[2:15] You are now live. All right, Corn being present. I'd
[2:19] like to call this Council Meaning to Order. Our first
[2:21] item of Business is a resolution to close the meeting
[2:23] of the Public. On the basis of the following sections,
[2:26] the Community Charter, Section 91A91E91G and 91i. What someone like
[2:32] to move the staff recommendation by Councillor Hog, second to
[2:35] buy Councillor Callio, any discussion, call the question all in
[2:38] favor. And oppose, and oppose motion carries.
[2:01:24] Mr. Mayor, you are now live. All right with the
[2:01:28] corn being present. I'd like to resume our regular Council
[2:01:32] Meaning that we'd like to start by acknowledging we are
[2:01:34] gathered here today on the traditionals of the Quatsum people.
[2:01:40] So our first Item of Business here is approval of
[2:01:43] the consent agenda and I'm going to ask Council, are
[2:01:46] there any items you would like move to new business
[2:01:48] for discussion. I'm going to ask that we move item
[2:01:58] 4. 2. 7, the letter from the suminose marsh society
[2:02:01] to new business. All right, then would someone like to
[2:02:07] move, sorry. That Council proved the consent agenda and the
[2:02:14] recommendations contain therein? Moved by Councillor Caliosik, my Council Manhouse,
[2:02:18] any discussion, called the question all in favor. An opposed,
[2:02:22] unapposed motion carries. We're now going to move on to
[2:02:31] the approval of the Meeting Agenda. So we have recommendation
[2:02:35] the agenda be adopted as circulated with someone like to
[2:02:37] move that. Councillor Calio, seconded by Councillor Estash, any discussion.
[2:02:42] I'll call the question all in favor. And opposed, an
[2:02:45] opposed motion carries. We'll now move on to the Maris
[2:02:49] Report. I'll keep this brief as in. A lot ahead
[2:02:53] of us here. So I like to give Council and
[2:02:58] members the Public and update on various events and meetings
[2:03:02] I have held over the last two weeks. So I
[2:03:04] had the pleasure touring the Honey Belane bees farm at
[2:03:07] the Honey B lane B's at Quail Grove Farm, which
[2:03:12] is located just off Lake Road. With owners Jeanette and
[2:03:15] Tom Chudley along with several local farmers. We're at a
[2:03:19] chance to learn about beekeeping and the port and roll
[2:03:22] they play in agriculture and food security. There's a value
[2:03:26] opportunity, sorry, a valuable opportunity to hear directly from local
[2:03:29] farmers about the challenges and opportunities facing agriculture in our
[2:03:32] municipality. I just say to Council that Jeanette and Tom
[2:03:36] would be happy to welcome any of you for a
[2:03:38] tour of their property as well if you're interested. I
[2:03:42] was also honoured to join the Seek Temple on Sherman
[2:03:44] Road for a celebration marking 41 years since it's establishment,
[2:03:49] including the Nishan Shahib Seva and the completion of the
[2:03:54] Sri Akhan path Sahib G and the Cathan Courtan. It's
[2:04:00] great to see Councillor Manhouse and Councillor Justice there as
[2:04:03] well. And I'm grateful for the congregations continue commitment to
[2:04:07] SEVA. Which is sharing equality, compassion and helping those in
[2:04:11] need in our community. Also recently attended the official opening
[2:04:16] of North Couch and this new 18 whole disc golf
[2:04:19] course at the Floor Lake, right near the Fort Lake
[2:04:22] Arena, which was developed on underutilized municipal land and partnership
[2:04:26] with the Couchmelley Disc Golf club and various community partners.
[2:04:30] Want to recognise councillors, Estash and Justice. We're there to
[2:04:35] attend the event. The course is already attracted more than
[2:04:38] 1, 100 players who have completed over 5, 500 rounds
[2:04:42] of disc golf, demonstrating its appeal to both residents and
[2:04:46] visitors. And from what we heard from some of the
[2:04:49] disc golf enthusiasts of the bent, this is one of
[2:04:51] the best courses they've ever played on and many of
[2:04:54] these folks have travelled right around North America participating in
[2:04:58] disc golf. Last week I also travelled to Powell River
[2:05:02] to meet with their mayor Ron Waznov and tour the
[2:05:05] former paper mill site and learn about their experiences following
[2:05:09] the mills permanent closure and the redevelopment of the property.
