camera's live
good morning fellow directors first of
all i'd just like to acknowledge
our gathering virtually throughout the
traditional territories
of the coast salish people and welcome
you to today's agenda
we apologize for the technical glitch in
getting going
um as chair stone had said
it may be a 2020 hangover that has been
prolonged
with your indulgence before we approve
the agenda i've had a request
from director nicholson
to delay r1 until her return she had
some input on a couple of those so if
you're okay with that
delaying till her return i see nodding
of heads
so miss lego thank you mr chair the
first item of business is the approval
of the agenda
so moved seconded
any discussion all those in favor
opposed if any that motion carries thank
you very much
this will go
and for public input period i have not
received any submissions for this
meeting
there's no delegations correspondence or
information so it would be
on to reports and
as we are delayed delaying r1 for
director nicholson we can move on to r2
which is a report from the finance
division
2021 electoral area supplemental
requests referred from december 2nd
the recommendation is that it be
recommended to the board that the
supplemental requests for function 238
community parks area h
fern gully trail bridge be approved and
two that the supplemental request for
function 238 community parks area h
hiking and equestrian bridge west trail
be approved
okay anyone from staff going to start
with this or
are we going right to the directors
i think i saw director martin your hand
up
yes thank you chair um just would like
to defer
this to the special corporate meeting on
january 25 the parks
advisory commission for area 8 is just
getting up and running next week
so i'd like to have this in front of
them before we make a decision
move to refer and seconded any further
discussion on the referral
all those in favor opposed if any
so that will be referred to january 25th
mr
martin next miss lego
thank you mr chair our three report from
facilities and transit division
regarding the 2021 draft budget for
function 106 commuter transit
this was referred from the december 9
special corporate services meeting and
the recommendation is that it be
recommended to the board that the 2021
draft budget as amended for function 106
commuter transit be approved
miss our director stone moving that
i was moving yep and do i have a
seconder
second it um
director marsh
mr wacom would you like to speak to this
i can give an update mr chair uh as it
is a an update from the december meeting
um this one is uh much more positive in
that we now have the
bc restart contribution funding for both
uh function 106 and the next one is 107.
um just for the committee's
understanding the commuter function 106
bc restart contribution is 606
000 over two years which is 303 per year
that amount is retro to april 1 of 2020
and it is also
uh shared with the capital regional
district for the directors who are
unaware that this service is we have a
partner with the capital regional
district
um as the report mentions the bc restart
funding comes with three conditions
though
that the existing service levels be
maintained that the current fares also
be maintained and any
fair increases that are considered are
to be limited to an average of 2.3
percent
for the next four years and the third
condition is that the annual operating
agreement with bc transit must be
approved and signed by january 31 of
2021.
there's a separate report going to the
3pm community services meeting later
this afternoon to deal with that
so with the first two conditions um the
options that we provided back on
december the 9th to the report they're
really not valid
uh we can't reduce the service and the
fare increases of of 2.3
is only 5 cents on a 225 cash fare
but the good news is for at least 2021
we no longer need to consider reducing
services to get the tax requisition
level to be zero from the 2020 amount
um so there's three amendments that are
already made to the draft
2021 function 106 budget that have been
incorporated into the two
documents or the attachments which is
the um
the euro the report by cost center as
well as the five year plan
and the three amendments are the
inclusion of the cvrd share of the bc
restart funding
uh contribution of 167 109
and the deferral of the approved new
transit assistant position to september
of 2021
which three hundred saves 17 three
dollars
and thirdly the increase to the bc
transit contract service expense by
eight thousand four hundred and fifty
one
those three items uh end up netting a
net
savings of the 175 thousand
dollars which would mean there's no tax
increase for the 2021 year
that's really the quick summary of what
the staff report is and i'm open to any
questions that directors may have
okay do i see any hands directors
director marsh
yeah i don't actually have a question
but it is a big relief
um for 2021 because i think it would
have been
hopefully we would have still gone ahead
but it would have been tough i know for
some people
so thank you mr wacom and thank you to
was it the province or the feds who gave
the restart money
it's both it was it was a partnership
with the feds and the province
fantastic thank you
any further directors ready for the
question
all those in favor opposed if any
that motion carries thank you miss lego
thank you mr chair item r4's report from
facilities and transit division on the
2021 draft budget for function 107
conventional and custom transit services
and the proposed recommendation is that
it be recommended to the board that the
2021 draft budget is amended for
function 107 conventional and
custom transit services be approved
do i have a mover for that one moved and
seconded
mr wacom would you like to approach this
one as well
thank you mr chair sure it's a very
similar situation
when we presented the preliminary uh
budget back in december it was
very bleak with uh sitting at a large
tax increase of about 261 thousand
dollars
but that was prior to any knowledge of
what the bc
restart funding contribution would be we
now know what that amount is
and that amount for function 107 is very
similar as 106. it's 604 000
over two years again retro back to april
one of 2020
so the 2021 the 2020 year should also
end up being much better than first
expected but with regard to 2021 budget
which is we're talking about
function 107 had eight amendments made
to the preliminary budget and again
those have already been incorporated
so that they were done a couple about a
week ago or two weeks ago so the board
could get an understanding
that transit we knew was going to be
down to zero and that you would get a
better update when you were looking at
other budgets and making decisions
so the eight amendments there's really
in two parts to this the first four
items that are noted in the report
these just reflect current uh trends on
revenues and so
and things like the deferring of the
custom sunday service which was already
approved
so those four items reduce the tax by
forty thousand five hundred dollars
the balance which are new items the new
amendments are
again the inclusion of the cvrd share of
the bc restart
funding amount of 302 000
the deferral of the approved new transit
assistant position to september which
saves 36
000 because this position is cost shared
between the two
transit functions and thirdly to
increase the bc
transit contract services by sixty
thousand dollars
and the last item is to uh include
uh fifty eight thousand dollars or
specifically fifty seven thousand five
hundred and eighty six dollars to
transfer to the operating reserve
and the reason being to bring the
balance closer to the minimum policy
requirement we're just under that
and so this would help us bring it very
close the total of the
of the first four items as well as the
