The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2015-01-28_Agenda_Audit and Budget (Part A)MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER AUDIT AND BUDGET COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2015 AT 9:00 A.M. AGENDA 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. 2. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING: 2.1 April 14, 2014 3. MATTERS ARISING: 3.1 Capital Budget. 4. NEW BUSINESS. 5. ADJOURNMENT. In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if required MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of Meeting of AUDIT AND BUDGET COMMITTEE Held in Council Chambers at 151 King Street, Chester, NS On Monday, April 28, 2014 The meeting was called to order by Warden Webber at 9:34 a.m. ROLL CALL Councillors Warden Allen Webber Councillor Robert Myra Deputy Warden Shatford Councillor Tina Connors Councillor Sharon Church-Cornelius Councillor Andre Veinotte Councillor Brad Armstrong Staff Erin Beaudin, CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Steve Graham, Director of Finance Cindy Hannaford, Administrative Secretary Jennifer Veinotte, Communications Officer Bruce Forest, Director of Solid Waste Matt Davidson, Director of Public Works Chad Haughn, Director of Recreation & Parks Tara Maguire, Director of Community Development Marianne Gates, Senior Economic Development Officer Adam Kaizer, NSCC Student There were no members of the press or public present in the public gallery. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 2.1 April 14, 2014 There have been some technical difficulties with the email system and not all members of Council received the minutes for review. Approval of the minutes was deferred. MATTERS ARISING 3.1 Operating/Capital Budget. 3.2 Policy - Operating Reserve Fund and Operating Fund Accumulated Surplus. The Director of Finance indicated that he had provided updated copies of information and reviewed the changes on the “Capital Budget Review – 2014/15” sheet dated April 28, 2014 as follows: • Change of funding through gas tax rather than operations for some projects • Community Development (Economic Development – Industrial Park Feasibility and Location) - $50,000 - $25,000 of that will be from operations and the remainder from a grant (if received). • Public Works – previously there was no figure for the Sidewalk Redesign at Duke Street (now $4,000) • The Village T Water Tender Preparation ($40,000) is from Gas Tax Reserves (Category 1). New Ross Sewer Councillor Connors indicated that she had previously mentioned, and it was in the minutes, she was concerned about sewer capacity in New Ross and the Director of Public Works would investigate. Where would that be in the Capital Budget? The Director of Finance indicated it was not in the budget for this fiscal year as there had been no information available. Audit and Budget Committee (Continued) 134 Monday, April 28, 2014 Councillor Connors indicated that she had asked that it be included as something that is important to her district and be part of the deliberation – she still would like it in this year’s budget. Warden Webber commented that he understood Councillor Connors wanted a capacity study outlining what could/couldn't be done – similar to what he was requesting for Chester Basin. Councillor Connors suggested without a capacity study there would be no way to know where there might be available property for construction/expansion. The Director of Public Works indicated this was not included this years as there needs to be some leg work completed this year - to determine if people are in favour (similar to what will be happening in Chester Basin) – get the question to the residents for some input. Councillor Connors indicated that the legwork needs to be done and also noted that a letter will be coming from the New Ross Regional Development Society with this request as well. The Director of Public Works commented that nothing can be done on the existing site – it can’t be expanded with the current technology and would require another site. Chester Basin Streetlights Warden Webber commented that there was no amount in for the Chester Basin Streetlights. The Director of Public Works indicated that he had asked SNC to help estimate a cost for the streetlights and