Committee · Q3 2025
Finance COW #01
Sep 25, 2025
Recorded present
Harry Flaherty · Amber Aglukark · Methusalah Kunuk · Kyle Sheppard · Romeyn Stevenson · Samuel Tilley
Recorded absent
Solomon Awa · Kimberly Smith · Simon Nattaq
DECISIONS AND ISSUES
- Committee recommended the roughly $83-million 2026 draft capital budget.
- The written discussion separated federal, territorial and City funding shares and distinguished water from wastewater work.
- Waste-facility operations, fire-hall options, traffic calming and several promised follow-ups remained open.
DOCUMENTED QUESTIONS · WRITTEN MINUTES
Did the capital plan include both new and ongoing projects?
- Answer recorded
- Finance said the draft showed both 2025 and 2026 projects and staff continued moving non-capital items to the operating budget.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
What qualifies as a capital project?
- Answer recorded
- Finance cited long-term tangible assets, construction, design and some plans and studies.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Was the Federal Road water-service extension completed?
- Answer recorded
- Engineering said it would be completed that year.
- Result or follow-up
- Completion was forecast for 2025, not confirmed as closed out.
Were four new garbage trucks purchased?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said council reduced the purchase to two; both had arrived on the second sealift and were operating.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Did the colour chart identify multi-year projects?
- Answer recorded
- Finance said it did not and promised to add a way to identify them.
- Result or follow-up
- A multi-year marker was promised.
Which areas would receive wastewater expansion so development would not require accessory storage tanks?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said requirements were site-specific and that the broader work could take until 2027–28, with some areas earlier.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Had staff considered replacing outdated dispatch equipment?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said it was unaware of a problem but Silent Knight upgrades were planned that year.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Was underground work considered before paving Apex and Plateau?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said safety was the priority, no underground work was anticipated and drainage improvements would accompany paving.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Why was lagoon aeration construction scheduled for 2027, and could it begin sooner?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said design and engineering were budgeted for 2026, construction for 2027 and dredging would be funded in operations.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
What makes a pipeline critical?
- Answer recorded
- Administration cited individual renewals and patches, historical failures, studies, modelling of older areas and Public Works priorities.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Were the waste-transfer-station and landfill projects complete and becoming operational assets in 2025?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said both projects were finalized in 2025, but operations would be addressed in the 2026 operating budget and the bale system would be phased in.
- Result or follow-up
- Operational timing and costs remained pending.
Was a new fire hall no longer a priority?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said no construction funding was secured, current-hall improvements would proceed and a $500,000 infrastructure review would revisit the options.
- Result or follow-up
- The infrastructure review and workshop remained pending.
Were two Astro Hill budget lines the same project?
- Answer recorded
- Finance said they were parts of one project: federally funded water infrastructure and City-funded wastewater work.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
How were the Astro Hill project amounts determined?
- Answer recorded
- Engineering cited consultant information for ongoing work and staff experience on comparable projects.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Did the draft include any solid-waste projects?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said no capital project was included and described separate research into micro-gasification and incineration.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Where would the roughly $83-million capital budget funding come from?
- Answer recorded
- Finance identified approximately 56% federal, 7.25% territorial and 36.52% City funding, with reserves and operating revenues supporting cash flow.
- Result or follow-up
- Answered in the written minutes.
Would Plateau paving include safety measures?
- Answer recorded
- Administration said paving was capital-funded and traffic-calming work was in the operating plan for 2027 after paving.
- Result or follow-up
- Traffic calming was deferred until after 2026 paving.
Would the metal railing be changed to prevent future incidents?
- Answer recorded
- The recorded answer discussed paving, later traffic calming and RCMP enforcement but did not specify a railing change.
- Result or follow-up
- No railing change was confirmed.
Each entry is a concise paraphrase of the written minutes, not an exact quotation. Distinct requests for information count separately; comments and routine procedural prompts do not.
PRIMARY RECORD
Read the City’s documents
This page is an index, not a substitute for the underlying record.
RECORD RULE
Unknown is not zero
A blank motion or question count means that layer has not been audited for this meeting. It does not mean no motions were moved or no questions were asked. Attendance names reproduce the City’s quarterly grids unless another basis is stated.