'll have to be addressed.

Speaker B · Is that in the vicinity of Tataya Creek?

Speaker F · Yes, that's correct. In addition to that, we do have that 2022 parking study. Some of the recommendations that came out of that parking study was to include some scallop parking along that section for users. And so we try to incorporate some of that because as we go to rip up some of the asphalt, there are going to be some sections of curb that will have to be replaced at the same time.

Speaker B · Okay, is it. So there's more subgrade work. Are we talking about a complete.

Speaker F · In some sections it'll be a complete road rebuild. In some sections it might be asphalt pavement. This part, this is kind of do that initial survey, but also look at what else can we do in that section to improve level of service today?

Speaker B · The amount of degradation in a localized area is. Is significant enough to warrant potentially more invasive work than we've had to do in the past.

Speaker F · That's correct. Like for example, we have done quite a bit of work last year we did a bunch of paving at Oldfield and Keating. We've done that intersection. That's not lost work, that's work that will likely stay and it's usually the road between Oldfield and Central Saanich itself. With the flyover project there will be some paving at Central Sanich and Keating as well.

Speaker B · There seem to be, I think in the last year or two quite a concentration of work in and around. I would call the area most proximal to Bucker fields.

Speaker F · That's correct.

Speaker B · So that area is sufficient for the time being?

Speaker F · Yep.

Speaker B · Obviously. Okay, thank you. Before we move on, any questions? Continue then.

Speaker F · The Brentwood Bay Sewer Project Phase 2 will be completed this year with decommissioning a one pump station and upgrading of two pump stations. This will remove the Hagan pump station which is currently having major operational issues with reliability and having. We're having a hard time sourcing parts for the old equipment. This is putting us putting the environment at risk as we are having to man it some at some times with having basically pump out trucks, pump out the wet well and dump within our system further on just to make sure that we're able to keep up with demand in some cases.

Speaker F · The 2026 draft financial plan is proposing complete completing Design of the Mount Newton Multi Use Path Phase 2 and completing work such as sidewalk and bike lanes along the east side of East Sanich Road from Wallace to Jeffrey and Central Saanich Road pathway construction pending the CRD water main completion.

Speaker F · So depending on when they complete the Central Saanich road water main will come in there and we'll finish up with the pathway sidewalk along that section. Before I pass it along to Mr. Pimental to talk about civic facilities, are there any questions that I could answer,

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson?

Speaker G · Thank you Mr. Mayor. With I know this isn't the slide and we haven't come to a resolution but there were concerns about active transportation, transportation bicycle routes or pathways between Brentwood Bay along Wallace up towards Stellis.

Speaker G · Have we made any progress on reviewing that and those opportunities?

Speaker F · So yes, thank you through the mayor. So this year the pathway that we've acquired land last year for, we'll be using our own in house staff to do design and cost estimating for that pathway this year. That's consistent with, I think it was our November 24th staff report on the update to the Mount Newton Multi Use path. So that is our plan for carrying out this year until later on this year we'll come back with a design and we'll work with community on that as well,

Speaker B · Councillor Peltiel,

Speaker H · thank you and I apologize if I missed this in the report. How long ago were the asset management assessments done which have deemed the grading that's done on the quality of infrastructure that we're looking at?

Speaker F · So the asset management plan, the 2021 version that we're working off of was Based off of 2015 Master Plans for water and sewer. I think if I'm not mistaken, the pavement assessment that was also based off of was about the same, same vintage, I think probably 23rd, 2013.

Speaker H · So just with the amount of our portfolio that's kind of sliding into that poor and very poor rating. What like have we are. Are we doing ongoing or recent condition assessments on those?

Speaker F · So as part of our master plan we, our master plan efforts, especially with water and sewer, we, we have been doing some assessments. Stormwater. We do annual inspections of our major culverts. So we especially since we had that most recent washout, we've redoubled our inspections on our storm the sewers. We have started up again which had stopped primarily due to ability of trying to get contractors. Our CCTV inspections of our sewer system, that has been tough. Trying to get a reliable contractor. There have been a couple of major ones that have open. They've gone bankrupt and are no longer operating. So it is tough to get that type of service. I think we've found one that we can work with reliably. So we started that up again to do condition assessments of our sewer.

Speaker F · What I can speak to on the water side is since we started prioritizing replacing high risk AC mains, we have started just probably last year, 2025 started to see some of that the call outs go down. Now that's just one year. So we don't know if that's an actual indicator. But those call outs have gone down last year

Speaker H · at this point, with the information that you have and the knowing that just the increase in typical hard costs for these projects, coupled with the lack of provincial and federal government investment that seems to be forecast.

Speaker H · Do you have concerns about the current forecast infrastructure deficit that we're sitting in, if there is one?

Speaker F · Not yet. I think we've been able to manage it. And I do put the caveat on that is we especially with the Brentwood Bay sewer and replacing that force main and a couple of sections of the gravity sewer to assist that and removing the Hagen pump station, like our sewer system is gravity based. We do have a few pump stations. We are undertaking a lot of electrical and pump replacements over the last two years. I think this year will be the last big push to do those type of repairs and then we'll be getting into the connections that are associated with it. We're not like the district of Saanich that had no corrode service connections. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Noco Road for those of you who aren't, it's basically tar and paper that was used as a pipe.

Speaker F · We don't have those type of service connections. We're quite fortunate that our system is young enough that it doesn't have that. We also are not in the same situation as a lot of the West Shore in terms of their water service connections where there was a period in time in the 18 where they used a very fragile polyethylene pipe for services that over the last 10 years have required a lot of replacements. We're very fortunate we don't have that. We have copper and pex, so we don't have a lot of those issues that the larger communities in the region have had from growing. We do have approximately 55,5 kilometers of AC pipe that still need to be replaced.

Speaker F · AC pipe is an interesting pipe in that it could be either really soft and punky depending on the soil or depending on when it was manufactured. Or it could last for 50 to 75 years and still be quite strong. So we've been prioritizing the ones where we've been getting call outs or where we've had to do connections, service connections and have assessed them as we've, you know, expose the pipe.

Speaker H · So beyond the risks and infrastructure, is there just noting inflation and kind of where hard cost increases are though you're satisfied with the.

Speaker F · We have, if you noticed, built in a little bit some inflationary cost for our five year plan. So we have increased like our, what I would say we called it, the $2 million for pipe replacement for water. We've been slowly working on increasing that and I think it's starting this year and starting next year. I know it doesn't reflect very well because we do have a large amount of carryover this year. That's because the work that CRD was proposing was supposed to happen last year. It didn't happen. But we're doing that with the sewer and the water and the drains as well and roads. So the one area where it is definitely going to be problematic this year and probably for next year as well is going to be in paving. Paving uses in bitumen and asphalt. So it's a petroleum based product.

Speaker F · And so we're likely to see Some impacts there. What we have been able to do is because we go for early approval on that routine asphalt replacement and chip sealing, we try to lock in prices in the fall and in December.

Speaker H · So my last question or kind of thought coming out of this is, like, on these capital asset replacement projects, especially on, like, where we're in, like, very poor territory. And when we compare that to some of the other, whether it's active transportation or I would say, new service items. And I appreciate and apologize for the fact that this is probably inherently a political question, but would it be helpful for staff if there was actually a direction coming from council for future budgeting exercises that actually broke down an indicator in the budget, or what would be seen as more discretionary and less core items?

