The following are taken from transcripts of audio recordings, but note that the echoes in the room made interpreting some of the content very difficult.
This post includes:
- Information on FUS and Superior Tanker Accreditation
- Motion on remuneration of trustees
- Motion on appointment of the auditor
We have not transcribed the reports of the Fire Chief, Deputy Chief, and Fire Hall Captains, which were the next items on the agenda following the discussion of the financial statements and how technical issues around their absence would be handled. As a followup to these reports, Chair Paul Giffin asks Fire Chief Will Sprogis to explain the FUS program.
FUS and Superior Tanker Accreditation
Chief Sprogis: So the Fire Underwriters Survey was recertified last April 2024. We passed with flying colours. Did a test for the commercial status where we had to pump for one hour at 400 gallons a minute. The team did it flawlessly. We are supposed to go for an hour, the examiner said "You're getting the grade" at 20 minutes ... and stopped the test.
It all started with Albert Reed and building this firehall and building all our hydrants and the structure to support that.
The Superior Tanker Accreditation is the physical test that we do to keep up that accreditation, and we have to have water sources within 5 kilometers of everyone's residence on the island, and we also have to have a fire alarm within 8 km of everyone's house. Like I discussed with the purchase of the new apparatus, they need to be ULC rated so they pass that qualification with third party at the manufacturer, with the fire truck. And some of those components, that they of course test when they pump, the pump has to pump over 1000 gallons a minute, has to have so many discharges on it, has to have a 6-inch intake so it can take up water at 1000 gallons a minute as well, so these are all things that get tested at the factory before this truck is delivered with a ULC certificate slapped on [...]. Which is what costs a lot of dollars, to buy these new apparatus, and that's why they, at 20 years they no longer certify that engine for frontline. It will move into a role called backup for another 5 to 10 years, and then after the 30 year mark it is off the books for Superior Tanker Accreditation. We have one truck in that league, the "Little Donkey" or the Volvo, it's a very valuable truck, it's got good access into remote areas. It no longer meets the Superior Tanker Accreditation but it's able to go on deployment and provide us so many other benefits, so we hung onto that one.
... We need an engine and a tender at each fire hall within 20 years, and the trucks have just been going up 20 to 30% every year, out of our reach. We did quite well purchasing this engine, though. I don't know if anyone has followed the new emissions controls where with new diesel trucks, the engines just went up between 100 and 200 thousand for the emissions controls on the trucks, and there wasn't any 2025s left. So when we purchased that ... it was right at the right time. As well we missed any kind of tariff when we purchased these trucks. So I think it was excellent timing for a purchase.
Trustee remuneration
The chair explained that the trustees are entitled to receive remuneration for their work, but never have done so. The board members all spoke in favour of keeping the remuneration at zero. Trustee Moher noted that average remuneration for each trustee in an improvement district would start at around $7000. Trustee Wills noted that trustees may additionally be paid per meeting, which potentially adds significantly to the total costs to the taxpayer.
CHAIR: Can I get a motion then from someone that says trustee remuneration be set at zero dollars for 2025?
QM: I'll make that motion.
CHAIR: Erik?
[general outcry]
QM: No, no, no, no, no! It's the landowners, it's in the legislation explicitly—
TRUSTEE MOHER: Please stop. I was taking a breath to bring the matter to the attention of the Chair that this would go to the floor, but you started yelling. Could I please ask you to take a breath and hang on.
QM: Could I ask you to become familiar with—
TM: Mr Chair, would you please take a motion from the floor?
CHAIR: I can do that. Who would like to make the motion for zero remuneration? Mercier. Seconded... Penelope. All in favour?
TM: From the floor too, please.
CHAIR: Carried.
Appointment of the auditor
CHAIR: The next item on the agenda is the appointment of the auditor for 2025—
Diane Cornish: I'd like to speak to that, because that's an issue for the landowners to decide. ... This is an issue for the landowners to decide, as to who will be the auditor next year, I guess in 2025. I am suggesting that we change auditors. There's value in fresh eyes, and this is often considered a best practice of organizations, to change auditors from time to time. I move that we appoint the firm of Doane Grant Thornton, which you probably know better as Church Pickard, as the auditors for 2025.
QB: I'll second that.
DC: Any discussion?
[Clarification of details of the motion and the name and location of the company.]
Q3: I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this, but if the public votes in favour of hiring this person, how do we know this person's going to accept the job?
DC: Because we've asked them.
Q4: Can I ask why at this particular time [...]?
DC: As I said, it's often considered best practice to change auditors from time to time. It's a good idea to have fresh eyes.
[Clarification of names of mover and seconder for minutes]
Q4: How do we know what this person or company is going to charge?
QM: That's a matter for the board to determine, the landowners determine—
Q4: If we're deciding to go with this person, you're going with them. You need to know what they're going to be charging, so you can compare it with other firms or the current [...]
QB: But even if you get to compare it, the landowners choose. So you can decide whether you want to change auditors or not, and the board ... negotiates the contract.
Q4: And if they decide they don't like the contract—?
QB: Then it would have to come back to us, I guess.
Q4: When? Next year? And what are you going to do—
QB: No. Not next year—
QM: The landowners as a whole have the right to select the auditor—
Q4: I'm not stating that you don't have the right. All I'm saying is, if this person or company comes back with an outlandish amount that they're going to charge, the board is going to say, "We don't want this company." Then you don't have anybody, and you have—
QM: No, the board must negotiate with that company. Because the board must carry out the will of the landowners.
Q4: And if—
QF: So if there is a problem in negotiating with the auditor, and the board feels it's too expensive or whatever, they can always call a Special General Meeting specifically for that reason. So there's no harm in choosing a different auditor for the reason that was stated by Diane, and then if the board feels this is not a good idea, because it's so expensive or [...] getting the one we want, the board can call a Special General Meeting and say, "We're concerned, we think we should do this instead."
QB: The reason I'm backing it is that I was talking to people on various other boards, and they say that it is part of their protocol to change every two or three years, to have a fresh set of eyes, and it seemed to me to make an awful lot of sense. They also said that they often rotate. This is no slur on Doug and their accounting firm, what it is is that it's a general rule that you switch it around so there are fresh eyes. ... We're not accusing anybody here of bad practice, we're just saying there is a better practice, and that is rotation.
[Question is called and carried.]
The meeting was recessed at that point; election results would be available later in the evening, after which the new board would be sworn in and the AGM adjourned until the financial statements are ready to be presented.
As per the trustee page on gabriolafire.ca, the continuation of "the AGM will be on July 9, 2025 (details to follow)".
The next general meeting of the Trustees will be July 2nd 2025 at 4 pm.