four new items that have all been
incorporated already in the attachments
brings the total net savings down
exactly what we needed 260 914
therefore in summary having no tax
increase from 2020. again open to any
questions that directors may have
looking at my virtual panel do i see any
hands
questions comments first of all i'd like
to thank you mr wacom for
for the hard work and getting where we
are today uh
did not look very promising a couple of
weeks ago but uh
kudos and implementing those changes
thank you
so i will call the question all those in
favor
opposed if any that motion carries
miss lego please thank you mr chair onto
r5
report from the finance division on 2021
budget regional supplemental requests
and the recommendation is that it be
recommended to the board that the
supplemental requests for the following
functions be approved
function 100 general government regional
recreation referendum
analysis two economic development
regional connectivity strategy
a three two function 280 regional parks
couch and valley trail replacement to
major culverts
four function 280 regional parks
regional active transportation plan
five function 280 regional parks vehicle
replacement
six function 285 regional parkland
acquisition master plan review
7520 solid waste management complex
transfer station scale replacement
and eight function 520 solid waste
management complex peerless road skid
steer replacement
thank you very much uh your pleasure on
these would you like to deal with these
one at a time
um director oh actually i had
director wilson first and then director
kim
uh thank you mr chair um i would like to
deal with
uh number six um on its own please i i i
have some uh comments on that one
okay thank you very much director kuhn
and director sebring i would move
uh items one through eight with the
exception of number six just to get
those
off the table and i have a seconder
any further comments on that
director smith
yes would it be possible to pull um
the number uh
just a minute the active regional active
transportation plan
out of there which is i believe number
four
absolutely if you wish we can do that as
well
and i think i saw director salmon as
well
yeah should we pull number one too
please
so i have one four and six
for a discussion any further
so director sebring that motion would
include those except for six four and
one
yeah i consider that a friendly
amendment i didn't realize other people
wanted to pull
i jumped the gun so yeah uh all the
items except one four and six
moved in second seconder's okay with
that
i'll call the question all those in
favor
opposed if any sounds good
now we'll move to number one for
discussion
director salmon yeah thank you i just
want to make sure i understood it so
some of this is for the um
referendum and some of it's for the
usage
monitoring is that correct
i see miss aldera nodding okay
okay anyway further
and then it's all from reserve
is that right none from requisition
yes ms solera so just if i may just so
you don't have to just look at me
nodding
uh absolutely so this is a combination
of the two
um initiatives and it will all be coming
from operating reserve
under uh the general government function
which the regional
recreation initiative has been funded
from
thus far
yeah okay one point okay i have director
stone and then director kuhn
oh director stone's fine director kuhn
please
yeah i just have a comment um if there
is a request to draw down money from a
reserve fund
could we have the figures of the reserve
funds attached to that so we know how
much
is in the reserves and how much is being
drawn down from that
so we don't have to go ourselves and
check out
how much is left and and how much is uh
being used out of that that would be
helpful
thank you did i see
director markman
thank you chair um i just wanted to make
sure on the
appears to be just a typo under problem
opportunity
is this intended to say this project
is the regional recreation referendum
and just dropped the word and
or is there something missing
um so it's just that it was tied to the
regional recreation referendum and two
were
tied together so sorry about that i was
that i thanked george martin for noting
the typo
uh earlier the other day the two
projects they just go hand in hand and
it was a combination of
two separate supplementals into one
so just follow up so what should it
actually read then
that the project is tied to the regional
recreation referendum
of doing this facility use analysis okay
thank you
okay director salmon follow up
yeah thank you so uh on the referendum
itself
so so it'll be held in 2022
with the usual or regular elections
um and then there'll be some public
engagement
to do with that in 2021
is that am i on the right track with
that
are you still there
that is my understanding i'm i'm looking
to see if uh mr elzinga
is online as he is the expert
i'm not seeing his face pop up
so oh there he is sorry to put you on
the spot mr alzinka
no thank you miss aldera and through the
chair uh to the question
uh the intent is that the facility use
analysis would come in the fall of 2021
of course we would be communicating to
the board around that
because we're certainly aware of covet
impacts on facility use
so that's the first step then we would
be moving through public engagement
early in 2022 through to
uh referendum uh preparation for october
of 2022 as the director is outlined
thank you okay so follow-up
generally uh so so it's 70 000
roughly just to add this referendum
question
to the regular
municipal elections
so that includes the public engagement
that would uh lead up to the reference
so the engagement and the referendum
cost would be 70 000
as you noted right in addition to the
49 000 2021 engagement costs
it looks like
i think you're getting an odd there too
yes i was just looking to see if mr
alzinga was back online his
screen is a little frozen on my on my
screen and he as i say he is the expert
but i believe that the committee and the
board received a report previously with
respect to this
item that discussed the fact that we
would do
uh various consultation processes over a
two year period
and this would be the costs and so at
that meeting
the direction was given to staff to
bring forward this supplemental request
so this is just finalizing that
direction yeah okay thank you
i'm just wondering maybe for our future
it's hard sometimes to remember the
original discussion wanted to
there could be a link with from the this
sort of
budget summary page to the original
reports or something like that so we can
refresh that might be helpful for the
future
i don't know if that's a lot of work to
do or what
thank you for that director salmon i
think i saw director smith
thank you through the chair to staff
will
the consultant for use analysis uh
also include the um
2011 uh data
that was collected and then the report
from
2017 that was
also data collected will that be brought
into this
uh analysis thank you
thank you for the question is mr alzinga
still with us
i don't see him popping up
anyone else like to take this
perhaps upon his return he he will uh
answer that for you director smith if
that's appropriate
i think he's logged out and back in so
we may have to ask the question again
yeah so if he does return we'll go back
to your question
director smith if time permits there he
is
did you happen to hear the question uh
mr el-zinka
i did if you can hear me in my apologies
to the committee for the connection
issues so
uh through to director smith yes the
intent
is that the two facility use analysis
would be combined
in the recommendation that goes forward
a referendum in october so we would be
using the 2011 facility use analysis
as well as or sorry the the most recent
facility use analysis
as well as the one that's proposed for
uh for 2021.