Speaker F · Yes, that would be helpful and we've been trying to make that distinction with the routine and strategic. However, there are, like, I'll use. The Brentwood Bay sewer project is a strategic project because the funding required was more than we could fund. There are going to be some of those projects that are core, but we just do not have the funds initially.

Speaker H · And I appreciate, like, I'm not trying to rile any, you know, cat ladies or anything, but, like, the challenge being that I know every proposed service or expenditure someone's going to think is critical and someone's going to think it's unnecessary. And so there's always that kind of political tension. But I think just from like a core operations standpoint, being able to understand what the nucleus is for our operations versus where the additional items are, I think is that that would help in approaching things for sure. And I know we're taking steps to get there, too,

Speaker C · through the. Excuse me, through the mayor. We will be coming back in the second quarter with an update to our purchasing policy. And some of the principles in that are aligned with the routine versus the strategic. Routine capital, as Mr. Pescas had said, is what you're speaking to, Councillor Pelteel, which is really our core services. It's already. It's infrastructure that needs to be renewed and it's really business as usual with the strategic projects. It's more projects that also require maybe community involvement. And so we want to make sure that we have the appropriate opportunities for council to provide input in the way that we're going to be advancing the work.

Speaker C · And so it's. That's the distinction between the two. And that will come forward. The principals will come forward so council can review those first before we advance the policy.

Speaker E · Thank you,

Speaker B · Councillor Newton.

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker J · And I Appreciate sort of the high level look at some of these discussions. My questions or points I probably are tied together to the first with respect to the capital side of it, but then to the planning and the works that's being done and specifically the Brentwood pump stations that are scheduled or either scheduled or in the works to be started this year or already begun and how that changes to sort of springboard off Councillor Peltiel's point.

Speaker J · The impact to the debt and the draw on reserves as we're seeing this increase in inflationary pressure on these projects that were planned, you know, two years ago or allocated funds two years ago, and we're seeing that what the actual cost when it comes time to put shovels in the ground is probably more than what was originally planned for.

Speaker J · So specific, I guess to the Brentwood projects to start with, are we in line with where we were with the contingency component or are we seeing those inflationary pressures beyond that?

Speaker F · So currently with respect to the Brentwood Bay sewer project and the pump stations, the reason that we were awarded the project last March, so a year ago, and then have not, we're actually starting to break ground. I think this week. The contractor did some minor works by Steli school while school was out during the winter break, but they're starting right now. The reason for this long delay is the lead time for the pumps and the electrical components. So those are the biggest ticket items that would likely have the most sway in terms of cost due to the economic factors that we're seeing right now. Those have been purchased, those are already delivered, they're already here.

Speaker F · So that we're staying within our contingency.

Speaker G · The only

Speaker F · price that may affect might be some of the labor component, but it wouldn't be outside of our contingency. We'd stay within it for that project. We're quite fortunate that we're able to get out and get that work scheduled. But I don't see the economic pressures that we have right now that we're seeing right now with the gas prices affecting that project.

Speaker J · Yeah, and I can appreciate that this point in time is probably somewhat unique. However, we can't predict what's, you know, what other unique events are going to happen in the future. And so to that point, when we're talking about where we're at with respect to the debt servicing capacity. And so through your Mr. Mayor to the CFO, how do we see that those pressures having an impact as we approach that threshold when we're looking at these, you know, pretty significant and planned capital projects. But we know that those contingency component. And I know that the district has been a bit more aggressive when we're talking about the budgeting and looking at what the projects are for these.

Speaker J · But how do we ensure that we're trying to make sure, you know, getting below that threshold before we have to go out. Who knows what the tipping point could be as we're approaching this with respect to that debt servicing threshold.

Speaker D · I think we'll be able to see a more concrete understanding of that when we do the asset management plan and we see what asset replacement plan costs are looking like and the strategy around what we already have planned versus what that those future years look like in terms of the debt itself.

Speaker D · Right now, within the plan, within the five year plan, we have about 5 million and we aren't expected to exceed that. But that will come to question when we see more projects being added or changes in scope. But I believe that the asset management plan will give us a better indicator of how to best manage funding for those, for the projects.

Speaker C · Right through the mayor, I just have one addition and thank you. CFO Tryon. Recently at a meeting between leadership across the province and the Assistant Deputy Minister, they are looking at lifting the debt service liability requirements for major infrastructure such as sewer replacement. So it's very limited right now, but recognizing, not lifting it completely. And there would be definitely still the safeguards in place through municipal approval and mfa. However, recognizing the need for local governments to, to replace that aging infrastructure and that those are things that are required, they are similar to how they were looking at the debt liability limits. They're also looking at expanding the definition of things that fall outside of that requirement. And so that is also a tool that local governments may be able to use.

Speaker C · And so we're supposed to be hearing about it by the end of this year. Thank you.

Speaker J · Who knows what the provincial government would do and may is a big word in this sort of environment at the moment.

Speaker C · Through the mayor, it's a regulation and so it's easier than legislation and they have control over that.

Speaker J · So I guess. And again following up a little bit on Councillor Paltill's comment about the core or the routine versus the, the strategic component for some of these projects. You know, I can go back to my first day as an elected official and the importance of that planning and the asset management plan, but I, you know, one expects to see how significant costs have escalated over the last seven years. So is there things in here that with respect to the capital side that we see could be a bit More of a pressure point. When we're looking at that debt requirement or the draw on the reserves and the impact, those are somewhat the same thing.

Speaker J · But I think we need to be aware of where that is to make sure that the plan that we have in place is still going to be viable for the community primarily.

Speaker B · We did hear it from our director of engineering. The price of bitumen is obviously a major component and if anything in the world current context it would be the item that we would singularly expect to see it. But again, the province could be a little bit more deliberative in how it designates what infrastructure you're investing in. It to date has said everything you fund comes from the same bucket as opposed to there are different services that you are involved in and every local government in the province is involved in those. So the alternative is of course the province will continue to be nagged by local governments for grants.

Speaker B · So either you create tools for local governments to pay for it or you have local governments go through UBCM begging for grants.

Speaker J · No, I understand that process, but at the end of the day I think it's the community here that are there. You know, we're trying to make sure that we're sticking to the plan and being thoughtful and respectful with the money, but being aware of what you know. There are exterior factors at play that end up do having an impact on

Speaker C · this through the mayor. And that is the reason, Councillor Newton, that we update the plan every five years. Also there is significant work happening right now around doing condition assessments and analysis of future needs of our water and our sewer assets to ensure that when we move into the phase of updating the ACE or introducing the ACC and then updating the DCC as well as the asset management plan.

Speaker C · And there's a strategy around, you know, doing that all together that we have as much updated information as possible. And so that is going to support also informing council where we are at and what our needs are going to be. So we're trying to have the best information possible to be able to inform that asset management plan. But I think that the most important piece of that is ensuring that we continue to do those updates every five years. That is what is going to prevent us from not being able to identify risks as they, you know, in continually. And that's the safeguard that we put in place so that we're not relying on old numbers.

Speaker B · Can you speak to the external costs of doing that update and therefore why it might not be done every say two or three years but at five years? Because I recall there's a significant cost associated with doing the fulsome review.