was provided with the full scope to replace all streetlights – the things we don't know is whether new LED heads can match up with old poles – the estimate is $95,000 plus tax to install new and replace old. There was some discussion regarding the possibility phasing in the lights over time; or they can install some or all - can install some or all - what do know is that current electrical service needs to be updated for lights. Warden Webber asked about the Western Shore Wild Rose Park lights – they are taller and likely more expensive – has there been an assessment. The Director of Public Works indicated that there are four lights to be installed at the Chester Basin sidewalks (from last year’s construction) and estimated the cost at approximately $25,000.00. The Warden suggested installing the lights required and complete the install of remaining lights with LED over several years. The Director of Finance reviewed the 2014/15 Budget Information Sheet dated April 28, 2014. The CAO indicated that the Village Commission approached the Municipality last year with a request to assist with the Lido Pool and possibly some allocation of Gas Tax Funds as well. Council may wish to provide a set amount of funding in lieu of the Commission forwarding requests of Council regarding Gas Tax Funds. A set line item of $18,000 was included in the budget for discussion. The following was discussed: • Would the Commission still be able to request Gas Tax Funds? Yes. • Is there a percentage of Gas Tax Funds they are entitled to? No. • How did the $18,000 figure come about? Just used as a place holder. Council discussed with they wished the Commission to have a line item in the budget or make a request through Grants. It was agreed to leave the $3,500 in the budget for the Village Commission (Lido Pool) as that has been a request, however, it was agreed that any other requests would be considered through the Grants Budget. It was noted that the statistics of pool use was estimated at 70/30 (outside the village/village use) and the Commission will be providing updated statistics from this upcoming summer season. It was agreed that Council wanted to create good will for sharing of facilities owned. Community Development – Amalgamation of Offices Audit and Budget Committee (Continued) 135 Monday, April 28, 2014 The Director of Finance explained the listing of amounts for Community Development – this is the first year all departments (building, planning, fire) are under one budget. Sewer Rate It was indicated that Council had directed staff to provide information to Council on two scenarios $100,000 or $200,000 and use of Wind Energy Revenues for Our Health Centre and the information provided. Councillor Veinotte asked what one cent would mean in tax revenue - $136,000. Deputy Warden Shatford indicated that there is an amount of $225,000 to be used for four sewer systems (borrowing) – before he decides on a tax rate increase he indicated that he would not support general tax payers paying $225,000 for sewers. Warden Webber asked if the new amount being funded from borrowing could be covered with the new proposal – the Director of Finance indicates yes and there would also be an amount for reserves. Warden Webber indicated that the intent was to have the amount covered but there still needs to be a universal sewer rate established. Deputy Warden Shatford asked if some of the sewer projects could be delayed and the bare minimum done until a sewer rate is established. He was concerned about continuing debt if a rate is not established. The Director of Finance indicated that there are some things that must be done. There was some discussion on what was considered category 1, 2, or 3. Councillor Veinotte indicated that the systems are fragmented and dealing with each one is difficult. For example Western Shore will be increasing; this can’t be done in every area because some are at the limit of what people can pay. What do we do with debt without amalgamating the systems? Deputy Warden Shatford suggested recouping the debt by raising the rate to a reasonable amount; from $350 to $550. He does not want to tell his community the Municipality will be borrowing $225,000 for sewers they have not access to. There was some discussion on how to resolve the universal