[2:05:12] We also met with the CEO of the Cranberry Group.
[2:05:16] They're in the process of purchasing about They're currently demolishing
[2:05:23] some of the structures, which having worked in a Pult
[2:05:26] and Paper Mill. It's sad to see these structures and
[2:05:29] infrastructure move, recognising that so much work went into building
[2:05:32] them in the first place. However, the cranberry group is
[2:05:36] anticipating the four or five anchor tenants over the next
[2:05:39] year. And perhaps upwards of 1, 000 jobs on the
[2:05:42] site, which would obviously be a great win for Powell
[2:05:46] River and hopefully we see something similar, transpire here with
[2:05:50] the Crofton Millsite. Which you'll note is larger and has
[2:05:55] certain advantages that the Powell River site may not have.
[2:05:59] While on Powell River, I also had a chance to
[2:06:00] visit two of their new treatment and recovery facilities that
[2:06:03] are operated by MIGLAT recovery and partnership with Together We
[2:06:07] Can, who is Council Nose is currently working with our
[2:06:10] municipality in recent the OpenDop a facility not far from
[2:06:13] here. These two facilities provide 24 beds for people struggling
[2:06:17] with addiction. And, um, they did initially open them without
[2:06:22] provincial or health authority funding, but have since been successful
[2:06:27] in securing funding through Vancouver Coastal Health. And, uh, we
[2:06:32] were hopeful to get similar funding here in North Couch
[2:06:35] and for the existing gathery canned facility. What they did
[2:06:38] advise during the tour was that in some cases you
[2:06:41] got to get these facilities up and running, demonstrate that
[2:06:43] they're going to be a success. And that puts you
[2:06:45] never position to secure funding either from Island Health of
[2:06:49] the Province. And finally, on Monday, I joined members of
[2:06:54] the community in Crofton to mark international overdose awareness day.
[2:06:58] Remember those who have lost their lives to the drug
[2:07:00] toxic drug crisis is honoured to be part of the
[2:07:03] event, which is organised by local resident Chad Cossen. Remember
[2:07:07] his sister Jenny who tragically passed away eight years ago.
[2:07:11] The event began in Winnipeg a number of years ago,
[2:07:13] but has since moved out here to the Couch and
[2:07:16] Valley. And yeah, it was a way to bring together,
[2:07:19] uh, many people from our community of all walks of
[2:07:22] life who have been impacted by this crisis. And that
[2:07:27] concludes my mayor's report. We're now going to move on
[2:07:29] to Public Input and we have five, uh, five individuals
[2:07:36] assigned up for Public Input. So for anyone who hasn't
[2:07:40] participated in this, uh, process before, we allow five speakers
[2:07:46] up to three minutes each to speak on an item
[2:07:48] on the agenda. So first I'm going to, uh, welcome
[2:07:53] Robert Bunyan, who is participating online, Mr. Bunyan, if you
[2:07:56] could state your address. And again, it's three minutes you
[2:07:59] have to provide your input.