Speaker C · I mean it takes significant resources. But if we were to do it every two and three years, aside from the cost, which is about $130,000 plus the DCC and ACC, we wouldn't be getting much new information. If we did it every two years, five years, it worked. I mean, from 2017 to 2022 we were able to maintain that 2032 deadline. Sorry, not deadline, but goal. However, we hadn't been doing as much asset replacement and so that was something that was identified within. So we are, when we do it at this in 2027, I think that we're going to be able to answer the questions that you, you have all of council has in the community and then we may have to adjust at that time and I think that that's something that we have to be realistic about.

Speaker C · We are not getting investment from higher levels of government right now and so. But we are self sustaining and the district is in, you know, from previous councils and the decisions that this council has made. The district is in a very admirable position, you know, in comparison to other local governments. They are not in the same position where they have a plan that is going to replace their assets. Many of them are reliant on senior level government. So we're in a better position as long as we continue on the same path.

Speaker J · I do understand that. And all you have to do is listen and look around about what's happening this time of year around the CRD and how that's having an impact on the residents of other municipalities. So I am grateful for the past leadership, but I think there's still, you know, still economic pressures and there will continue to be. And I think we need to be realistic about what those impacts are when we're looking at some of these projects.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor. I don't see any other questions. So let's proceed with the rest of the presentation and there may be more questions thereafter. Thank you.

Speaker I · Through the mayor, the redevelopment of the municipal Civic facility at 1882 Hovey Road, funded without introducing new taxes, will establish a modern civic hub and offer additional recreation space. Looking ahead in 2026, the municipality will advance its redevelopment initiatives with several key actions. At 1882 Hovey, the new municipal facility will see a schematic design completed followed by the presentation of a class D cost estimate to council. With council approval, development design will be finalized and construction on the Hovey site is expected to begin. Meanwhile, also with council approval, the plans for 1903 Mountain Union Crossroad include issuing and receiving requests for proposals with the goal of selecting a developer to present their concept to the community.

Speaker I · For our municipal work shard, we are looking at the best way forward to complete the redevelopment of the facility. Located at 1703 Keating Crossroad, the main building was built in 1973 and no longer functions efficiently as operations have long outgrown the building and in addition, the building has seismic and accessibility deficiencies and does not meet post disaster standards. The redevelopment of the municipal yard is a significant project aimed at modernizing the facilities and improving service delivery to the community. Staff are currently working on addressing geotechnical challenges to ensure the of the rear slope as part of the stability. Site filling is currently being undertaken as part of the strategy.

Speaker I · Filling the site brings the yards up to grade with adjoining properties. Adjacent landowners have undertaken similar work raising their sites prior to development to improve efficiency and reduce the need for large retaining walls. The district will charge a fee for the use of the site or the filling of the site and revenues collected through tipping fees are expected to offset and cover much of the costs associated with importing, placing and compacting the fill. Without this approach, the district would have to pay for the import of fill. This approach assures that slope mitigation and site preparation are advanced in a cost effective manner. The district also anticipates that more information regarding the redevelopment of the facility will be presented in the summer.

Speaker D · Thank you

Speaker I · and I'll pass it to Ms. Tyrone.

Speaker D · So, in terms of amendments to the draft financial plan, since the release, we've made a few minor technical updates. The operating budget has since been updated to reflect the April 1 revised assessment for new construction, allowing the original presented average home increase to remain unchanged. No changes to the strategic implementation plan budget and then a small an adjustment for timing refinement in the parks and trails capital spending. That concludes the presentation and we're here for questions.

Speaker G · Questions.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson,

Speaker G · I just wanted to go back to the civic facilities redevelopment slide, if we can do that. There we go. I'm curious. The $17 million projected land sale revenue, that's the original projection?

Speaker I · That's correct. It's the original projection, yes.

Speaker G · What is the impact if that projected land sale revenue is not met? What is the impact potential impact on the cost of the project

Speaker I · through the mayor. I didn't quite catch that.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson, I think the way you're asking the question, Councillor, is it would be better put as if it's not funded from the land sale. The lesser amount is going to Come from where that is, Is it going to come from reserves or taxation? That might be a better way of phrasing it because I don't think it changes the overall cost. It changes the revenue assumption of where you're paying for it and the potential impact on taxpayers and potential impact on tax. So is there a potential tax implication

Speaker E · or

Speaker B · impact on reserves, for example, or what the impact would actually might be if say it was $3 million less just for a random number.

Speaker G · So what I'll ask then is if that $17 million projected land sale revenue was not net, What is the impact on the financial projections for the municipal health?

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Councillor Thompson. So currently we still have reserves for facility about three on top of my head, around $3. 4 million still allocated to reserves so or to the facilities in our reserve. So we could use that. Beyond that, as we mentioned, we still have even to maintain our or below the threshold. We still have about $5 million in debt capacity. We have more, but just underneath the threshold so we could use that. There's other options such as borrowing from internally from other reserves as well. And so you can see there's different options. I would start with the more obvious one would be the three and a half million, 3. 4 million that we have from or allocated from reserves for facilities first.

Speaker I · And of course there are other options as new debt could be again funded through the amp trajectory that we still that we collect and or it could be funded through an increase in taxes. So there's definitely different options there.

Speaker B · I think you've spelled it out for us in such a way that if it was 3. 4, it would come from reserves. If it was more than 8. 4. I think you're starting to talk about potential tax implications or referenda on borrowing. Does that help, Councillor?

Speaker E · Sure.

Speaker B · Okay. Okay. Councillor Newton.

Speaker F · Sure.

Speaker J · Thank you. I think maybe this was asked through the previous question when we're looking at that, but are there additional abilities as we're looking at again that the debt servicing component and that threshold, is there ability to pay off existing debt earlier to then manage that or is it sort of robbing Paul to pay Peter at that point?

Speaker J · So I guess that would be the first question for you to staff to look at. If there is a deficit in the anticipated projection of land sale revenue, are there, is there existing definition debt servicing that could be eliminated to offset some of that.

Speaker I · Through the Mayor, the technical answer is yes, we could use our reserves. But when we look at our financial strategy, interest is something that we look at all the time, I would say every, probably every quarter. And right now what we're seeing is that the interest that we are earning on reserves is equivalent to the interest that would be paid from debt. So, so that's. So right now we're at a point where it's almost like you said, paying, robbing Paul, paying Peter. Anyways, it's, it's one half of the other. It doesn't matter right now. And so from our, from a financial perspective, again, you're just reducing the debt to the debt capacity. You could do that or you can use those reserves to reduce the overall cost.

Speaker I · And like I said, from an interest perspective, they're pretty much the same rate as of right now. Sometimes they're higher, it depends on the economic environment, but right now they're equal. So I would say to answer your question specifically, we wouldn't advise paying down debt when the interest on reserves is equivalent right now.

Speaker J · Okay, understood. And I think when we're looking at this project specifically, one of the key points that has been talked about through the community is the no indoctrinate, no anticipated additional increase to property taxes. And I think once we start, you know, getting into some potential finer details about this and we're discovering if there's a, a deviation from that, I think we need to look at what all of the impacts are as we explore this project so that we maintain that, you know, social license, if you will, with our, with, with the community.

Speaker J · And so whether that means. And again it was, that was my point previously about other projects to manage this from a routine or a strategic perspective. But you know, I know that this is just a point in time report back to council, but I think it's interesting that, or we'll be curious to see that as we start going through this process to determine are we able to potentially get the revenue.