sewer rate issue. There have been several scenarios and the people they affect are coming in – there is no way to satisfy every person and Council can’t change their direction whenever people come to a meeting who are not in favour. Councillor Veinotte indicated that Council has done a lot of learning - where Council started isn't that far from where they have com – he felt Council had to look at other scenarios until it realized what was the best option. Councillor Church-Cornelius agreed that she did not want the general tax rate to increase to cover sewer costs. Our Health Centre It was agreed that Council needed to make a decision regarding Our Health Centre. Councillor Veinotte commented that the group indicated to Council they did not want the tax rate raised for their funding and Warden Webber indicated that Council had advised them that was the only way to fund the project as he felt it was not a Municipal Project. He was willing to fund up to $200,000 over a 4-5 year period. Councillor Church-Cornelius indicated that some of her residents said yes and others said no – they are contributing personally but those residents on low or fixed incomes can’t afford to pay for such large building. People have indicated that they feel the committee should scale back the project. Warden Webber indicated that Council provides funding to other organizations and don’t tell them how to build their facilities. It was indicated that at the time Our Health Centre was here Council was generally in favour of funding and some amounts were offered. Audit and Budget Committee (Continued) 136 Monday, April 28, 2014 There was a lengthy discussion regarding the funding of Our Health Centre (OHC) with some of the following comments: • There is a lot of support for the project municipal-wide. • The revenue from the Wind Energy Revenue Policy is for community projects and available to the rest of the Municipality. • OHC indicated that they did not want taxes to increase because of the request. • OHC previously thought the Municipality had funds in reserves to fund the project. • Support would be similar to other community projects – the question is the amount. • Day cares have been funded previously – the Ross Farm Learning Centre has been funded – these are community projects. • Difficult to consider a long term commitment outside of this Council’s term. • This is part of the business/family attraction to the Municipality. When attracting businesses/families to the area recreational and medical availability is attractive. • Would prefer the least impact to tax payers. • Leave additional funding open for consideration in the future. • Not a community project – a provincial health project – other municipalities are committing to health care – another example of provincial downloading. • $250,000 is the normal amount from Municipalities committing to health centres in their areas. • Providing all services under one roof may take away revenue from private sector already leasing space for service providers –revenue will be lost to something funded by public money. • There are many things that Council supports that are not our issue. • The OHC board members are municipal wide – this is a municipal project in the way it has come up through the grass roots • Part of attraction and economic development. • Borrowing for the grant request – Municipalities are not able to borrow for other grants. • The mandatory expenditures this year have increased by .9% and next year they will double – next year the situation for funding will be worse. • Suggest not funding this year and funding provided next year – OHC has been put off one year already – they are looking for a commitment. • The indication is that other contributors are waiting to see what the Municipality is willing to commit to. • When there is little money it is not a good idea to spend additional money. • Assessment growth and the CAP – other Municipalities have made adjustments over the years; however, this Municipality has not done that – we have been able to survive before the CAP because assessment growth had been steady. The CAP has finally caught up with us. Revenues have not increased but expenditures have. • People consider revenue from the wind tower and wind farm will decrease taxes. • Suggestion of $50,000 from operating in this current year and $100,000 in each of the next two fiscal years for a total commitment of $250,000.00. 