Council Matters: Rossland City Council Meetings, May 5, 2025
By Sara Golling
First, the consultation on how and why taxes are going up – many questions and answers. Then, a presentation on how and why the RDKB requisition is going up (hint: a new sewage treatment plant …) And, how the City supports community groups and whether that should change; why we have water meters; more agita about a potential RRMM; and much more!
PRESENT:
Council: Mayor Andy Morel and Councillors Stewart Spooner, Craig Humpherys, Eliza Boyce, Jeff Weaver (remote), Maya Provençal and Lisa Kwiatkowski.
Staff: Chief Administrative Office Bryan Teasdale, Deputy Corporate Officer Cynthia Añonuevo, Chief Financial Officer Mike Kennedy, City Planner Stacey Lightbourne, Manager of Operations and Infrastructure Scott Lamont, Deputy Manager of Operations and Infrastructure Josh Solman, and Executive Assistant Rachel Newton.
- Public Consultation on draft Five-Year Financial Plan – 4:00 PM
The public gallery filled with about 75 people – the City needs more chairs for well-attended meetings.
Mayor Andy Morel introduced the topic, then handed over to Chief Financial Officer Mike Kennedy to make a presentation before opening up for questions from the gallery. Kennedy expressed appreciation for the many thoughtful messages received from citizens so far, including comments on the need for better communication. He noted that the City has recently had its annual audit, and that it resulted in an unqualified “clean” audit opinion.
Why we have a Five-Year Financial Plan:
Kennedy went on to explain that provincial legislation – the Community Charter – requires every municipality to have a Five-Year Financial Plan, and what the Five-Year Plan is about. The Plan sets out the City’s best estimates of what will be needed during the next five years, and their best estimate of what those needs will cost.
Some high-value items need to be in the Plan to make them eligible for grant applications, and if no grants become available for those particular things, the City will not go ahead with them until grant funding is possible.
Only the current year’s budget is “locked in”, he stressed. Each year, that year’s budget is refined according to current needs and constraints, and finalized by Council; and even then adjustments may be required during the year.
Kennedy outlined the several opportunities for citizens to learn about the City’s work on its next Five-Year Plan and annual budget, starting very early in the process. (Hint: sign up for, and read through, the Council Agenda packages for each City Council meeting. They come out four days before the meeting is held.)
Justin Brogan of the City’s finance department outlined the budgeting process to determine the “mill rate” for each year – that is, how much tax will be charged to homeowners per dollar of the assessed value of their homes. They explained that the City’s portion of our property tax bill is only 54% of the total bill – the City also collects the provincial school tax, and provincial police services tax, and the health tax for the regional hospital district, and the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary requisition.
Why so much allowance for increased Cost of Living?
Kennedy addressed some of the “Frequently Asked Questions”. Someone had challenged part of the proposed tax increase that was based on increased cost of living; Kennedy explained that the Consumer Price Index is based on a hypothetical ‘basket of goods” and does not included items that the City must purchase which have increased in cost much more than those in the “basket.” The cost of construction and construction materials, for example, has increased much more than the items in the hypothetical “basket of goods.” Also, there is a lot of uncertainty about costs arising from tariffs, or the threat of tariffs, destabilizing markets.
What about grants?
Brogan responded that the City is “always applying for grants” and is quite successful at it, but cautions that the City is nearly always required to pay for some portion of each project.
Why not take on more debt?
The City is restricted in the amount of debt it can take on, and Kennedy pointed out that paying interest on the debt (in addition to paying down the principal – the debt itself) must also be covered by taxes; debt is not “tax free.” He did acknowledge that the City is planning to take on more debt than it is already paying down, for some urgent infrastructure projects if grants do not become available for them.
What about DCCs?
Kennedy explained that DCCs must be charged only for new infrastructure, or for projects that will place so much increased demand on existing infrastructure that it will require it to be replaced soon. Lightbourne added that the City must ensure that DCCs are charged only to those who will benefit from the new or improved infrastructure. Teasdale commented that DCCs are a “complex issue” because of the legal restrictions on how they can be applied. Kennedy noted that the City has applied for and obtained a grant of $100,000 to explore funding options including DCCs and ACCs (Amenity Cost Charges). Spooner noted that DCCs cannot address the infrastructure deficit; they may be helpful, but for only a very small part of the expense the City faces.
The next OCP review:
Morel noted that the City, including citizens, will be reviewing Rossland’s Official Community Plan in 2027. “Mark your 2027 calendar!” he urged.
Boyce commented on the limitations on the powers granted by the Province to municipalities. “It’s frustrating, how little municipal councils can do,” she said.