Speaker J · And certainly I think if the density is diminished or proposed to be diminished, that will obviously have an impact on the potential valuation of this land. And so then that looks at what the impacts would be to the viability of the project as a whole and where those other points of funding can come from to, you know, hold our, hold that statement to still be true.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor. I would offer that all budgets to some extent contain some level of, of give and take and as projects come to the bidding stage or elements of them emerge, we plan accordingly. And I would say we've done that every year since we were founded as a municipality and not the least of which in the last decade and a half since PSAP 3150 and adjusting to real world costs and inflationary adjustments. So I take your point. It's incredibly valid, but it will always be presented to council and as information emerges we will have to respond accordingly. And some of that we're in control of and some of it we are not. Councillor Peltiel,

Speaker H · have we forecast or projected the operating cost differential between the current facility and the future facility and is that captured in the like longer look aheads for the budget.

Speaker I · Through the Mayor at a high level it was determined that it was very similar and I say that because we're moving into potentially a bigger facility now, it is more energy efficient. However, because of the increase in size there would be an increase in cost and so that would be obviously offset against what we are paying now in our utility cost being it's a smaller facility. So that was our high level estimate. But that will of course as we start doing some more energy modeling through our design concept, we'll get a little bit more information. But as of right now it seems like it's going to be even. Right now

Speaker H · do you have a schedule or area with definitions of the appropriated costs and what liabilities they may form throughout the project.

Speaker I · Through the mayor? Sorry, Councillor Palatio, can you repeat the question please?

Speaker H · Like with respect to appropriated costs in the overall budget and the liabilities that they represent, is there a schedule that actually breaks those down anywhere?

Speaker B · There was sort of partial one on one slide.

Speaker H · Okay.

Speaker B · With respect to like how much for sewer, how much for water, how much for facilities. There was a slide a few back that had a very high level breakdown of of where each part of the liability was 45 million in total. And there was, you know, there were four different line items.

Speaker B · If you rewind several slides you may see what the counselor is partially referring to. I think it was an earlier one. That one go forward so you have some there right. Future debt requirements carrying costs.

Speaker B · But a more expanded version of this I think Councillor,

Speaker H · That would be helpful ahead of decision making. The other two questions I have is do you allocate for interest on funds that are held in reserves as a combat to inflation and if so is there a way to do that as opposed to just putting them into general capital

Speaker I · fun or account through the mayor. So the, the calculation of interest on those reserves is legislated and so basically it goes back into the reserve funds. Now technically those reserves are used for ongoing capital projects.

Speaker I · And and so if we are meeting inflationary targets then hopefully our reserve funds increase by that as well to help offset Future projects. But it's not specific to inflation. But it does help support that, I guess is what I would say. I'm just going to go back to your first question if I can. So the financial plan, when we're looking at the debt, it does break every asset category has the debt required for water or sewer. And as an example in 2027 I think it has, you know, $1 million for water and 28, $1 million for water. So the breakdown for of debt is included in each asset category, if that helps. Page 109

Speaker C · through the mayor. Just one more thing. Is that the question that you were asking about the interest on the reserves and how that's built in, that is an improvement that we've identified as part of our update to the asset management plan. And so it hasn't historically been calculated and risk evaluated. And so that is something that we are going to be doing.

Speaker B · With respect to the amortization period on the facilities, for example, my understanding is it's a 25 year amortization that we are looking at. With respect to that when we go to long term borrowing at the end of the project, that would be a 25 year amortization, I believe. Yes, that's correct.

Speaker I · Yes.

Speaker B · Okay. With the current debt levels, what again we probably have a mix of different amortization periods. What is the shortest amortization period that MFA allows for? Is it 10 years?

Speaker I · Through the mayor, I believe you can get five years short term loans typical. Typically you would get those for equipment vehicles. Yeah, but and to answer your question, specifically the ones that we're looking at in the financial plan, I think we're averaging about 15 years for those which

Speaker B · is typical of capital projects. Certainly in my experience the trade off of course the longer with the amortization period, the lower the payments but the higher the interest carrying costs are are as we all know, if it is in fact five years and the district did have some capital projects such as roads and it decided to aggressively pay for those, would I guess this is an open ended question that could be answered in the future.

Speaker B · Would the current trajectory of infrastructure

Speaker A · tax

Speaker B · lift allocations expected through 2032 be flexible enough to essentially go towards shorter amortization periods of loans that might pay for things like roads? I don't know who can best answer that. Maybe the CFO

Speaker I · through the Mayor. Again, the technical answer is yes. Those that matures every five years, it depends on when you get it. Sometimes it's 10 years, then it's every five years after that. At those points you can pay them pay it off at that point instead of renewing it.

Speaker B · I understood that MFA though, was discouraging early loan repayments if your amortization period exceeded your interest period.

Speaker I · Yeah, they don't like it because they've already set this bond up. Right, so. So it's not just the bond buyer wants some certainty, but we could do that. Now, I think the overall question, and I think to Councillor Newton's as well, is that our last amp, it didn't have a debt strategy. And I think that's what we're looking for and that's what we're going to include in our next amp update is a debt strategy to go along with the long term financial strategy.

Speaker B · Yeah, I mean, that's sort of why I'm asking these questions. Okay, what is it? What are the lengths of time that an asset should be financed for if financing is indeed part of the mix? And obviously, what are the trade offs? To Councillor Peltier's point and to Councillor Newton's point, if we saw it broken down in such a way that we could say the trade off is higher payments, but ultimately interest saved and the ability to then recycle that debt use in the future, if it is necessary because other infrastructure needs arise, which they certainly will, that we can then roll over in the same way that we said, let's retire the firehaul debt at 10 years instead of, I believe it might have been 25, but I'm digging through my memory banks, it might have been 15, I believe it was 25, and recycle that debt capacity for other purposes.

Speaker B · It's not an unworkable strategy. It obviously does come up against all of the resistance and barriers of uncertainty. I've said this in multiple venues recently. That is the very nature of local government. We deal with uncertainty. There are things that have to be replaced and yet we cannot predict six months, two years, five years down the road. But we do our best to plan and have contingency and have strategies and methodologies that you can see for paying for these things. Twenty years ago, we used to just hide under the table and pretend like these problems didn't exist. And then 2009 PSAB 3150 came along and said, you actually have to account for the replacement cost of your infrastructure.

Speaker B · And most local governments probably dithered up until about last year. A few of us didn't thank you through the mayor.

Speaker C · And further to that, when, as Mr. Pescus had identified earlier, we're always looking, which is why we also are Presenting the capital plan on an annual basis, even though it's a five year plan for that adjustment as required. And it's all based on, you know, a risk profile as per slide within the capital program. And that's where, when we do have to make those adjustments, we always would come back to council. And so council is continuously aware because there are always thresholds where we're not going to make internal decisions because those decisions, of course, our councils to make.

Speaker B · I was going to say that just. And you said it exactly correctly. It is. At the end of the day, you present the information and council does its best to absorb and decide on approaches it's going to take, including perhaps to Councillor Newton's point, what it might end up not doing. But that should never be taken lightly. Okay. Are there any other questions, Comments at this point? There. There is a motion to approve the 26 through 30 draft financial plan as amended, assuming there are no other amendments proposed. Counsel committee, what say you? Do you wish to make amendments? Do you wish to make the recommendation? Don't all speak up at once. Sorry, did I miss a hand? Oh, Councillor Peltiel,

Speaker H · I would like to move that ahead of the 2027 district budget planning session that district staff report back on a capital categorization schedule for core versus discretionary projects.