2014-000 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Armstrong that the Audit and Budget Committee recommend to Council to provide funding for the Our Health Centre Project as follows: • $50,000 from operating in the 2014/15 fiscal year; • $100,000 from the reserves of the Wind Energy Revenue Policy in the 2015/16 fiscal year; and • $100,000 from the reserves of the Wind Energy Revenue Policy in the 2015/16 fiscal year. DISCUSSION: Councillor Veinotte asked what funds would be available in the Wind Energy Revenue Reserves and the Director of Finance indicated that it is anticipated to be approximately $900,000 per year. It was suggested that there could be no funding this year and $125,000 in the next two fiscal years as he did not like the idea of increasing taxes this year. Deputy Warden Shatford indicated that he felt the Wind Energy Revenue was still tax revenue. CARRIED. Deputy Warden Shatford wished it noted that all members of Council were in favour of the motion. Audit and Budget Committee (Continued) 137 Monday, April 28, 2014 Gold River Bridge Deputy Warden Shatford asked if this was a high category and the Director of Finance indicated that it is Phase 1. The Director of Recreation & Public works reviewed the report provided by SNC Lavalin and indicated that the project does not need to be done this year but the intent is to extend the life of the structure over time. To this point staff have focused on decking but have not made any changes to the structure over the past ten years. He commented on the provincial responsibility and possible assistance as well as the amount required to remove vegetation and repair the piers. The project could be broken down over three years but there is the economy of scale to do all at one time. There have been grant applications filed in order to offset the costs. Community Development Deputy Warden Shatford asked if the Category 2 items in Community Development could be done next year. He would like no more than a 2.5 cent tax rate increase. It was suggested that the signage amount (Economic Development) of $20,000 could be removed but the Municipal Branding ($15,000) should remain as part of the Strategic Plan initiatives. Councillor Connors asked about the Industrial Park Feasibility and Location and the Economic Development Officer commented that they wished to look at the overall picture of what was done and not lose anything from that. They are hoping for some funding (half) from the Department of Economic Development. It was noted that the tax rate increase is currently at 2.75 cents. Councillor Armstrong indicated that the Committee did not decide on the bridge. Warden Webber noted that mandatory expenditures will be double next year. Trail to Victoria Road Modifications Councillor Veinotte asked about the suggested modifications noting that the condition of the trail has been like that for some time – why is it category 1? The Director of Recreation & Parks indicated that it was a project to be completed last year but staff was waiting for approval from DNR for the construction season but it was not received in time. They can continue to put new materials in but it keeps washing out. It is difficult to navigate for pedestrians – they are looking for a long term solution. Councillor Veinotte asked about the cost to keep the material topped off with fill – it was suggested a few thousand dollars would likely do it for now. Councillor Church-Cornelius indicated that she was hoping when the fix was done the crossing would be realigned to be safer and the Director of Recreation & Parks indicated that this project was not for that – this project was the “switchback” of the trail to prevent the washout – at some time in the future they may consider sidewalks. They have applied for funding from the ATV Association. The Director of Finance indicated that this project would have no impact on the operating budget. Councillor Veinotte asked about the use of Gas Tax Funding for repairs – not presently allowed. Land Acquisition – Mill Cove Sewer Deputy Warden Shatford asked about the land acquisition for Mill Cove Sewer – is this due to a