follow-up director smith
is there some reason that you wouldn't
be using the analysis from
2011. the
uh 2011 facility use analysis has some
concerns because two-tiered admission
fees for the couch and aquatic center
were in play
at that time and that could be
potentially impacting upon those numbers
we could certainly bring that forward
again to the board for consideration
with an axe stating that the two tier
was in place at that time maybe
maybe something to consider
exactly yeah i'll come back oh sorry
the two tier was only for the aquatic
center
thank you i know i can see you aaron
thanks i have director marsh and then
director still
yes thank you very much mr chair thank
you to mr elzinga
um i imagine your department will be
crafting the
wording of the referendum so i'm i'm
hoping that
it wouldn't be complicated by explaining
the two-tier before
and because i think for referendums it's
um most important that it's short and
sweet
clear but short and sweet so what's your
thoughts about that
through the chair to director marsh i
would certainly be leaning on the
expertise of the legislative services
division
finance division and others
communications as well
as we move forward not only with the
crafting of the referendum question but
public engagement that leads up to it
okay thank you thank you very much i
have director stone then director
sebring
i just wanted to remind that this isn't
the time to be discussing these things
other than the budget impacts once we
get into the actual practicalities of
the usage analysis and stuff
when we're actually discussing the items
and because if we get into this on every
budget item it's going to be an
extremely long meeting
thank you for that director stone uh
procedurally we'll try to stick to the
budget portion
uh direct receiver and taking into
account what director stone said i'm
going to be very brief
for somebody to say that this only
affects the aquatic center
from our perspective at north carolina
that's the biggest
unit and if we start including those
2011
numbers we have a problem at the market
tonight i'm just
saying that so but this is not the time
or the place we'll have the discussion
later thank you
and we will bring that forward in a
future meeting for that discussion
i was remiss in not uh welcoming
alternative director justice so i'll do
that now
uh welcome alternate director justice my
apologies
are we finished on number one then
call the question all those in favor
opposed if any that motion carries and i
acknowledge director nicholson has
returned
we will come back to r1 when we're
finished a couple of points here
on r5 we have delayed r1
so i believe number four was pulled as
well
and who pulled that one
please remind me director smith
i i'm just looking for a little more
detail
from staff on this i
i feel that it it's a good
um look
looking at a regional act of
transportation was part of our trial
our strategic planning and it's good to
see that this is moving forward
i just am wondering if with all our
um with a lot of the master plans for
parks if some of that information is
already
in the master plans for a b
c d and e for
that and so i was just wondering how
those are going to mix in with this
in the requirements for this consultant
director stone
i was just getting on the speakers list
i just remind again this is a budget
discussion so i have a budget question
when my
my time comes thank you okay i'll leave
you on the list i'll go to mr parker
thank you mr chair through the committee
uh certainly with some
within our community parks master plans
and i understand with some of our
members valley plans as well
there are references and higher level
aspirations with respect to active
transportation
the intention of undertaking an act
transmission plan for the region
uh would be to delve into it in greater
detail to
affirm uh opportunities for active
transportation
within our road networks
interconnectivity and get it to a level
where
we are ideally at a position that has
other levels of government and other
programs come along which could provide
funding
uh that we've got a level of detail and
public support
to be able to go after those those funds
and actually integrate
uh the plan into establishing
the network so the master plans do make
note but they were at a very high level
this will be really delving into a
better analysis of
functionality within our network of
where active transportation
could be established
okay director stone
i'm just following up on the meeting
that we had had with the province there
was discussion
about some funding for active
transportation and i know there's
you know some contemplated
infrastructure funding but is there not
still some grant funding available for
the actual planning work
mr chair yes through the provincial
active transportation
program they do annually allocate out
funds both for
projects for construction as well as
sort of feasibility analysis design the
current round of funding has been
allocated out
so as you'll note in the
the supplemental we see this as being a
two-year initiative so we certainly
want to look at the next round ideally
coming up for 2021
to be able to tap into that to help
supplement the
funding that otherwise we put towards
this work so
absolutely any chance we can get
additional funds elsewhere
to offset the cost of doing a
transportation plan for active
active transportation we definitely want
to go after that but at this point in
time
there's no funds currently available
that we're aware of
follow up directly stone yeah i uh yeah
i can follow up offline we can always
amend it but i'm i'm reading the
there's open applications it looks like
on the page i'm looking at right now but
we can follow up after
okay thank you very much have director
marsh then director salmon
thank you mr chair i just wanted to
appreciate uh
excuse me in the staff report um
under recommendations that they pointed
out that the first
five uh
of these eight resolutions were
really important they were ranked as
number one importance and
i think it's really helpful when we're
looking at that in a year that
that many people are feeling
should be an austerity budget year i
think it's important to
to pay attention to that so i really
appreciate that you spelled that out
very clearly thank you
thank you director marsh director salmon
you're next
yeah thank you yeah i'm just a little
skeptical
on the value that you know these these
plans
uh tend to end up on the shelf uh
uh with many others so i'm just thinking
in this year
uh when we're where constraints are more
than usual if
i would prefer to let this one wait so
we do have
the local plans as lynn said and um
yeah i actually just can't see myself
supporting this one
fair enough any further speakers
i'm going to call the question all those
in favor
those opposed i see director
sebring opposed director salmon opposed
director smith
and director wilson opposed
that motion does carry thank you
and i believe number six would be the
next one that was pulled
and that was the regional parks trail
master plan i believe
who pulled that one
director wilson would you like to uh
start us off
thank you mr chair um
mr chair i agree that uh we need a
review of the acquisition program
there's no two ways about that because
i've been looking very very carefully
into what's uh what's been going on in
there since uh 2008
what i have a problem with and as a
director stone has pointed out this is a
question of
budgetary stuff and one hundred thousand
dollars for consultants
seems to be an awful lot now i'm going
back to when
i was a so-called consultant and i know
what i
charged and the number of days that's
involved here
is excessive to say the least it works
out to at least
a thousand a hundred days
and if you work that out it's gonna be
something like about four or five
months of eight hour five day week so
that's a pretty in intensive thing and i
i cannot support
spending 100 000 on
something which really is this could
easily be done
i think in-house uh with
um maybe even a subcommittee um but i
can't i can't support spending a hundred
thousand dollars on this kind of thing
thank you very much i have director
director marsh did i miss anyone
director morrison yes i am
also against spending a hundred thousand
dollars on
another uh study
uh we are spending a lot of money on
on these consultations and uh uh
i do believe uh we have a master plan
if we think we should adjust it we can
do that in-house i don't think
there's a need to to hire somebody for a
hundred thousand dollars to tell us