Speaker B · Could that be tied to the review of costing that would normally be taking place? Just to give it some context through the mayor.

Speaker C · That is our intention and so it's aligned with work that we already have scheduled.

Speaker H · You always think you have a good idea. And then she says, oh, it's already

Speaker B · in the work plan.

Speaker H · And I feel like it's a bingo game.

Speaker B · Well, I think.

Speaker A · I think council can signal its intent,

Speaker B · especially to a new council.

Speaker H · I accept that amendment if it passes.

Speaker B · Yeah. Okay. So it would be to have a capital categorization in line with the 2027 review of costs doesn't need a seconder. Does someone wish to speak to the motion? You're not moving approval of the 26 through 30 draft financial plan as I understand it. Okay, so we'll handle that motion first. Anyone wish to speak to it? Councillor Riddle, thank you.

Speaker E · And thank you for the motion. One thing that I've noticed when just watching the budget process in the media through other municipalities is they do seem to have more budget guidelines and then also more deliberation on specific items in their budget. So I'm wondering if this motion will enable that a little bit more.

Speaker C · Thanks through the mayor. When for the Capitol. That would work. This motion is specific to the Capitol budget. Many of the discretionary funds that we propose for council, they are deliberated, but it's in early approval. And the reason that we have put that methodology forward, it isolates those items so that council can look at those discretionary projects prior to the next year rather than mid year. Also, it allows staff to be able to have a full year cycle to be able to advance those projects, allowing us to have full year capacity. So a lot of the discretionary funding, which is why, you know, we're not having those debates, were debated back in October during the budget guidelines.

Speaker C · Also our budget guidelines, and this may be historical, not that historical, but for the last five years has been an approach to bring forward a budget where we have, and I don't know if we have the first slide presentation where Ms. Tryan had previously presented a showing where we sort of started at our deliberations to really try to bring down the budget and do those cuts before. And that was a question. And we include that in our budget guidelines that we're trying to present the leanest budget to you as possible. And then anything that's outside of what is our current service level, we will always present to council.

Speaker C · And this budget. Right now, there's nothing discretionary that's been added beyond what has been presented to council. It's our current service level. And most of the increases are based on contracts and contracted services. And so right now we're not increasing our service level at all. And that's why those things haven't been presented to council.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you. Maybe just a follow up then on the capital side, I mean, something that caught my eye when I was doing my review was around the active transportation infrastructure, specifically sidewalks. So for example, we only have $70,000 for sidewalks. Now I know sidewalks are embedded in other projects and so there's the Tanner Road one. And so I was trying to put those pieces together in my mind and I appreciate the effort that staff put into presenting a really lean budget. But I do wonder if, especially on the capital side for some of those projects that we know our community is asking for. Sidewalks being one example of that, if there is an opportunity to include those as discretionary items that then council could choose to lift into the budget. Thanks. And would this motion capture that tying

Speaker C · it back through the mayor short answer is yes. Yes, absolutely. And Mr. Puskas had made that presentation in November around active transportation. And so we do try to do things outside of budget so that council has that opportunity to be aware of what's. What the plan is to Give that time in order to be able to provide us with direction on if you want to increase the service level or if there's something that you want to change.

Speaker B · We did, yeah, two year, two or three years ago, we said give us an extra 0. 5% to invest in active transportation infrastructure.

Speaker C · And it's the plan, you know, and how we're doing with the plan, I think is the question. And then if we want to advance more. And so that was presented in November, I believe, Mr. Peskis. And so that was our, our strategy because we really want to provide Council with early information as much as possible so that, you know in advance and not just through the budget process. And, but we, we would like feedback on if, if there's a better way or maybe we could bring it back again. And so in, in order to remind or maybe ask more questions at that time. So any feedback that we can receive to make that to the support Council in being able to make those decisions, we'd like to hear. Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay. On the capital categorization motion, which is the one that's currently before us. Councillor Newton, did you want to say something? No. I'll call the question then. Any opposed? None. So that is a recommendation to Council. Councilor Paltiel had one other motion I believe you wanted to make. Am I wrong?

Speaker H · It's probably one of those things that I should have brought up before the budget process. And so I'm going to just ask this as a question to both staff and council and ask about the. But the. Whether we're interested in hearing this. But ahead of approving the budget with the civic facilities included in it. I'm wondering if, based on current projections, plans and kind of forecasts, if it would be helpful or advisable to receive a like a one pager, kind of like life cycle cost table that doesn't just look at debt and capital requirements, but also ongoing operating, etc. Just to fully understand what a, you know, 3, 5 and 10 year horizon looks like on the building as we're obviously trying to plan out for that future and beyond

Speaker C · staff response through the mayor. Yes, we can do that in advance of presenting the bylaw. So I think that we could do both. If council gave us that direction, we would be able to come back with something supplementary to the budget so that we could provide.

Speaker B · Take what Councilor Peltiel said, a one pager on the three, five and 10 year estimated operating costs. Yes, as the motion. Any discussion, Councillor Newton?

Speaker J · Yeah, thank you and I appreciate, appreciate the motion. I'm wondering and was kind of happy to see this coming forward because we know that there's a significant maintenance cost for the operation and continuation of this building. And so would something like this one pager have an item around what the annual cost to maintain this facility is?

Speaker B · No, not intended in the motion. As I understand it, it's future looking.

Speaker J · Well, I think that that would be part of what it is when we're looking at the future around what the operational side of it is, whether it's the H VAC systems or whatever it's. Which is what I think I am understanding from the motion. If. If I'm not right, then please correct me.

Speaker B · I will look to the mover. There may be some historical data on this.

Speaker H · I. I think if there's. I. I do believe analysis has been done on status quo in the past. So if that could be provided as a baseline, that was something that I thought might be a good point of reference.

Speaker C · Fine.

Speaker B · So based on past analysis.

Speaker G · Sure.

Speaker J · So I wouldn't need to make an amendment to include that. It would be part of this. And that's sufficient for. Okay, thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. Okay. I'll call the question on the motion. Any opposed? None. The motion carries. I do still have the two recommendations, but Councillor Newton, you did have your hand up, so go ahead.

Speaker H · Sure.

Speaker J · Thank you. My first question is procedural in nature and from a technical standpoint, is this a continuation of the previous committee of the whole meeting, as in was it recessed or it was adjourned and then this is a new meeting.

Speaker B · Correct? This is a new meeting.

Speaker J · And so if I was to bring something back from the previous committee of the whole, would that be here now or would it have to go to

Speaker C · a council through the mayor? The financial plan in its entirety is. Is part of this meeting as well. So any. Typically we have allowed any questions on. On the whole plan are welcome.

Speaker B · Sure. So you want to bring. Sorry, are you. Are you trying to move reconsideration of a motion? Is that what you're attempting or is

Speaker J · that's what I'm attempting? Yes.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker A · Yes.

Speaker B · If it was in the previous committee of the hall, the procedures bylaw would allow for this, as this is the next meeting. So. Sure.

Speaker J · Okay. So I'm going to request reconsideration of the motion around the police budget with respect to the value of the. And I don't have the exact wording from the previous motion in front of me.

Speaker B · 80,000. And it was concurrent with the ECOM.

Speaker J · Correct.