Some of the questions from members of the public gallery – and answers:
Q: Does RED pay taxes to Rossland?
A: Yes.
Q: The Plan as presented would end up with depleted reserves and increased debt after five years.
A: Including items in the long-term plan increases chances of obtaining grants for those projects; actual spending is approved only for the current year. (Spooner commented that “the figures are scary,” and that the proposed tax increases are inadequate to deal with what’s coming. Council wrestles with this.”
Q: Andy Stradling asked for an explanation of necessary and discretionary spending, and mentioned the Greenlink project.
A: Our CAO responded that the City will have many conversations about necessary versus discretionary spending; for example, the pool, the arena, the TRP, and more.
Q: Why spend $500,000 on water meters?
A: Without water meters, we would lose eligibility for many government grants, and our water use would immediately go up by about 30%.
Q: Is the new City Hall building paid for?
A: Yes.
Q: Why is the City “realigning” a sewer pipe?
A: The sewer line is old and must be replaced; also it is too close to a wetland, meaning there is risk of sewage escaping into the wetland, and of water from the wetland leaking into the sewer line, which increases the City’s expenses as we pay for the volume of sewage we send down the hill. Lamont explained a few things, such as the meaning of “fire flows” – the water pressure needed to fight a household fire – and the fact that the City does not replace or realign water or sewer lines unless they clearly need to be replaced.
[Editor’s note: my apologies for not capturing all questions and comments.]
Morel closed the Public Consultation at approximately 5:48 PM.
- Regular Council Meeting – 6:04 PM
PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD:
A resident on First Avenue thanked Council for their diligence.
Melanie Mercier, speaking for SRRAC (Save Record ridge Action Committee) thanked Council for their leadership, and requested that they send a follow-up letter on the Record Ridge Mineral Mine proposal, supporting the request for an Environmental Assessment, and listed several reasons; she urged the City to be clear and forceful in their letter.
DELEGATION:
Mark Andison , CAO of the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, and Farhad Hossain, the RDKB’s CFO, presented to Council on the RDKB budget. First they explained the size and complexity of the RDKB: spanning an area of 8,200 square kilometers, it contains 33,152 residents (at last count), 18,969 homes, and stretches from Big White nearly to Salmo. The RDKB delivers 74 services, and Rossland participates in 13 of them.
The bottom line for Rossland, financially, is that the amount of money (the “requisition”) Rossland must pay to the RDKB for its services is 25% higher for 2025 than it was for 2024. The primary cause of that is the change, required by provincial law, from primary treatment of sewage to secondary treatment before it is discharged into the Columbia River. The total cost of the new treatment facility is 76 million dollars; the RDKB obtained a grant for 46 million dollars to help with that cost.
Andison and Hossain also talked about the relatively new organics diversion program, and reported that Liberty Foods in Fruitvale and No Frills at Waneta Plaza are now contributing their food waste to be composted.
Morel pointed out that Rossland is the only community that put reserves aside in advance to prepare for the increased amount of the RDKB requisition on account of the new sewage treatment facility, to soften the blow for taxpayers. Trail’s requisition rose by 33%; Warfield’s rose by 31%.
Capacity: the treatment plant is designed to serve a population of 20,000; it is now serving 13,000.
BYLAWS:
- DRAFT 2025 – 2029 Five-Year financial Plan Bylaw # 2847:
Discussion:
Weaver commented that there is a heightened sense of anxiety and distrust in institutions, and noted the unconstructive contribution of social media to that shift. He said that Rossland’s maintaining tax rates during Covid was wise, and he suggested that Rossland not try to whittle down the proposed increase in taxes for this year, as these times are too uncertain. For next year’s budget planning, he hoped the City could introduce the necessary information and discussion early on. He supports the motion as is.
Provençal expressed appreciation for people’s input and engagement, and said it made her look into things more deeply. The stated that things are never going to be cheaper than they are now, and she cannot stomach the idea of passing on more debt to future generations. She wondered whether residents may become willing to consider lower service levels. She supports the budget as presented.
Spooner said he thinks Council is being methodical and responsible. “We’re aware of our dire situation and we want to deal with it.”
Kwiatkowski noted that Council continues to be challenged regarding communications. “We can do differently.” She is happy to support the budget.
Humpherys stated that he is proud to be part of this council –“It has integrity.” He will be supporting the motion.
Boyce is also supportive. She expressed a concern about services being labeled “discretionary” that add so much that makes our community attractive.
Morel weighed in last, saying, “I’ll make it unanimous.” He expressed appreciation for the residents who attended the consultation and are willing to understand. He noted that real estate values do tend to “equalize” tax contributions. He also commented that he FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) is lobbying the federal government to get more federal funding for infrastructure, as the infrastructure deficit is a problem nation-wide.