[2:08:09] Mr. Bunyan, can you hear us? And here you. Can
[2:08:13] you hear me, sir? Yep. I can hear you. Please
[2:08:15] continue. Oh, perfect. Uh, uh, yes, my name is Robert
[2:08:19] Bunyan. I live on the mainland and grew up in
[2:08:22] Chemanus. I'd like to start off by saying good evening
[2:08:27] to you, the mayor and Council members. Um, I wanted
[2:08:32] to start off by acknowledging Mr. Mason's report on the
[2:08:36] legacy Memorial Bench Program. And I can appreciate that Council
[2:08:41] has a lot to digest before making any recommendations. I
[2:08:46] had a conversation with Mr. Mason Mason on Tuesday, September
[2:08:50] 1st regarding the maintenance of my bench. That sits in
[2:08:54] Waterwheel Park shamanis. He confirmed me that the work had
[2:08:57] been done and completed in the fall of 2025. I
[2:09:02] asked him what the cost was. He was only able
[2:09:04] to give me an estimate that being in between 1000
[2:09:08] and 1200 dollars. As they don't keep the records for
[2:09:11] individual benches that are being restored. He also indicated in
[2:09:15] his report that there are 19 legacy Memorial benches dating
[2:09:19] back to 2004 or earlier. And I'm speculating when I
[2:09:24] say with respect to the other 18, I feel that
[2:09:27] there was no pushback with the changes that, uh, were
[2:09:31] introduced in 2009. And that I stand alone. I stand
[2:09:36] alone in my pursuit of securing agreement. The agreement that
[2:09:40] I agreed to, uh, with the prior administration in 2024
[2:09:45] or 2004, pardon me. Uh, before the August, 2025 meeting,
[2:09:51] if you recall Mayor, I had a reached out to,
[2:09:54] to, to you, uh, my telephone proposing, uh, that we,
[2:09:58] uh, uh, an alternative materials, i. e. man - made,
[2:10:04] uh, product where maintenance costs would be minimal in comparison
[2:10:08] to a cedar bench. I provided a picture of, uh,
[2:10:13] of one many, uh, many different styles that the company
[2:10:18] wishbone has in their catalogue after meeting in August 2025.
[2:10:23] I was informed by a staff member that someone would
[2:10:25] follow up with respect to the outcome of the meeting.
[2:10:29] I waited and waited and never got a response back.
[2:10:32] I felt fairly optimistic that Council would agree to this
[2:10:36] proposal. My plan was to use the money that the
[2:10:39] city had already committed to restoring my bench on the
[2:10:42] new bench. And I would make up the shortfall for
[2:10:45] the, for the new bench. Uh, in closing, I will
[2:10:48] say that I'm willing to work with Council to get
[2:10:51] to a place where it is a win - win
[2:10:53] for both, both sides. My ultimate goal is to have
[2:10:57] my bench grandfather at Imperportunity as originally agreed to the
[2:11:02] policy that was set in 2024. Um, uh, thank you
[2:11:08] to the mayor and Council members for the opportunity to
[2:11:11] speak to this matter. Um, I would appreciate if someone,
[2:11:15] uh, could follow up with this with respect to the
[2:11:18] outcome of this meeting and having said, having said that,
[2:11:23] I'll yield back to the mayor. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:11:27] All right, I'll now turn to the next speaker, Peter
[2:11:29] Rustlin. If you give him up to the podium, state
[2:11:31] your address.
[2:11:41] Thanks. Trish. Thanks for worship. My name is Peter Rustland.
[2:11:46] I live at 5807 banks Road in North Cowlichan. I'm
[2:11:51] urging Council again to pass. Emotions 9. 1 and 12.
[2:11:58] 1. I guess 13 one, you know, is it in
[2:12:04] some ways related to 12 one. So I'll speak to
[2:12:07] those first two prohibiting data centres. This is a no
[2:12:11] brainer given all the environmental and energy, uh, problems and
[2:12:16] other jurisdictions and cities in North America that are banning
[2:12:18] them. Uh, and those communities that do have a doubt
[2:12:22] of Denisetter have heavy problems with energy, water issues, noise,
[2:12:26] pollution. Uh, farmland loss. So, uh, that having said that,
[2:12:33] those things dovetail with our environmental bylaws and our, and
[2:12:38] our climate bylaws. But also 13 one agricultural land support,
[2:12:43] um, definitely, uh, I, I back this. This is somewhat
[2:12:47] of a, a reversal, uh, in that Council had recently
[2:12:52] failed to reconfirm a motion by a councillor, uh, Justice
[2:12:58] about, um, uh, reconfirming that North Countrygen is rural and
[2:13:02] farmland. And now here we are, uh, with its seeming
[2:13:06] reversal of that thought. Um, so I would urge 13