potential development? The Director of Public Works commented that he was not sure if the development would move forward but he funds are there to fix a problem currently in existence. The Director of Finance indicated that this project would have no impact on the operating budget. Audit and Budget Committee (Continued) 138 Monday, April 28, 2014 Truck Replacement The Director of Public Works reviewed the fleet of vehicles the Municipality currently has indicating that there have been significant amounts of money spent on aging vehicles. There will be one truck remaining to use by staff which will reduce travelling expenses paid out. The tax rate increase was now at 2.75 cents. Commercial Tax Rate Warden Webber indicated that the 2.75 cent increase is without addressing the commercial rate as requested by the Chamber of Commerce. The argument can be made that residential assessments have been capped for a decade but commercial assessments have not. There is presently no business occupancy and those losses were not addressed. One cent on the commercial rate is equivalent to $8,619. Last year the rate decreased by one cent. Economic development and commercial assessments are our weaknesses as outlined in the Financial Condition Indicators. Deputy Warden Shatford commented that the Municipality is doing things to increase economic development and have provided a lot of support to economic development – Economic Development Officer and the plan to fund $300,000 for the foreseeable future from Wind Energy Revenue. Councillor Veinotte commented that lowering the rate is newsworthy and people will get the message – if we want to attract businesses there needs to be something newsworthy. Councillor Church-Cornelius commented that the perception is that residential tax rates are increased while commercial rates are decreased. Councillor Veinotte commented that there was no negative feedback from lowering the rate last year. Deputy Warden Shatford commented that this would put more burden on residential tax payer. Councillor Connors indicated that she is included to say "no" and she hasn’t changed her mind. She is not interested in lowering the commercial rate. She is not saying she won't look at it again but we have hired an Economic Development Officer, approved an Economic Development Strategy, investigating branding, exploring an industrial/business park. Councillor Connors asked Councillor Veinotte to expand on his earlier comment asking if he felt that Municipal Government was responsible for businesses – for her it is businesses doing for themselves. Councillor Veinotte indicated that other Municipalities, similar to this one, have been doing more for a lot longer. Councillor Connors noted that some businesses have associations that do for themselves. The Economic Development Officer indicated that some areas have a levy for businesses and that is how the business associations are funded. Councillor Veinotte commented that lowering the commercial tax rate would be one more tool in the Economic Development Officer’s toolbox for attracting businesses. Warden Webber noted that Council has received letters over the last years to level out the disparity between resident and commercial tax rates. Deputy Warden Shatford commented that he can't justify lowering the commercial rate while increasing the residential rate – it is the principle. 2014-000 MOVED by Councillor Veinotte that the Audit and Budget Committee recommend to Council to lower the commercial tax rate by one cent. There was no Seconder. 3.3 Tax Exemption Policy P-25. Audit and Budget Committee (Continued) 139 Monday, April 28, 2014 Warden Webber indicated that the tax rate increase, following discussions, was at 2.75 cents however, the tax exemption had not yet been discussed. Councillor Veinotte indicated that he would like to see the rate in each category raised by $100; this would assist low income earners affected by the impact of the universal sewer rate. The estimated cost for the $100 increase in each category was estimated to be $9,400 and it was generally agreed to increase each category subject to the universal sewer rate being approved. If the universal sewer rate is not approved this will be revisited. With the discussion regarding increase in exemptions the tax