well maybe it would be better if we did
this now uh
um i am totally against that thank you
thank you director marsh then director
morrison
yes thank you mr chair um as the
um i don't know the part of the report
that
addresses this item specifically
um says uh under the problem opportunity
that um as we're
you know envisioning securing in
perpetuity a variety of outdoor
recreational opportunities and talking
about livability etc
but it goes on to to speak about
our 2020 22 22 strategic
plan and also
that we want to consider the protection
of
sensitive ecosystems and significant
environmental features and
um opportunities for
all kinds of other things um i'm
assuming and maybe uh mr farquhar if
you're still there you could tell me
i'm assuming the consultant wouldn't be
sitting at a desk they would be going
out and looking
at the regional parks and and checking
out um
some of the sensitive ecosystems am i
right
mr chair through to director marsh
correct this would be
a full-scale review
uh and update of our regional parks
trails master plan that currently is in
place
understanding that the through the board
strategic plan that there's a bit of a
shift interest in looking at
expansion or a change to the priorities
under the program so similar to when the
plan was done back in 2006-2007
through consultants the consultants led
the process from start to finish
including doing
assessments including engaging with the
public community groups interest groups
preparing the overall plan of all the
level of public engagement
and also would be looking at in this
case
the interests other opportunities to
support the program
through non-tax dollars by way of
donations or other means that the
the board has indicated an interest in
looking into so this would also be
delving into that as well
so the ability for staff the current
your current staff resources within the
parks and trails division
i would not be able to undertake uh an
initiative of this scale
uh based on the requirements uh that
would be laid out in doing
right and so i just like to you know i
acknowledge what um
director wilson said um
i wasn't i guess considered a consultant
i was a facilitator
and that's been almost 10 years and i
was paid a thousand dollars a day
so i imagine if i was to go back to that
um it would be a little bit more than
that
10 years later and so you know i just
have every confidence that this has been
carefully looked at because the board
has made it really really clear
that they wanted to have
this zero percent increase and
i have from the very first day
i've sat at this table which is probably
eight years ago
heard that staff are at capacity so how
we could
find as wasn't quite how
uh mr farquhar worded it but
i just don't see that we have the staff
that could take
four to five months to do this so
um i do not believe this is for a
um plan that's going to sit on a shelf
this is for an um
active plan to um
tie together all of our parks and you
know i don't think any of us
can who've spent any time outdoors
during this
uh current pandemic
can deny that parks have never
i don't think been used as much as they
are now
and it's my belief that once people get
the bug in their blood
even when the pandemic's done they're
going to still be out there
and uh that makes for savings
in in tax dollars albeit from other
levels of government but
as a few people are fond of saying
there's only there's only one taxpayer
so i i do support this i'm really
grateful
for the work staffs put into it and
um i will be voting in favor thank you
director marsh i have director morrison
steve spring then
thank you mr chair uh
so i'd like to maybe ask two things uh
first one being process i don't believe
this item has been moved and though we
voted on the other two i
didn't hear them being moved or seconded
either i
would love to be wrong but i think we're
supposed to move and second each item
before we uh address them
so uh if that could be correct that i
i'd be more than willing to move this
item if
if that would be the uh proper
procedural thing to do
uh and if there's a problem if you're
gonna
thank you mr chair so um you know i'm
i'm i struggle in that we've had
a a lot of discussion about the uh
regional parkland acquisition fund um i
attended a number of the meetings in 07
and 08 when
they were originally held to establish
the plan and pass the
referendum numbers it was a monumental
effort as i'm sure mr farquhar and other
other people that participated
in it would agree and
there has been significant discussion
around this table
about the funding of that particular
function
and i believe that it was this board
that said that
that needed a redo and a relook so
i'm i'm struggling with the notion that
we
sent staff away to uh to
put together something that would give
us a an idea what it would cost to do
the redo
and they go away and do it and then they
come back and and we say
well hang on maybe this isn't something
that we want to do
i'm really interested in a review
of the regional parkland acquisition
button because it was a different scope
that was established then the list of
targeted properties
were really more of a recreational
nature than they were of
a environmental and uh environmental
asset
perspective so you know i would support
this but i certainly understand
the rationale of maybe this isn't the
year
to proceed and i think referring it to
the
2022 budget would be more than
appropriate but i won't make that motion
thank you mr chair thank you director
morrison
uh hopefully we did move in second the
previous two
i i'm i'm not sure if we did or not
we'll look back at the video later
i have director sebring director
director nicholson
and director salmon thank you mr chair
um a hundred thousand dollars is a lot
of money for a consultant
uh let me start there and i i don't
disagree with the points made by the
directors uh kuhn and wilson
equally i'm interested in the scope of
this review because
what are we reviewing in terms of the
parkland acquisition
fund you know i have long made the case
and some of you have heard me make this
case going back several years
that this function that we have is
creating you know acquiring parkland
over here
when we do that we create a bunch of
cost drivers over here
in terms of the maintenance and the um
the work involved
in in maintaining and and
operating the parks that we acquire with
the parkland acquisition fund
uh stoney hill is the best example i
mean you know that thing has been so
popular that now
you know i don't know where that is and
i'm not necessarily looking for that
mate but
you know last year was talking about oh
my god now we got to do a a
sustainability piece for stony hill
because people are off the trails and
we're doing environmental damage so the
scope of this
study that we're that we're being asked
to approve here
would that include the notion
of saying um you know the part-time
acquisition fund
should be about more than just acquiring
parkland it should also look at the
ramifications of doing that
in terms of some of the cost drivers
over on the other side and and i don't
know whether we need
um i'm not even sure whether we can do
it whether we whether we could do
a direction to staff to say this fund is
not just to be used for acquisition but
you know 70 for acquisition and 30 for
the resulting costs i i don't know how
that works because
this fund was approved in a referendum
would we have to go back to referendum
to change
the terms of this function i i don't
know that but
that's the kind of information that i'd
like to see come out of this
review is that part of the scope of what
we're
asking the consultant to look at for 100
000
and if not why not
mr chair that would certainly be
inclusive as part of uh the overall
review update of the plan and direction
yes that would be incredible awesome to
hear thank you then i'll be supporting
this
allocating some funds to maintenance
that would probably require
going back to referendum as it was quite
specific on the purchase
within that original implication so
that's what i'd like that's what i'd
like to see coming out of the report
and i see and i see our cao is sitting
at the dock of the bay
right did you did you have something to
respond to by
my little ramp thank you
oh thank you mr chair yeah actually i'm
sitting that is the dock of one of our
regional parks
butte island uh behind me um i i think
i'll let the conversation unfold but i
have a suggestion that might help us
help
work through this because i think what
we're getting caught up in is
the project and uh you really need to