[2:13:11] one and 12 one to be passed. The other no
[2:13:14] brainer is 9. 1 about the, um, uh, the developer
[2:13:19] donations and disclosure policy. Um, this is, uh, something that
[2:13:26] should have been passed long ago, a year ago. Uh,
[2:13:30] to, for nothing else, uh, to show that Council is
[2:13:34] serious about recusal and dealing with developers and donations, uh,
[2:13:40] if nothing else, do rebuild the Publix trust in this
[2:13:42] Council that is, uh, has been reportedly sullied in the
[2:13:47] Public's eye. By seeming bias, by some councillors for them
[2:13:53] on this table. So again, I would, this is the
[2:13:57] very least we should do. The word must recuse, uh,
[2:14:01] must consider recusing. I see that as a nothing more
[2:14:04] than a fox and a chicken house, chicken in the
[2:14:07] hen house. Uh, I would have used stronger words like
[2:14:10] must recuse. Uh, in depending case by Kissin through staff
[2:14:15] in your worship. To determine, uh, that, uh, thank you
[2:14:23] very much for your time, Council and your. Turn of
[2:14:30] the next speaker, Steven Volker. If you come up to
[2:14:32] the podium state or dress. Good evening. Honourable mayor and
[2:14:37] honourable councillors. My name is Steven Volker. My address is
[2:14:40] 2217Tarnplace in North Cowlican. I wish to address you on
[2:14:45] items 9. 1 and 12. 1. Item 9. 1 reintroduces
[2:14:53] the August 19 motion to require Council members to do
[2:14:58] two things. One, disclose all donations from persons or entities
[2:15:04] with a financial interest in municipal land use matters and
[2:15:08] consider recusing themselves from Council Discussions of Such Matters. Two,
[2:15:14] report all meetings with persons, with a commercial interest in
[2:15:19] land use matters within 30 days and seek guidance regarding
[2:15:24] potential or perceived bias before participating in decisions on such
[2:15:30] matters. These are eminently sensible proposals. I urge you to
[2:15:34] approve this motion. The real estate industry is by far
[2:15:40] the biggest donor class. In our municipal elections. We conducted
[2:15:46] a search of public records. It revealed. That in the
[2:15:51] 2022 and 2025 elections, the approximate percentages of contributions from
[2:15:58] this industry, excluding self and family donations were as follows.
[2:16:05] Councillor Tech Manhouse 74 percent. Councillor Bruce Finley 72 percent.
[2:16:13] Councillor Mike Cowyu 46 percent. Councillor Becky Hog 25 percent.
[2:16:20] The other three councillors each received less than three percent
[2:16:25] of their outside contributions from the real estate industry. Councillor
[2:16:30] Justice 2. 4 percent Mayor Douglas 0. 7 percent Councillor
[2:16:36] Ishtar Our democracy requires transparency. Information from this motion will
[2:16:44] provide us. The BITUS, the public with the information we
[2:16:49] need to make informed decisions at the ballot box. Please
[2:16:53] approve this motion. Thank you. With regard to item 12.
[2:16:57] 1, it asks staff to prepare a bylaw amendment. To
[2:17:01] ban data centres. This ban is needed to protect our
[2:17:05] valley from excessive demands on water supply and on electrical
[2:17:10] services from the loss of rural land and from harmful
[2:17:15] infrasound. Please utilise the best science and legal advice available
[2:17:20] to assure that this bylaw will survive legal challenge. Thank
[2:17:25] you. Thank you. Now turn to the next speaker Joyce
[2:17:30] Benson. You can come up to the podium, state your
[2:17:32] address. Thank you and good evening Mayor and Council, Joyce
[2:17:37] Benson on Drinkwater Road. And I'm speaking to 4. 1.
[2:17:41] 3, which is the accessibility advisory committee meetings, which I
[2:17:44] attended the Committee meeting the other last Tuesday morning. And
[2:17:47] I just would like to, the accessibility advisory committee has
[2:17:53] made a recommendation to purchase two listening devices to improve
[2:17:58] accessibility here in the Council Chambers for members of the
[2:18:02] Public attending Council meetings at the cost of perhaps about
[2:18:07] 5, 700 dollars. They're not sure because it could end
[2:18:09] up changing. And so what I'd like to, I wish
[2:18:13] to respectfully recommend that councillors and staff, I know that
[2:18:19] Council changes soon, but Councillors and staff improve on their
[2:18:23] public speaking skills by speaking clearly and directly into the
[2:18:29] microphones that are provided specifically to be heard by everyone.