A motion to give the Bylaw third reading CARRIED unanimously.
- DRAFT 2025 Municipal Tax Rate Bylaw # 2850:
A motion to give the bylaw first reading CARRIED, as did a second motion to give the bylaw second and third readings.
- Ophir Reservoir Local Area Service Parcel Tax Bylaw # 2851:
A motion to give the bylaw first reading CARRIED, as did a second motion to give it second and third readings.
STAFF REPORTS & UPDATES:
Development Variance Permit and Development Permit, 401 and 409 Copper Road:
The applicant seeks permission to build a 13-unit townhouse on the two lots, with a 2-metre reduction in both the front and rear setbacks.
Motions to allow the variance and the development permit, subject to a list of four conditions, both CARRIED unanimously.
Preliminary Discussion on Community Supports:
Spooner opened the discussion by stating that the City needs to find a way to evaluate the value to the community of each applicant for funding. The donees need more certainty; we need to get to a point where we can decide on longer-term commitment.
Boyce countered that she thinks it’s impossible to quantify the relative benefits that each organization provides to the community.
Humpherys agree with Spooner that groups need steady, predictable funding.
Provençal agreed that the Library, the Museum, Seniors, and the Youth space should all get regular funding, but she’d like to maintain an avenue for unusual projects. She said the Library should be a priority, and that long term funding agreements should be tied to inflation. She added that she didn’t think the City should be charging groups property tax on City property that they occupy.
Weaver suggested that this topic should be discussed in a Committee-of-the-Whole (CoW) meeting.
Kwiatkowski suggests that the City needs to engage the public on what the community needs; she really dislikes the grant review process.
Provençal does not want to do away with the permissive tax exemption process.
Kwiatkowski suggested using permissive tax exemptions for economic development.
Boyce opposed using permissive tax exemptions for businesses, and said that many volunteer organizations would “go under” without permissive tax exemptions.
Morel said that the City needs to consider the arena, the pool, and other City-owned facilities.
Weaver said he doesn’t want the City to be like DOGE – he doesn’t want to make changes now, rushed and without enough information.
Boyce emphasized the huge value to the community from the City’s investment in community organizations.
Humpherys favours longer-term funding agreements, but with more accountability, and a date set for reassessment.
Spooner said he doesn’t think that everything in valuable in the same way, and he is concerned about “duplication of services” – he mentioned that fact that more than one organization puts on programs for children.
A motion to move this topic to a future CoW CARRIED unanimously.
REQUESTS ARISING FROM CORRESPONDENCE:
Rossland Arena operating season:
The City received two requests to extend the arena’s ice season, and Council considered the facts that extending the ice season as requested would cost the City and taxpayers more money for utilities and staff time, would necessitate canceling the Rossland Fall Fair, would risk damaging the brine lines, and would conflict with upgrades needed for hosting the 25/26 winter Games.
Spooner moved to not approve extending the ice season at the Rossland Arena, and his motion CARRIED unanimously.
Team GIVE’R Freeride Club request: letter of support
Weaver recused himself, and the motion to provide a letter in support of an application for funding CARRIED unanimously.
Record Ridge Mineral Mine (RRMM) proposal:
The Environmental Assessment Office sent the City a letter asking whether the City has any further input on a request that had been filed with the Ministry, seeking an order that the RRMM project be required to undergo an Environmental Assessment. After brief discussin, A motin to send an additional letter supporting the request for an Environmental Assessment and asking for a meeting if possible, CARRIED unanimously.
MEMBERS’ REPORTS:
Boyce had attended the AKBLG and commented on the value of attending and learning.
Provençal met with the chair of the Rossland Library board, and with Border Services Canada; the Paterson Border is getting a new building, but no RFP has gone out yet. She also attended the AKBLG and commented on a session about the effects of climate change on infrastructure; the conclusion was, act now.
Kwiatkowski attended the AKBLG and commented on the importance of storytelling, and on building tolerance for ambiguity; we cannot have all the information before making any decisions.
Morel said that the Local Government Act is under revision, and all Regional Districts are encouraged to participate.
The meeting recessed to an in camera session, and your reporter strolled home in the chilly evening, contemplating a suggestion someone had made that the City should try to cut costs by using more AI instead of staff; but hold on — AI is extremely energy-intensive – that is, using AI sucks up a lot of energy and increases energy demands, so in my opinion, the use of AI isn’t “green” at all and should be avoided whenever possible (says the lone voice in the wilderness).