outline the scope before you start
applying a cost to it and so
i'll let the committee continue to have
their conversation but there may be
another option that you might want to
consider moving forward so i'll turn it
back to the chair thank you mr chair
thank you very much i'll keep looking
for that doc when i've exhausted my
speakers list
i have director nicholson salmon
wilson and marsh
director yes i would like to get
back to what
uh director mark said earlier and i
agree with that and that is
this should be an austerity budget
to spend a hundred thousand dollars on a
study does not go with an austerity
budget
i'm sorry this uh i could see a
possibility of uh
director morrison indicated maybe to
push it over into next year
i would support that but i'm not willing
to support that for this year
thank you thank you and just a reminder
directors um we are being recorded
so your body language can be seen
we don't always agree but let's agree to
disagree
uh director nicholson
thank you um i think this is a
a very important topic and i
am i think
some people have thought that staff
would be able to do this work i don't
think they have the either either the
capacity or
probably the skill set when you're
talking about um
the equal benefits of protecting
parkland
and so i think that we do need to do a
review with qualified people that can
provide that kind of advice
i also think that it's we have a
community asset
out there many people in the community
are very engaged in parks
and actually have a lot of the the
qualifications that you might be looking
for
and i um based on our conversation about
what the scope of this is
i think that we would benefit from
setting up a committee to help us
develop
some terms of reference for this review
and to
start to have a community conversation
because it's important to bring the
community along on this
topic because they are very um
interested in it
um and
i think that this would probably be
better if it was phased over two years
so to try and
do at less cost this year to try and set
up a
commission or a committee or whatever
the right term is for this
um a standing committee i guess to do
that
to do to help with the work and to get
the
framework figured out and then next year
go ahead with the review
i suspect that there's quite a bit of
technical information that we don't have
about our parks and their i know that we
haven't done an ecological inventory for
example
and i think that kind of work is going
to be important as we move forward
but ultimately from my perspective
the most important thing right now is to
be continuing to put money in the bank
so when properties
opportunities to purchase properties
arise that we know have significant
ecological value and we need to be able
to position to
purchase those so and i think there's
enough um
community knowledge about which those
properties are right now because we
don't really have
um a large number of parks
um as it is so i i guess i would be
interested in sort of a phased approach
with community involvement
thank you very much director nicholson i
have director salmon
wilson marsh and smith director salmon
please
yeah thank you um i i prefer to wait
till 20.2 for a couple of reasons
um you know it's it's almost like i'd
rather put 100 000 into uh
actual acquisition if we were going to
do that rather than
a study i think sometimes we fall into
this sort of spill and a study that just
having it done will make it happen
whereas of course it's
this all depends on the availability of
the actual
land and whether we can make a deal so
i think in this year um given that our
existing master plan
actually supposed to run to the end of
2022 would be uh
i'd much prefer to uh defer starting
that and maybe get a bit more clarity on
the scope of what we're trying to do in
the meantime
thank you thank you moving on to
director wilson
thank you mr chair yeah um i'm glad this
has brought forward
this discussion because it is an
important one i
think one of the things i've got to pick
up on is that um
i'm not picking on you director marsh
but you said that this board has made it
clear
that they want a 0 mandate increase here
uh this is not going to be uh helping
that in any other way
um and i'd like to know whether some of
them
some of the phrases which are used in in
this report here
um for uh environmental uh protection
conservation etc
under the lga i've looked and i can't
see
anywhere in the lga where there's a
mandate for local government
such as ours to protect ecosystems or
something like that that is a provincial
um area and i don't see anywhere else
that
uh that it's going in one of the most
important parts that
has to be looked at is it's all very
well and and and i'm glad that
um director sebring brought this up was
the cost
of maintaining the land once we've got
it
every report that has come forward has
said basically
uh we're going to buy this lender we'd
like to buy this land it's going to cost
a million dollars
nowhere in those reports does it say but
it's gonna cost us two hundred thousand
a year to maintain develop or improve
this
and this is something that i would like
to see in any report that comes forward
regarding acquisition there should be a
section in there
which includes a detailed analysis
of the possible costs involved in taking
that on
you buy a car it's going to cost you you
buy a house it's going to cost you as it
comes on
we don't see those detailed analyses of
where
and how much it's going to cost as we go
forward and that's something i would
like to see in
involved one of the things that was
touched on was that
all this was agreed by referendum and
any changes would have to go
back to a referendum and in this
particular case um
i'm going to say thank you very much to
the finance department because
we've had um i've had some discussions
with them during the week
they're very very good at explaining uh
the intricacies of what goes on as far
as financing is concerned and i have a
much better picture
yes this would have any changes to the
acquisition would have to go back to a
referendum
um certainly not the much maligned aap
that's for sure so we can't change the
acquisition without going to
a a very costly thing but what we can do
is make sure that any acquisition report
that comes forward
contains a section which says if we do
this is what it will cost you for the
next five years
thank you very much thank you directoris
wilson i have director marsh director
smith
and director staples yes
thank you very much mr chair i believe
what i
said was um i acknowledge that
a lot of people on the board wanted this
to be honest
an austerity austerity budget
so um director kuhn if you thought i was
saying that i
agreed with that that's not what i was
saying
the part of the report
i don't know what you call it the the um
the second part the the part comes up
that comes out of the main page
uh speaks about the need for
protection and preservation of
sensitive ecosystems and someone sent me
an article this morning
written in the guardian that i i haven't
had a chance to read
but basically um it's
this will give you an idea top
scientists
warn of ghastly future of mass
extinction and climate disruption
and and i think that we've you know for
well as long as i've been a counselor or
and or a director but even longer
we've known that um we were on a course
but should we continue it um
and i'm talking about the collective
worldwide we
because i think uh 10 years ago the cbrd
was doing some really great things in
terms of
purchasing land but it seems to me given
um the
[Music]
acceleration of the changes we've been
warned we're coming for quite some time
you know for instance um you know the
entire
west coast of the united states burning
most of the summer
and the number of floods i think
i think someone told me and i didn't
check it out i believed them
that and it was before last night's
storm
that in a period of about eight days we
had
seven storms or something like that in
this general region
so mr chair point of order are we
talking about budget here are we talking
about the
environment
thank you director wilson continue
director marsh
thank you mr chair so um
i so uh i feel that um
you know if people want to put it off
you know that's could be the way they go
i would prefer to get started
especially if as has been said it's
going to take four to five months
and you know we are actually
so fortunate here to have
so much land and um
much of it is fee simple land and
so i think that given we've run down the
reserves pretty low in this function