[2:18:35] It could even possibly say 5, 700 dollars, but I'm
[2:18:37] just suggesting that there's something on the inside here that
[2:18:41] could definitely be improved upon. And I just encourage you
[2:18:44] all to think about that and to know that it's
[2:18:46] much needed and appreciated. Now one other item that is,
[2:18:51] I can't find it on the agenda, but it's in
[2:18:53] our local paper. Grant opens for Community - led climate
[2:18:56] action projects. And I see that we're handing out taxpayer
[2:19:00] hard - earned money to the public for all kinds
[2:19:02] of really odd and questionable projects and events. It's been
[2:19:07] done in the past and it's continuing. And I just
[2:19:10] want to challenge that once again that this climate action
[2:19:12] energy plan tax is like another carbon tax. Thank you
[2:19:15] very much for everything and all you do to serve.
[2:19:18] Thank you. Thank you. Now good our last speaker, Jim
[2:19:22] Dias. Come up at podium, state your address. I will
[2:19:27] note that Mr. Diases, a recipient of the freedom of
[2:19:30] the municipality award. Okay. Soon as I start talking, the
[2:19:37] clock starts going. Uh, good afternoon Mayor and Council. Thank
[2:19:39] you for the opportunity to address you once again. I'm
[2:19:42] here to speak with respect to amenity contributions at 3037
[2:19:48] - 3047 West Hills Place. Just some bullet points that
[2:19:52] I'd like you to consider. The applicants are not developers.
[2:19:56] The applicants are not responsible for your infrastructure deficit of
[2:20:00] 52. 4 million reported in the staff report. Staff is
[2:20:05] only recently brought it to your attention of our offer.
[2:20:09] Staff acknowledges that the Community, the CAC applicable to us
[2:20:14] is 15, 532 dollars. This amount creates a financial hardship.
[2:20:19] The CAAC policy is absent, nor were we ever advised
[2:20:23] and what criteria would be considered in quote, negotiations as
[2:20:27] referred to in the CAC policy. We've made an offer
[2:20:31] of 3, 500 dollars which we believe meets the criteria
[2:20:35] of a negotiation. As referred to in the policy. We
[2:20:42] are uncomfortable having to now negotiate in public in front
[2:20:46] of Council. There's no impact from our subdivision on the
[2:20:50] community at large or our neighbourhood and the scale of
[2:20:53] the subdivision is minimal. We've already expended a considerable amount
[2:20:58] of funds to get to this point and have considerable
[2:21:00] expenses going forward to complete the subdivision. Those are estimated
[2:21:04] at 50, 000 dollars. Quite a substantial sum to simply
[2:21:08] complete a one - lot subdivision. We have never considered
[2:21:12] nor contemplating additional density notwithstanding Bill 44. The assumption that
[2:21:17] that we can do that, what about water, what about
[2:21:21] sewer. It is just an assumption. Unlike a traditional developer,
[2:21:25] we will not able, we will not be able to
[2:21:27] recover costs to the salement lots. There needs to be
[2:21:31] consideration in your CAC policy for small lot, i. e.
[2:21:35] one extra lot subdivisions. You have a section 15A of
[2:21:40] bylaw number 1851, which is their subdivision servicing control bylaw.
[2:21:45] It states wherein service little requirements are not applicable to
[2:21:50] a subdivision of three new lots or less fronting on
[2:21:53] an existing road. So you've already established some consideration for
[2:21:59] small lot. Or like, I like to call them the
[2:22:01] mum and pops of the world. We have one request
[2:22:04] that you simply support our offer. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:22:11] All right, we're now going to move on to presentations.
[2:22:14] We have one presentation. This is the biannual fire department
[2:22:17] report and presentation. I'd like to welcome chief Ron French
[2:22:21] up to the podium. Good evening Mayor Council. Um, going
[2:22:29] to review our January 1st to June 30th. Activities from
[2:22:33] the first half of this year. No, there's.