Speaker B · Anticipated increase. Correct. Okay. You wish to bring that back for Reconsideration So that's a motion to reconsider. So committee needs to determine if it wishes to reconsider. Councillor Riddle on reconsideration not

Speaker E · is it possible to have the motion that's being reconsidered fully stated.

Speaker B · Requesting moment I tried to to give the the essentially Councilor Newton moved that the savings be sought in the police budget equivalent to the E Com overage which was 81,000. 84 or something. Yeah, 84. Okay. So it would look to trim 84,000 off the police board budget bearing in mind that you can't do anything about E Com because it's an outside agency. So that would be the motion that you would want to or the substance of the motion you would want to reconsider? If you're in favor of reconsideration.

Speaker E · Okay. So for clarity it's not just a portion that's being saved in anticipation of future increases. It's that we're not paying our E Com bill.

Speaker B · No, you can't. We determined this last imposes the cost.

Speaker D · Yeah.

Speaker C · Through the mayor we had advised council that we would come back and provide advice on what that would look like. We council has the authority to decrease the budget. However operationally we can't say where they decrease the budget but you can decrease it by the amount. But we can't provide that direction. We could provide a motion like a rec. Council could provide a recommendation suggesting that's what you think they should do. However, it couldn't be directly regarding that. It's just that we could decrease Council could decrease the budget by a certain amount and that's allowable.

Speaker J · You can't tell them to withhold funds from E Com at this point in time.

Speaker B · We can't tell them to withhold. I don't think the police board is in a position any more than we are to say to E Comm we're not paying you if you try that. Good luck. I don't think it'll work. Cao Cullum

Speaker C · through the mayor Just some information for council since the last meeting I was contacted by the assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety and then also the Vice president of Communications for E Com and they are willing and would like to be helpful to our council in understanding the strategy that they're looking at.

Speaker C · And the ministry is not involved but it isn't the oversight body but is wanted to be supportive of council in understanding what strategies could could council could take especially regarding the question that was on the table around if there are any other options.

Speaker C · And so what she advised was that There is a region currently that did create their own system and are no longer a part of E Com. And so there are other options. I just wanted to make sure that you had fulsome information before.

Speaker B · Let us first answer the question of whether or not committee wishes to reconsider asking the Police Board for budgetary concessions equivalent to the E. Com increase. So do we wish to reconsider this motion?

Speaker G · Clarity.

Speaker B · By all means.

Speaker G · Did council, did committee adopt that motion?

Speaker B · They did not.

Speaker G · They did not. Okay. So I understand now what really reconsideration is about.

Speaker B · Yes.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker B · Any other questions or comments vis a vis reconsideration? Otherwise I shall put the question does committee wish to reconsider the item from the last meeting? Those opposed? Okay, the motion is carried with Councilor Riddle and myself in opposition.

Speaker B · So the motion is now before us for debate. Councillor Riddle?

Speaker D · Oh,

Speaker B · I think you.

Speaker A · So the motion was essentially is live

Speaker B · from how you moved it last time, but you spoke to it first last time. So the traditional rules don't necessarily apply on a motion that's back before us. Councillor Riddle.

Speaker E · Actually, I think it's probably helpful for me to hear from Councillor Newton first.

Speaker B · Fine, go ahead. Councillor Newton,

Speaker J · I understand that this is just a motion from committee to go to council and I am aware of what the potential implications are. And I'm happy to hear that the ministry has reached out and E. Comm has reached out already. I think that's encouraging. I am no means, you know, critical or criticizing the police budget, but it has everything to do with the services that they are required to partake in. And we have no control over how that budget continues to escalate. And I'm just going to leave it at that.

Speaker B · Councillor Riddle.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you. But I just. I think I want to practically understand the implications of this because if we can only say that we want the police budget reduced by the amount, then the implication is that then the police Board has to find that savings elsewhere because we can't not pay the E Com budget or pay the E. Com bill.

Speaker B · You can't test that. ECOM is an outside agency with which the police service has a contract. It therefore either must honor the contract or provide its own service. It has no other option.

Speaker A · Not having the ability to dial 911

Speaker B · in the province of British Columbia in any municipality is not a thing, I don't think.

Speaker E · I guess as a follow up, you know, I think my impression from the communications and the presentation that we got from ECOM at the Police Board is that they are aware that the cost escalations are significant and they are trying to address them. They've changed their leadership. There's been a review. And so I just have a question for the cfo. I know the E. Com budget item has the actual expense and then also savings for future costs that are expected to increase. So would you mind sort of laying down those two pieces and if there's any information about the likelihood of those increases? Because I think that is open for consideration.

Speaker E · If you don't want to put as much aside for anticipated cost increases that are still uncertain, that makes a bit more sense to me than not funding the whole thing in the current year. But I'll ask our cfo.

Speaker D · I'm just confirming the amount. So the ongoing status quo cost for dispatch services for the current year is 42,500. And the balance of 40,000 was the phase in for what the potential cost could be. It was much higher and then it was scaled back based on the information that we got and the anticipated cost controls that they were implementing. So there is a split between for the full 80 plus thousand that 42 is allocated for the current year contracted costs.

Speaker E · So then as a follow up, just to clarify, we need the 40,000 to pay the bill. We could choose not to save for the future anticipated costs, but then it would be a really big shock in future years, which has generally not been the practice of our council. And so Police Board did look at this and sort of split the difference because the messaging that we got from E. Comm was that the cost increase wasn't going to be as big as. As it was initially expected to be. But that's sort of the split. 40, 40. So I just want to make surface that here.

Speaker B · Councilor Thompson.

Speaker G · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It strikes me that the motion as worded is not very instructive and that we don't actually have approval. It strikes me that the motion that's being.

Speaker B · I argued that the motion last time was that we were essentially rejecting the police Port budget, sending it back for an 80,000 or an $82,000 savings.

Speaker G · Well, I thought it would be more instructive, a more instructive motion if the council was. It sounds to me as if what the motion intended to do in a part was to say reduce your budget by X dollars in order to accommodate paying the budget. And I think that would be a clearer motion than just saying that we don't approve it personally.

Speaker B · The intent is the same no matter what. I mean, my understanding of the legislation has always been that council receives the police board budget if it rejects part of it.

Speaker A · It's essentially rejecting all of it.

Speaker C · Through the mayor, council can approve the financial plan with a reduction to the police budget and then it goes to the police board. The police board then can make a decision of what it wants to do and then it goes through a process, mediation, arbitration. So there's a process that would happen after that if there was disagreement from the police board legislative process. But council always has the ability to decrease the financial plan. That's within your authority.

Speaker A · So it's splitting hairs. If we, if we reject their budget

Speaker B · and say we will approve you for

Speaker A · 40,000 or $80,000 thousand dollars less, you're still rejecting their budget, you are sending it back to them. And if they don't approve of council's change, then you wind up in a

Speaker B · dispute resolution mechanism administered by the province after May 15. And we have not typically done this for small amounts.

Speaker A · I mean, city of Victoria, when they

Speaker B · got into a dispute, it was millions of dollars. Right. So council will do what it wants.

Speaker A · But however you understand the motion, we

Speaker B · are sending a different budget back to the police board because we've rejected theirs. So I will.

Speaker C · So, yeah, I think that through the mayor, just from a process perspective that the. If. If the motion would need to be around the amount rather than the E. Com dispatch budget.