rate increase was calculated to be 2.9 cents. There was a discussion regarding leaving the increase at 2.9 or adjusting the budget to allow for a 2.5 cent increase. It was generally agreed by Council that they preferred the 2.5 cent increase rather than 2.9 cents. Staff was directed to review the budget and adjust in order to come to a 2.5 cent increase on the tax rate (excluding those items already discussed today). The process for the Sewer By-Law was discussed and it was agreed to hold First Reading in Council Chambers and if the by-law proceeded to Second Reading the meeting would be held in the evening at Forest Heights Community School. Councillor Church-Cornelius indicated that the Village Commission was holding a meeting to discuss the Sewer By-Law. 2014-000 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the meeting adjourn. CARRIED. (5:01 p.m.) _______________________________ _______________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk Ca p i t a l B u d g e t R e v i e w - 2 0 1 5 / 1 6 Ja n u a r y 2 1 , 2 0 1 5 Pr o j e c t C a p i t a l O p e r a t i n g G a s T a x S p e c . P r o j e c t s R e c r e a t io n P a r k l a n d L a n d f i l l C l o s e . E q u i p m e n t S e w e r G r a n t s / O t h e r Fund from Fund from Fund from Pr o j e c t C o s t C a t e r g o r y R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e se r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e F u n d s O p e r a t i o n s A r e a Rate Borrowing Ba l a n c e M a r c h 3 1 / 1 5 ( E s t i m a t e d ) $4 6 , 6 0 0 $2 , 4 3 1 , 0 0 0 $9 1 8 , 4 7 8 $6 1 , 8 0 0 $4 2 , 0 0 0 $1 5 6 , 8 1 6 $3 , 6 6 2 , 6 0 0 $70,500 $462,154 RE C R E A T I O N & P A R K S Tr a i l s - G o l d R i v e r B r i d g e R e p a i r s $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 10 6 , 0 0 0 4,000 Tr a i l s - S u r f a c e U p g r a d e s ( A T 6 . 2 0 ) 6 0 , 0 0 0 2 35,000 Grants 25,000 Tr a i l s - B r i d g e E v a l u a t i o n 31 , 5 0 0 3 31,500 Tr a i l s - S w i n g G a t e s P r o j e c t 15 , 0 0 0 1 10 , 0 0 0 5,000 OHV Grant Ne w R o s s T r a i l C o n n e c t o r ( A T 6 . 1 ) 1 0 , 0 0 0 3 10 , 0 0 0 Up p e r B l a n d f o r d R o a d W a l k i n g R o u t e D e s i g n ( A T 6 . 3 ) 1 0, 0 0 0 3 10 , 0 0 0 Du k e S t . / V a l l e y R o a d I n t e r s e c t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n ( A T 6. 2 ) 8 , 0 0 0 3 8, 0 0 0 $2 4 4 , 5 0 0 So l i d W a s t e La n d f i l l O n l y P r o j e c t s ( V a l l e y ) Fr o n t E n d L o a d e r $2 1 7 , 0 0 0 1 $217,000 Fi r e S u p p r e s s i o n S y s t e m 7, 8 0 0 1 7,800 Se c o n d T o w e r S i t e / O p . C h a n g e s 20 0 , 0 0 0 1 200,000 Ba c k u p P u m p 16 , 0 0 0 2 16,000 Su r f a c e P o n d C l e a n o u t 19 , 0 0 0 2 19,000 So l i d W a s t e P r o j e c t s ( C h e s t e r o n l y ) Cu b s i d e I n s p e c t i o n V e h i c l e 35 , 0 0 0 1 35,000 Me t a l B o x A n d L i f t G a t e f o r 1 T o n V e h i c l e 1 4 , 0 0 0 1 14,000 Re i n s t a t e C h l o r i n a t i o n S e w e r P o n d s 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 15,000 As b e s t o s D r o p O f f C o n t a i n e r 8, 0 0 0 2 8,000 $5 3 1 , 8 0 0 Ec o P a r k EC O P a r k P r o m o t i o n a l E q u i p m e n t $1 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t Fi r e S e r v i c e s - D i s t r i c t R e o r g a n i z a t i o n R e v i e w $ 2 0 , 0 00 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 Fi r e S e r v i c e s - E q u i p m e n t 10 , 0 0 0 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 Pl a n n i n g S e r v i c e s - A i r P h o t o g r a p h y L I D A R 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 10 0 , 0 0 0 Pl a n n i n g S e r v i c e - G P S U n i t ( C i v i c A d d r e s s ; F o o t i n g s) 1 4 , 0 0 0 2 14,000 Ec o n D e v - S i g n a g e 20 , 0 0 0 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 Ec o n D e v - I n d u s t r i a l P a r k L a n d A q u i s i t i o n 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 10 0 , 0 0 0 $2 6 4 , 0 0 0 In f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s Tr a n s f e r t o E q u i p m e n t R e s e r v e s $1 2 , 5 0 0 1 12,500 Ha r d w a r e U p g r a d e s 15 , 0 0 0 1 15,000 So p h o s A c c e s s P o i n t s ( 6 ) 5, 1 4 0 1 