and um we agreed as part of our
strategic plan we wanted to have a
review of it
um you know i would hate to miss uh
the chance to to do um
purchases that would help us do our part
and and adapt because i think the
mitigation
of climate change those days are over
now
we are facing it and it's going to
continue to get worse
and the decisions we make today will
affect our great grandchildren
on how bad it's going to be including
potentially leading to extinction so
i i support doing this um
and i as you know would support the full
acquisition which
i understand um is not likely to happen
under this
this board but i i'll end with saying
that
a statistical survey done
by the center for policy alternatives in
canada
um the results of that were that 71
of canadians want every level of
government
that includes local to do everything
they can
no matter what it costs basically
to preserve uh our ecosystems
and to do our part in adapting
to climate change um
so you can read that in um
a book called a good war
and it's all right i hate to cut you off
i do have an extensive speaker's list
i'm done thank you very much thank you
for your tolerance i know that we do
uh that you do support the function and
we appreciate your
your input director smith staples
yanni dinardo and salmon
uh thank you i also um
have concerns with the development costs
involved in purchasing uh land
that this function definitely doesn't
take that into consideration it's very
important i mean we're sitting here
looking at
rcao's background picture which is butte
island
and a wharf and that comes with
conditional
assessments and wondering what the
replacement cost of that is
so i think that we need to also take
into consideration
development costs whether trails will be
put into the property
along with the purchase price i
also have concerns that the province of
bc
should be looking at tracts of land and
conservancy organizations
that purchase land so i'm a little
concerned about us
heading off into a direction that is not
something we're mandated
as a local government i
believe that we need to pursue this
looking into it
but a hundred thousand out of operating
reserves at this time
is a hundred thousand that's not
available for
the purchase of land i will not be
supporting
this uh project at this time
thank you thank you very much director
smith i have director staples next
yeah thank you i think that we always
have to remember the cost of
when we don't do things as well um
this this every time this topic comes up
um at our board anything related to
parks we sort of
seem to meander away from the actual
motion that's on the floor
and what we're actually discussing
discussing into the
you know whether or not we value the
importance of parks
and since everyone's been going there
i'm gonna step
in at this time and go there as well
because the public has been
over and over again in in surveys that
we've done at the city and surveys that
the regional district
has done in the people who have come to
the budget meetings
one of the things that people talk about
particularly
more now than ever during covid is the
importance
of parks the importance of outdoor space
that's accessible to everyone
the importance of protecting those
spaces
and as i've heard a million times
at every conference i've ever gone to
from local politicians from people
you know we we can say that we need the
province to do this
but this is the community that we live
in and we need to decide what's
important to us and our community has
asked us over and over again to value
parks to value outdoor spaces to value
our ecosystem and to protect it
and so i'm not saying that this study is
is i liked director nicholson's idea of
phasing something in i think that that
would be something
at this time that would um be
appropriate
but i think the ongoing conversation
about
not supporting um and protecting
space in our region is is not a
direction that we should go as a board
thank you thank you director staples
perhaps we have to lean
lenient of a chair to allow that sort of
discussion to
continue no in all fairness i think all
points of view are
our relatives but if we can stick to the
budget portion that we're
discussing today i'd appreciate that
director yanni dinardo
thank you mr chair um i would just like
to say that
uh the scope of this i am in favor
of the parkland acquisition but it we
did say that we wanted a review
um i'm just concerned about the scope of
this review i'm all in favor of it
and um i i kind of between
uh director sebring and director
nicholson the maintenance the long-term
costs
like they're all great but what will it
cost us
later it should be in the scope like it
needs to be
the maintenance the whole package is
this another staff member is this you
know i believe that we need to look at
this
in likely even a phased
um in a phased project too
so part of it this year and and part of
it next year and not really rushing it
and just having
you know a consultant paper we need to
really look at this in
and the long-term costs as well
i think our cio would like to chime in
on this yeah thank you mr chair so i've
been listening to the conversation and
directors are all making good points and
maybe just to help you along
and to compile a bunch of the comments
that were made we can afford to
to spend some time developing the scope
of this project before approving the
budget and i get the sense that there's
differing differing expectations around
the table with
with respect to what this uh review
might entail so
uh for your consideration you may want
to consider having
having a select committee of the of the
uh
of the regional services committee to to
come together
develop the scope so that staff can then
go out and determine how best to deliver
that whether we would do it in a hybrid
model between
uh staff and consultants or consultant
but i think we've kind of put the cart
before the horse and we're getting
bogged down on that so
i would present that to the to the
committee for consideration that we
defer
it's coming from operating reserves so
you can amend the budget at a later date
to accommodate the cost of doing this
project moving forward
great thank you for that uh insight i
have two more speakers director salmon
and director wilson do you still wish to
speak
directly salmon yeah briefly that that
helps thank you mr crutherson
well i just had a specific just starting
back to what director wilson said
um if we did this management plan and it
came out with a new
new direction new criteria for
acquisition
does that mean we would need to get new
public approval on another referendum
chair i think i could respond to that no
i don't believe so i mean the the
services for
acquisition of parks how you go about
are there priorities or the criteria
that you use i don't believe that we
would require an amendment
um to the to the service to do that okay
thank you
but i think one of the questions if i
may was if maintenance were to be added
into that
would that require um any
any input reference wise yes through the
chair the the uh
the service is specific to acquisition
uh maintenance is
is a separate issue and i think those
issues of incorporating maintenance
costs into acquisition
um one's acquisition one's operating but
that can be included in your scope of
your review as well to to
to discuss great just so that we're
clear i have director wilson and i'm
director still
thank you mr chair um there's some good
uh
there's some good discussion coming
forward here and i'd like to just um
reinforce the fact that i am not a catch
parkland acquisition
at all i'm just looking at the way it's
been
administered over the last few years and
that's
basically what i'm looking at is the
cost the budgetary cost
of this and that's why i brought up the
ongoing maintenance the improvements and
everything else that goes with it
um i i have to say about the um
budgetary meetings that we're public
meetings that we had
um and i think director staples just
said um that you know there were some
um attendees public attendees who came
there weren't that many there was only
one uh that on certainly
and i attended every all four of them
and any
opposition or any um any
anything that's coming forward in in
support of the parkland acquisition seem
to be coming
from one from one direction only and and
i'm concerned about that but
however let me let me reinforce i am not
opposed to acquisition
i am in favor of acquisition what i am
not in favor of
is the way it's being spent and that's
why i want to be so careful
on how much it's actually going to cost