Speaker A · Okay, so I will look to the

Speaker B · original mover to clarify the motion. Is it 40 or is it 82? 40 is this year's bill. As I understand it, 82 would be this year plus anticipated future year increases. So there would be no approval for a potential future increase which E Comm May have already indicated or maybe assumed.

Speaker J · The budget that was presented was the 82. And so that's what my clarity is.

Speaker B · Okay, so you want 82 of that

Speaker J · would be $82,000 then, if that's what we're talking about from that perspective.

Speaker B · Okay, so the council not approved the $82,000 increase associated with e comic dispatch budget services. You can remove as presented and put in that at the end. And therefore the police board must find the equivalent savings as council approves.

Speaker J · Again, this is committee. So this isn't council. This isn't the final ratification. This goes. If it, if it passes, then it

Speaker A · would go to my amusement as chair will not be high.

Speaker B · If this comes before council in a third form, that is spending this much time to get to the underlying reality, which is we're essentially asking the police board to shave 82,000 off of their budget.

Speaker A · If that is clear enough.

Speaker B · Otherwise, speak up now. No. Okay, we'll assume that the text before us is clear enough for consideration by committee and therefore, if it passes, would be clear enough for counsel. Councillor Paltiel,

Speaker H · maybe not like conditional to budget, but because this is a reoccurring matter that gets raised around this time. Is it, Is there any merit to having counsel invite Econ to make a presentation of sorts to provide some context around their model?

Speaker A · Again, we're not the approving authority, nor

Speaker B · are we the service contract agency. That's the police Board.

Speaker H · Could committee ask counsel to ask through the police Board for such a procedure presentation and then we could see where it ends up.

Speaker B · Committee can do whatever it wants. You should be aware that the chair will not support any of this. But you can make the motion if you so desire.

Speaker A · We have a motion before us.

Speaker B · You can either amend it or make it after. Yeah, I'll.

Speaker H · I'll wait till after. I've got two ideas.

Speaker B · Okay. I will put the question on the

Speaker A · recommendation to council from committee.

Speaker B · Any opposed? The motion carries. With Councilor Riddle and myself in opposition.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker B · Councillor Paltiel.

Speaker H · Yeah, I will. Counsel ask. Make a motion of council, ask the police Board to coordinate or what have you, a presentation by Econ to either counsel and or counsel on the police board.

Speaker B · Okay, debate. Any opposed? I'm opposed. The motion carries.

Speaker H · I guess one other item, and I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I certainly probably will, is. Like, is there any like. I know, like it was just talked about like, you know, budget approvals and timing and general alignment between counsel and you know, whether, you know, setting bylaws and the service standards with respect to police. Is there a benefit to asking the board about the interest of having a facilitated session? Not. Maybe this is a notice of motion item that doesn't need to be done at budget time, but this is just kind of spurred the question as far as doing like an alignment kind of based check in to kind of better understand what expectations are.

Speaker B · You wish to submit a notice of motion?

Speaker H · I can do that at a different time as I don't think it's perfect. Pertinent to budget approval this evening,

Speaker B · there's no motion and it's an idea that will come forward in the future. Councillor Newton, thank you.

Speaker J · I hadn't finished with my questions, but the word lean was used around the overall budget and how it has been presented. But I guess through you, chair to staff, I think we're looking at a 7. 3% overall budget increase. And so I'd be curious to see if we were looking at how we would further reduce what that impact is going forward. What would a six and a half or something less than a 6. 5% lift look like? I think is our job. It's this committee's job to look at where we're able to go and, and justify what all of these expenses are and where are we at going forward.

Speaker J · And so where would. You know, I can make suggestions on we should not spend this or not spend that, but I think having something come back to, to committee or to council on what a, a reduction in that would look like, I'd like to see what staff would have in mind to look at what further reduction would be.

Speaker J · I know we came in originally at around. I forget what it was. I think an 8% or an 8. 1%. And I can appreciate the work that's been done by previous councils around the diligence with respect to the long term asset management plan. And again, all you have to do is look around the region and see what's going on. But I think it's, it's important. I hear every day on the street from people about the costs going up and so how do we justify it and what would a reduction look like through the mayor.

Speaker C · Thank you for the question. And it's an important question, of course, when we're at a budget we've had, I mean, our budgets have been consistent and we have a different basket of goods that we're looking at a bit little local government than what would be cost of living for household, because a lot of our costs are driven by construction, fuel and then of course contracts.

Speaker C · And so a lot of the costs we would say are non manageable. And right now what we presented to you is not an increase in our service level. And so if we were looking at reducing the budget, and so if you please take a look at what the municipal operations went up by. So it's 3. 68%. That represents what our municipal operations actually increased by, which is actually quite low considering what, you know, the cost of living currently is. And so most of our contracts are between 3. 25 and 4% employment contracts because of the, you know, adjustments that were happening a few years ago for the cost of living. And so with the 3.

Speaker C · 68, which is our, the municipal operations, because of course our budget involves municipal police operations, library, and then of course our asset levies the. And so if you. And the narrative I'm trying to make is really that our actual operational budget is not increasing by 7. 37%, that's made up by a lot. And so When I say lean, a 3. 6. 8% operational increase is not a high increase and it's the package together that makes it. And so when we look across the board at what the spending is and what we're shouldering and that we're sharing that increase with other organizations, that we have less control over their spending.

Speaker C · So I would say that it would be a service decrease. We would have to look at our services and look at how we would decrease our current service levels that we are providing right now when we go through the budget. And if you could put the slide up what I was saying. And again, when we look at the. Because of what we have control over, when we talk about that 9% and then going down by 1. 63%, that's all within the municipal operational budget because again, we don't have control over the library, nor do we have control over the police budget. And so we started at a higher budget of about, I would say my math, 5. 2, 5. 2% operationally, and we brought it down to 3. 67. And that's what we're trying to do internally.

Speaker C · And it's not, you know, just adding to each budget line the same amount. We scrutinize our budgets first through our directors and then through our finance staff and myself. And so again, the operational budget, it's a 3. 68% increase and that is mostly non manageable costs from contracts.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson?

Speaker G · Well, I understand what Councilor Newton is thinking about and I think it would certainly be within our jurisdiction to ask staff to come back with a reduced amount. You suggested looking at 6. 5%, what that might look like.

Speaker G · For example, what I think about is, and I realize, and I understand the comments from the cao, the difficulty is, of course on the cost of living still impacts a lot of people in this municipality, particularly those on fixed incomes.

Speaker G · We know the property tax is not based on income. It's based on the whims to a large extent of BC assessment, which I will save my comments for at another time. But I think that if that is an intent or an interest of Councillor Newton, that I think a motion, a simple motion simply to come back with, what would it look like if we were to reduce the budget increase from 7.

Speaker G · 37 to some amount, perhaps 6. 5. Whatever you suggested

Speaker B · from my mouth, you took the words, is there a motion?

Speaker J · Yeah, I was going to make that motion was to say, and again, I respect the work that was done to get to this lean budget, but I think to see what A budget of a 6. 5% increase would look like I would. That would be my motion.

Speaker B · So you're moving an alternative increase of no more than 6. 5%. Debate on said motion, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker G · Yeah, I don't think the motion means that it's all or nothing, really. What it is is that if council wanted to limit the increase to about 6. 5%, what would have to go or what services would have to be reduced, for example? To me, it's an exploration rather than a demand. And then council can look at what information it gets and make a decision based on that. I'm not quite. I mean, I'm interpreting what. What you want to do.