5,140 Sh o r e t e l H Q S e r v e r 5, 0 0 0 1 5,000 Au d i o U p g r a d e s t o C o u n c i l C h a m b e r s 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 25,000 $6 2 , 6 4 0 Pr o j e c t C a p i t a l O p e r a t i n g G a s T a x S p e c . P r o j e c t s R e c r e a t io n P a r k l a n d L a n d f i l l C l o s e . E q u i p m e n t S e w e r G r a n t s / O t h e r Fund from Fund from Fund from Pr o j e c t C o s t C a t e r g o r y R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e se r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e R e s e r v e F u n d s O p e r a t i o n s A r e a Rate Borrowing Pu b l i c W o r k s Un i v e r s a l S e w e r P r o j e c t s : Co l l e c t i o n S y s t e m s - C l e a n i n g & V i d e o i n g - I n s p e c t i on $ 2 7 , 5 0 0 1 13,750 PCAP 13,750 Ma n h o l e R e p a i r s & I n f i l t r a t i o n R e d u c t i o n - C o n s t r u c ti o n 8 5 , 0 0 0 1 42,500 PCAP 42,500 Pu m p R e p l a c e m e n t s - M a i n t e n a n c e 4 0 , 0 0 0 3 40,000 $1 5 2 , 5 0 0 Ch e s t e r S e w e r : Pr o p e r t y I m p r o v e m e n t s - C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 2 20 , 0 0 0 W a s t e w a t e r P l a n t I m p r o v e m e n t s - C o n s t r u c t i o n 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 350,000 Pu m p i n g S t a t i o n 3 I m p r o v e m e n t s - D e s i g n 1 5 , 0 0 0 2 15 , 0 0 0 $3 8 5 , 0 0 0 Ch e s t e r B a s i n S e w e r : W a s t e w a t e r P l a n t I m p r o v e m e n t s - D e s i g n $3 0 , 0 0 0 2 30 , 0 0 0 Mi l l C o v e S e w e r : W a s t e w a t e r P l a n t R e p l a c e m e n t - D e s i g n $3 0 , 0 0 0 1 30 , 0 0 0 Ot t e r P o i n t S e w e r : Pu m p i n g S t a t i o n 1 I m p r o v e m e n t s - C o n s t r u c t i o n $4 0 , 0 0 0 1 40 , 0 0 0 We s t e r n S h o r e S e w e r : Pu m p i n g S t a t i o n 2 I m p r o v e m e n t s - C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 6 6 0 , 1 00 1 11 0 , 0 0 0 440,067 B C F 110,033 Pl a n t I m p r o v e m e n t s W a s t e w a t e r - C o n s t r u c t i o n 1 , 1 0 5 , 9 00 1 18 4 , 3 1 7 737,267 B C F 184,316 $1 , 7 6 6 , 0 0 0 Mu n i c i p a l P r o p e r t y : Zo e V a l l e L i b r a r y - R o o f & C h i m n e y $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 2 12,000 Mu n i c i p a l B u i l d i n g R e p a i r s 45 , 0 0 0 1 45,000 Mu n i c i p a l B u i l d i n g - G o l d R i v e r 62 2 , 0 0 0 1 150,000 R e c . P r o v . 472,000 Fi r e P r o t e c t i o n S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s - M i l l C o v e W a t er 4 0 , 0 0 0 1 40,000 Ch e s t e r B a s i n W h a r f R e p a i r s - C o n s t r u c t i o n 5 5 , 0 0 0 1 55,000 Ch e s t e r B a s i n R e t a i n i n g W a l l - C o n s t r u c t i o n 4 0 , 0 0 0 3 40,000 Tr u c k R e p l a c e m e n t 35 , 0 0 0 2 35,000 $8 4 9 , 0 0 0 Ro a d s & S i d e w a l k s Ro a d R e h a b i l a t a t i o n - M i l l C o v e - D e s i g n $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 2 30 , 0 0 0 Si d e w a l k - C h e s t e r - C o n s t r u c t i o n 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 3 16 0 , 0 0 0 Si d e w a l k - C h e s t e r B a s i n - C o n s t r u c t i o n 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 45 0 , 0 0 0 St r e e t l i g h t s - C h e s t e r B a s i n - C o n s t r u c t i o n 2 0 , 0 0 0 3 20,000 $6 6 0 , 0 0 0 Pu b l i c W o r k s T o t a l $3 , 9 1 2 , 5 0 0 To t a l P r o j e c t s & F u n d i n g C o n t r i b u t i o n s $5 , 0 2 5 , 4 4 0 $0 $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 2 0 7 , 3 1 7 $0 $0 $1 0 6 , 0 0 0 $0 $25,140 $350,000 $1,423,584 $0 $299,000 $156,250 $1,298,149 Re s e r v e B a l a n c e $4 6 , 6 0 0 $ 2 , 2 7 1 , 0 0 0 - $ 2 8 8 , 8 3 9 $ 6 1 , 8 0 0 $ 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 8 1 6 $ 3 , 6 62,600 $ 4 5 , 3 6 0 $ 1 1 2 , 1 5 4 Co n t r i b u t i o n s 2 0 1 5 / 1 6 $0 $ 6 7 4 , 4 0 0 $ 5 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 2 , 5 0 0 $ 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 Ba l a n c e M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 6 $4 6 , 6 0 0 $2 , 9 4 5 , 4 0 0 $2 7 1 , 1 6 1 $6 1 , 8 0 0 $4 2 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 8 1 6 $4 , 2 1 2 , 6 0 0 $57,860 $219,154