That Council abandon “Public Works Yard Updates Borrowing Bylaw 2024 No. 7386” and direct staff to report back on options for alternative ways to complete the public works project.
for what it's worth, obviously disappointing. And I agree with everything our CEOs had to say with respect to the importance of this project. There's a necessity for this project, and it's in the public interest to have it. Proceed. But at the same time, I think Staff's recommendation is the sensible approach in the circumstances. If I'm not seeing
staff's report. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thorpe. Thank you, your worship. I was disappointed in the result of this, although not totally surprised, and I agree with the comments. Of those who have already spoken. In the sense that I believe this project is absolutely necessary and needs to move ahead, and so for that reason, my initial reaction to this report was to favor the option of immediately going to a referendum. We have heard. From the percentage of people that didn't like the process, which I understand, but I would like to hear from what I am convinced would be a majority of people who are in favor. Of the project. However. I understand also from the report, and I want to confirm this with staff, that we are constrained. By provincial legislation that we would need to undertake that referendum. Within 80 days. Is that correct,
accounts of brown, please. Yeah. Thanks for worship. Hopefully. Just a quick question. One of the potential options would simply just to reintroduce bylaws and go. To referendum anyways. Right? So there would be really no disadvantage if that was
will of counsel. For that. If I understand the question, does this decision limit Councillor in the future from electing to go? To a referendum on this project? Is that the question? So the legislation requires that if this bylaw is defeated, we cannot bring the exact same bylaw back within. Six months. So there's a break there. So Councillor could, in the future, look at a. Borrowing bylaw, for example, six months down the road. And decide to go to referendum. It's only a decision on whether to proceed on a referendum for this very bylaw right now, but on a separate bylaw six months from now. You could
Through you to Miss Mercer. There's been some criticism that we've known about this. Project for some years. And why aren't we saving for it? So if we were to. Start saving for it. Even if we were to increase taxes every year by 5% a year. Which I would say that be reasonable. Seven. Million dollars. A 5% tax increase, is that correct? So it would take a still at least 15 to 20 years to save, and people would be upset that we've raised the 5% tax increase and we don't know how. Much it would cost. So if we were to do something like that, would it be more expensive, us doing, like, the saving versus the long term borrowing. Could you speak to that? Through your
worship to Councillor Armstrong. Long term costs. Obviously, the faster you can get it done. The less expensive the project is. However, having several years of a 5% tax increase is also just for one item. That's quite a burden to the taxpayers, so borrowing generally is the least expensive option. In an individual year overall, it might be slightly like we'd be more expensive with interest. But it is
The more affordable choice for most people. So less impact to the average tax paying citizen, because that would be another option. Because I do agree that this building has to be built. I know there's some people in the community that feel it's a Taj mahal, and I've referred them to Sanich, which they're looking at building community work similar to ours, and they're at 220,000,000, so I think we've done a very good job of dropping it down. I know a lot of people don't agree. I've talked to different developers and construction people who say that our numbers are online. They're not excessive compared to what it used to be. Five years ago, we could have done it a lot cheaper. But again, as we talked about concrete, steel. Everything's gone up. So I look forward to