us to buy
that and then maintain that as well
thank you director wilson director stone
to close
yeah just to to summarize um there is in
the in the
materials when we establish the
referendum it does say specifically
uh 11 specific sites in of interest
having significant
regional outdoor recreation and natural
values for acquisition so
it was understood from my recollection
and from the materials that i've
collected that
that there is some contemplation of
natural values or ecological values if
you will
um that being said i'm fully supportive
of deferring the actual spend
till either later this year as mr
crothers just said
we can amend the budget if we decide we
need some funding as we get through this
year
but deferring that item this year and
doing like he also suggested a select
committee
where we can work with staff and members
of the board to determine
the scope of the review and just a lot
final comment is
parkland acquisition we have a function
for parkland maintenance and operations
we already have a function for
it's just that when the reports come it
should
tell us what those costs will be not
that we have to change the function and
draw it down to do the maintenance
but that we know that the other function
is going to bump up as a result of
a parkland acquisition so um i would say
that i think we're
ready to call the question thank you we
are and the uh
it has been moved in second i see
director nicholson's hand come up though
thanks i just would like i i i'm i think
we're heading in the right direction on
the select committee but i would like to
make sure that
we do that this get it going sooner
rather than later
so that we actually get some work
substantive work done this year so we
are in a better position to
do some work uh you know to get move on
things next year
um so i guess my question through just
through to you just to staff is
do you have the capacity to get this off
the ground right away
i think that would be up to us to
implement that select committee through
chair stone
and to get that process going as soon as
possible if i'm not mistaken
uh if you could correct me if i'm wrong
chairstone
right as far as i can tell i think that
there's going to be some requiring of
staff resourcing but we can talk about
that with staff
if we do need other resources as mr
crothers already explained
we can make that budget amendment if we
want to allocate a small amount of
funding out of those operational
reserves this year
um if we need some assistance in in
helping develop that scope but i don't
see that as a necessity at this moment
as soon as possible implementing that
subcommittee uh yes mr crothers
so given that this is a corporate
services
meeting to discuss budget i would
suggest that you refer this matter
you can deal with this resolution in
front of you back to regional services
at which time you can have a
conversation about the establishment of
a select committee and and how to go
about that and what support staff can
provide to
uh to get that uh committee established
thank you very much one more time for
hands
so we do have a motion on the floor
do we need a referral motion director
morrison
thank you mr chair
so perhaps staff can correct me if i'm
wrong
um the motion that we're putting
that's before us is a placeholder
to possibly do the work with
funds that will come out of operating
reserve
so if we approve this resolution
all of those things can take place
and we don't have to spend a penny of
money
or a penny until the scope in terms of
reference or whatever
select committee is decided upon
if this resolution moves forward and is
adopted as
is is is that a correct assessment
of the outcome of passing this
resolution
is there a staff person could answer
that
i will refer to ms saldara to answer
that
my understanding based on the discussion
was that we would defer
allocating funds towards this project
until we had
uh set up the select committee and
established a clear return of reference
so you could still do it but it would
require a budget amendment
okay that clarifies i think i saw
director marsh please
yes i'm sorry mr chair but i got bumped
off for about five minutes so
i'd really like to just hear the motion
before you call the vote thank you
miss lego would you like to read that
sure uh the motion was that the
supplemental
that would be recommended to the board
that the supplemental request for
function 285 regional parkland
acquisition master plan review be
approved
okay are we ready for the question
all those in favor
those opposed see director
sebring wilson smith
yanni dinardo salmon and
anyone else
can you leave your hands up again those
opposed
sebring smith danny dinardo
salmon wilson
miss lego that's six opposed
so the motion carries can i just
very much absolutely absolutely director
stone
uh i just want to say this has no effect
on requisition and again
as staff said six of one half dozen to
the other right so
the motion's approved it's in the budget
but we've already kind of
informally agreed to to strike a select
committee to discuss the scope
and as we get through that we can report
back to the board with direction
so it really has no force and effect on
this year's budget but
if we need it it's there thank you right
no thanks for that clarification
i don't know about you but i think i
need to stretch
uh if you're willing for a 10-minute
recess
um well we can get a drink or a coffee
or whatever we need
we'll do a 10 minute recess
how much time do i have
camera's live welcome back directors
i hope we've all coffeed up and ready to
go again
um with your indulgence we will return
to r1
uh director nicholson had asked that
that be delayed until her
attendance and if we could miss lego
thank you mr chair item r1 is a report
from the finance division on the parks
and trails 2021 draft budgets referred
from december
2nd special electoral area services
committee meetings
and this is for the community parks
budgets for area e g and
h and i believe each of the directors
have something that they'd like to
propose for those budgets so perhaps we
could address them separately
okay who would wish to start let's start
with director nicholson
as she had asked for this to be delayed
tricker nicholson please
thank you um i'd like to recommend to
the board that draft
uh 2021 budget for function 235
area e community parks be amended by
number one
increasing the minor capital by ten
thousand dollars
increasing invasive species management
by five thousand dollars
and increasing requisition by fifteen
thousand dollars
of a seconder that has been moved and
seconded if you wish to
speak to it so uh i met with my parks
commission
last thursday night and the the
recommendation that i'm making is based
on their concerns
about a couple of projects that need to
be done
shouldn't be delayed out at glenora
trail head park and
keeping on top of invasive species
management in our parks which is
becoming an increasing problem
great thank you very much any further
discussion on that
director wilson thank you mr chair just
a quick question for
director nicholson i i have no problem
with supporting this at all
which i will do uh just a question does
it come out of your budget it doesn't
impact the overall budget just as a
point of clarification
miss soldera that would come from the uh
local
community parks function would it not
absolutely so the requisition
uh percentage increase will actually
reflect the 15
000 increase as as a the total number
but only those participants in the
service would pay for the service so yes
those would come
all from the residence of electoral aid
and we all know director wilson that you
do
support parks thank you very much
so can i call the question on this one
all those in favor opposed if any
uh moving on to uh number two
was there an amendment on this one as
well
i believe director smith has something
i missed your hand director smith i
apologize i see you there now
please thank you
uh uh that it be recommended to the
board that the draft
2021 function 237
area g community parks be amended by
increasing minor capital by 15 000
increasing major capital land
improvement by
21 000 increasing transfer
from capital reserves by 21 000
increased transfers from operating
reserves by 15
000. and i'll speak to that if i have a
seconder
been moved in second please carry on
thank you very much
i we have had some
deterioration in our trails over time
and i really appreciate the
assistance by mr farquhar and his
department for giving me the
costs that would assist with doing
a type 2 trail on the southeast forest