Speaker J · Yeah, that was exactly it. We've got this and understand what this represents. But I think, frankly, it's our responsibility to recognize what's going on and realize, again, so, yes, this isn't a this or that, but this is for information. And I also understand when people get their taxes and the tax notices, that there's, you know, many other layers that are part of that that are beyond our control. Absolutely. You know, crd, school, all of it. But I think we should have a look and see what it is that we can try to do for that.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Riddle.

Speaker E · Thank you. So I guess this is a question for staff with that direction, would you be including also the risks and impacts of the items that I guess are identified for potential reduction through this motion,

Speaker B · or could they be included to identify those? So I don't think it's fair to put staff on the spot.

Speaker E · Yeah, well, maybe I won't phrase it as a question. As part of this exercise, if staff are. Are going to be identifying items that could be taken out of the budget to reach that 6. 5% target, could we also include the risks and impacts of reducing those items in this report

Speaker C · through the mayor? Yes, we would include implications.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker B · I don't see any other hands as it's committee of the whole. And the rules are much more relaxed. I'm going to say I don't support this motion. If we look at the city of Victoria, they have an artist in residence. If we look at the municipality of Saanich, they have ridiculous services. Many of these municipalities do ridiculous things and I'm sure some of our public think that we do ridiculous things. But I'm confident that at our table we have stuck to a core plan which 3. 68% for municipal operations is probably still lower than many municipalities in the region. And where those municipalities have cut and made headlines is not from municipal operations. It is from the discretionary items.

Speaker B · But we just spent half an hour arguing over E Com costs.

Speaker A · I can remember when 91 1, pardon my language, was a shit show in this region. People were waiting on hold for 45 minutes because E comm couldn't deliver services because they were as naive as we would have been if we had established our own service. I'm actually getting quite angry right now because it's like council has no memory of these things. 2021, 2022, 2023, 45 minute hold times on 911 because E Com failed to figure out how to run a service. And the audacity of any municipality that thinks it could do it better is shocking. We left our own 911 service decades ago because it was going to cost us 400,000 20 years ago.

Speaker A · Why on earth would we install a million dollar solution to deal with a $40,000 overage that the police board has deliberated on. I'm actually, I'm sorry council, but I'm getting mad. This is ridiculous. We are being responsible. We have seen a reduction from 9% and we're chasing to be the bottom because the city of Victoria gets down to 5. 6% because they've had stupid things that they've spent on in the past and they can cut them. We haven't. Again, I apologize profusely for my anger, but this is utterly ridiculous. We hear the library come and people pawn and fawn over the library because it's an essential service that the community loves. Every year it has a cost increase.

Speaker A · Every year we absorb the cost increase on behalf of our taxpayers because we believe that our taxpayers value this service. We invest half a percent in active transportation 1. 75% because we committed to a financial plan a decade ago. And every year this council has said those things are non negotiable. We need to do that because municipalities that haven't are seeing shocks. Sydney, years ago, oh, we'll have a 0% tax increase. Congratulations, Sydney. The next administration dealt with much higher tax increases because all they did was push the costs into the future. These costs are not going to go away. These things that we need to fix that we need to provide to our community. We hear all the time about road safety, invest in active transportation. That stuff is not free. It must be paid for.

Speaker A · And I respect what Councillor Thompson is saying in terms of people on fixed income because I know that there are people who live in their homes who can't defer their property tax because of the implication that will have when they pass their home, in their estate to their children because it incurs transfer tax.

Speaker A · But do we not invest in infrastructure that all of those people will benefit from because there is an implication? No, we respect and acknowledge that there is an implication. But we commit to a sound financial plan. And nobody here has been able to point to me that some element of our plan is not sound because we've invested in frivolities. Again, there are some in the public who think that we invest in frivolities. I disagree vehemently. When I came to this council table a decade and a half ago, our modus operandi was when shit breaks, we'll raise taxes and fix it. I remember a graph that was produced in one election.

Speaker A · Insane tax increases from stuff that wasn't anticipated because we didn't budget for it. Now we have an exercise where we

Speaker B · budget for these things.

Speaker A · Five, seven, eight years ago, we were investing money into capital projects that weren't being completed because we didn't have the staff to do them. We invested in the staff and instead of 20% of projects being completed in a year, we started to see that actually go up. And the reality is that if you don't invest in that project in that year, the money that you allocated for it is meaningless because two or three years down the road the costs have increased because you wouldn't hire a half RFP in order to do those project completions.

Speaker A · What is the point of having staff report that these things are not getting done and therefore they're coming in at a higher cost because they're happening years on? If someone said to me, look, there is a service that we want to cut, and frankly, I have one I can cut for you right now. And that's climate. I know that's unpopular because of where we live, but I will defend all day long. But it's a small item, it's almost insignificant. And if you think there is value in debating thousand dollar items, then I

Speaker B · don't know why we're here.

Speaker A · Because I watched 15 years ago council spend 45 minutes debating an item that was exactly $1000 in the budget because

Speaker B · we used to have these ridiculous spreadsheets.

Speaker A · And yet when the Brentwood sewer project

Speaker B · came before us, it was a large item.

Speaker A · And I remember having a conversation with a former councilor. There was no debate. It was a five and a half million dollar item. There was no debate. It's my last opportunity in this budget to say, I honestly, honestly, I wonder if sometimes we really appreciate what we're doing because we try to sound clever by shaving half a percent off. Remind me, staff, what is half a %,%? It's about $90,000.

Speaker C · $120,000.

Speaker A · Sorry. $120,000. So you shave $120,000 off, the per

Speaker B · household cost is what,

Speaker A · $2, $5.

Speaker C · $2.

Speaker A · Yeah. I'm sorry, Council. I know I'm frustrating the heck out of all of you right now, but I just do not understand what the

Speaker B · point of this exercise actually is. I'm a taxpayer in the district of Central Saanich.

Speaker A · I plan to be a taxpayer in Central Saanich for decades, long after I'm

Speaker B · gone from this table, which, frankly can't come soon enough. That I'll call the question.

Speaker A · Those opposed to the motion?

Speaker B · Councillor Riddle, Councillor Peltiel and myself. The motion fails.

Speaker A · We do have a recommendation to approve the 26 through 2030 draft financial plan as amended, and direct the Chief Financial Officer to draft the 26th through 2020, 2030 financial plan bylaw.

Speaker B · I'm going to move it. Any debate? It's the recommendation. I'm moving it. Yeah, so if there's no debate, I'll call the question. Any opposed? Councillor Thompson? Opposed. Motion carries.

Speaker A · I would welcome a motion to adjourn, please.

Speaker B · First committee of the whole and then council.

Speaker E · So moved.

Speaker B · Moved. Any opposed?

Speaker A · None.

Speaker C · Through the mayor. Sorry. Is council going to address the committee of the whole motion now, or are we bringing it forward to the next council meeting?

Speaker B · You want to just ratify it? Okay.

Speaker G · The.

Speaker C · And the. There were. There were two.

Speaker B · We'll just ratify all. Okay. Yeah.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker C · 3. Sorry. 3.

Speaker B · Motion to ratify all three motions from committee of the whole. Sorry. Is that moved?

Speaker G · Yep.

Speaker B · Second. Any opposed? None. Motion carried. A motion to adjourn. Counsel so moved. Second. Any opposed? None. Motion carried.