loop in centennial park one of the
advantages of upgrading that trail
will be a active transportation
connection to the from sort of the
subdivision over to the
newly opened uh solitaire uh
canco supermarket so that's an excellent
upgrade that we will be looking forward
to and
with the mud that has uh transpired in
princess die park over the years it's
now reached
an area of approximately five to six
inches so
this will definitely work to improve
those areas
and i appreciate that i'm looking
forward to also
the parks commission did approve
the centennial park lower uh
ball court cracks repairs and ceiling
under minor capital the tennis courts
under um minor capital to be the
surfaces
for cracks and mitigation work and
the five thousand dollars for the
removal of the tennis practice court as
a risk assessment has been done on the
condition
of those the court there at this time
i'd like to thank the cvrd staff in
parks and trails for assisting
to bring forward these projects at this
time thank you
thank you very much any further
discussion
i'll call the question all those in
favor opposed if any
i'm going to try to turn to you director
martin and see if your connectivity
issues are
still ongoing you had something in your
area as well
yes um if you can hear me uh item r1
yeah i'd like to have that um recommend
that to be deferred
to the generate special corporation
meeting and
the other day to
advisory commission
so i think we got the gist of that you
would like to defer
that to the january 25th special
corporate services meeting do i need a
seconder on that one
moved in seconded uh mr chair i
i just want to point out in case that no
one else knows that
director martin had put this in the chat
so we can remember that that's something
to look for if someone is having
connectivity or speaking problems that
we can always put
put it in the chat thank you yeah i did
note that
but i wanted to see if his connectivity
had
resolved itself it doesn't seem to but i
think we've got the gist of it director
uh martman moved second ready for the
question
oh is that a question director morrison
okay all in favor sorry opposed if any
thank you very much i believe that
concludes our one
thank you mr chair on to item r6 which
is a verbal report from the finance
division on the budget public engagement
and that is for information
okay miss older would you like to uh
speak to this thank you very much
uh as most of you are aware we held four
virtual
public meetings on the budget and i
really appreciate everyone's attendance
at those uh it was nice to see so many
people from the
community from the board showing up and
uh
as i believe was alluded to previously
um we
did not have great turnout but we did
have people show up at every single
one so that was better at least than
when we did them in person where we had
two with no participants
um so we did have a total of 16 people
participate in those virtual budget
public meetings we had some good
question
and discussion at our very first meeting
which um
made me all excited and then limited uh
discussion at the other meetings but
as i say that uh was there the
meetings were all recorded and my
understanding from communications is
that they will be posted to our website
for people to access whenever they
feel like it in the future and i will be
following up with a written report
to the committee for the at the january
25th
meeting which will include feedback from
our play speak
um item and people are welcome to go on
and look at that feedback now
we have had 59 surveys filled out and 47
discussion
threads and so i will include a formal
written report with
any feedback from the public meetings as
well as from the play speak
at the january 25th meeting but just
wanted to let you know
what happened at the virtual budget
public meetings which ended last night
great i'd like to just thank you
and staff who were involved in that
process i know it's a difficult time to
try to get
information out to the public and we
tried our best virtually
i do have a speakers list i have
director stone
wilson and yanni dinardo
i just just a little bit of feedback
from our community that
it was scheduled on the same night and
time as our
committee of the whole meeting so it was
difficult for ladies with folks to
participate in both and i know there's
some interest with our council and they
were unable to participate
due to performing their council duties
or to at least attend
so can you just when those are posted it
would be appreciated
if we could get uh an email just to let
us know when they're up and then we can
share those with our community members
thank you
great thank you very much director
wilson
uh thank you mr chair just a word of
congratulations to
miss aldera very uh very concise uh
presentation uh very professional
and very clear so thank you very much
for that uh talitha great job
would that mean that your area had the
most participation director wilson
we did actually yeah yeah
thank you i have director janie dinardo
then director marsh
thank you i'd just like to echo my
fellow directors and um
thank also um mr schumacher that did a
great job as a host
and um also miss saldera and also the
people that did actually get on and
speak were quite impressed
and they were actually really surprised
that each and every one of them got to
you know be spoken to
and you know it worked out that way
really well because we had small groups
we actually spoke to each person and
asked with if they had questions and
i think that was very successful so i'd
like to thank um
the staff and of course everyone who
attended as well
thank you very much director marsh and
then director smith
yes thank you mr chair just further to
what chair stone said um
there was also some conflict with um
some north couch and things and i'm just
wondering if the
corporate services legislative staff can
kind of
communicate with everyone at these busy
times so that
um those of us who are on the board
can come to the board things um i don't
know if that's too much to ask but it's
just a suggestion thank you
i think a number of us did have
conflicts with our
council and municipal obligations as
well
i couldn't attend the lady smith one for
lake couch and council obligations but
i tried to attend as many as i could and
thankfully got to attend a few of them
director smith you're next
thank you i'd like to thank the staff
for arranging having
four different meetings at four
different times that gave an opportunity
for people if they were unable to attend
the one that was for their area they
also had an opportunity to still attend
a meeting it was definitely
the presentations are really delightful
and i really would like to thank the
staff
and mr schumacher for hosting it
it's a little hard to look at some of
the numbers of the attendees and
hoping the number goes up but i think
that having them posted to the website
will definitely
improve the opportunity for our
communities to actually
look at them and and take their time
going through those presentations as a
video
thank you very much for all the work
that an effort that went into all those
four meetings
thank you very much uh director staples
yeah just to echo that thanks to safa
and the meetings were facilitated
um extremely well and and i think that
of of the sort of things that we're
learning through the types of format
that we're stuck with right now
i feel that um exploring that type of
format for delivery of budget meetings
would be
something that we should consider in the
future because i think that
while there weren't a lot of attendees i
think it is
at least you know rather than having
them all in person to have some online i
think would be something that we should
um
just carry forward i think that that
helps some people
um with their ability to attend
thank you great thank you very much
anyone further again miss soldera thanks
to you
and every other staff member that was
involved in those presentations
and i encourage people to uh once the
videos are up go up and see what the
impacts
of these budget discussions will be on
your particular area
moving on miss lego thank you mr chair i
guess we're on to question period
and checking my email i see no
submissions
so we would be looking for a motion to
close the meeting to the public
in accordance with the community charter
section 91c
okay moved and seconded all those in
favor
opposed if any that carries
now we will leave this meeting and go to
the separate closed i believe
that's correct we'll end this meeting
and start a separate meeting