[2:22:44] Part of our. Projects that we've been working on at
[2:22:48] the beginning of the year is getting our operational capital
[2:22:50] budgets in place. Uh, working with the finance and getting
[2:22:55] prepared for budget deliberations coming forward. For 2027. Uh, we
[2:23:02] are still working through some of the TEMPY recommendations, the
[2:23:06] non - monetary ones, uh, putting those pieces into place.
[2:23:10] Um, one said R will be coming back to Council
[2:23:13] for Council Approval as we move forward. Our preparing for
[2:23:18] our annual banquet October 3rd is on, on, ongoing, um,
[2:23:24] that's coming closer as we know. We did a recruitment
[2:23:27] drive last year and we brought on, uh, we had
[2:23:32] 18 applicants. We were able to secure nine of them
[2:23:37] as new recruits. Two were already experienced firefighters that have
[2:23:40] been moved into the various stations as we needed them.
[2:23:45] And we'll be looking probably January of 2027 to see
[2:23:49] if we need more numbers or another recruiting class. We
[2:23:54] did, uh, we did have low numbers in Crofton. We
[2:23:59] find it very difficult to recruit into the crafton area.
[2:24:02] We did a special recruitment drive. Prior to the summer
[2:24:06] starting in working with our communications people. Through the district.
[2:24:14] We did a lot more, uh, communicating with Public to
[2:24:19] try to drive more people in. It didn't turn out
[2:24:22] very successful, sadly enough. We only ended up with one
[2:24:25] member, uh, able to join Coften. There just wasn't the
[2:24:29] application to come in. For it. So we'll be looking
[2:24:33] at, uh, at that in the new year as well
[2:24:35] to try to see if we can get more people
[2:24:37] into the confidention. One of the projects that we've been
[2:24:44] working with, with Council Approval is to developing our, uh,
[2:24:48] live fire training centre. Located at the back of the
[2:24:52] municipal hall here. We've gotten, uh, partway through the project,
[2:24:57] uh, we're hoping to have it completed off here early
[2:25:01] October, November. So we'll be doing live fires or in
[2:25:04] - house live fire training and house here. So we're
[2:25:07] working through that as we, as the season goes on.
[2:25:10] We were able to hire, well, not higher, but we
[2:25:15] awarded David Lowe's. He was our fire inspector as our
[2:25:19] wildland. Operations, assistant chief. So David, as we hire replacements,
[2:25:25] we'll move over in looking after our wild end program
[2:25:28] and operations. And in addition, he'll be providing inspections as
[2:25:33] well. So our reorgan, our department, uh, the three assistant
[2:25:37] chiefs, uh, various ones will have their specific portfolios. One
[2:25:44] will be assisting with the training. One is prevention. And
[2:25:49] then the wildland, but all three will actually be doing
[2:25:51] inspections as well. So if you do a rolling the
[2:25:54] positions as we move forward. Prior to the, uh, startup,
[2:25:59] we signed into BC Wildfire, signed our municipality up to
[2:26:03] be able to respond to fires for the province if
[2:26:05] needed. All the training requirements to be ready to go.
[2:26:09] We're completed. And, uh, not in the first six months,
[2:26:12] but in the last month and a half, we've had
[2:26:15] three apparatus out with cruise. Uh, boat 31, 32 days
[2:26:20] altogether, uh, working for the province. Oh, 35 of our
[2:26:24] members were able to cycle through doing 70 or 14
[2:26:28] day tours out in different parts of the province supporting
[2:26:31] sporting that. Which was a very positive, uh, learning experience
[2:26:35] for our members, uh, to work with other departments across
[2:26:38] the province. Um, it was quite, quite happy that we
[2:26:42] could support the province again. I'm going to get into
[2:26:50] some of the numbers of responses from, for the first
[2:26:54] six months. Like many things we've had an increase in
[2:27:00] totals in 2025. From January to June. We had 852
[2:27:06] responses. 2026, we're up to 936 responses. So far.
[2:27:18] The additional kind of disappointing, but the additional area that
[2:27:22] we looked at, uh, at Council's request was the corridor.
[2:27:27] We've done a lot of work. I want to recognise
[2:27:30] that the Bylaw Department in our Department are working quite
[2:27:34] closely together now in responses to the corridor. However, we've
[2:27:38] had an increase of 58 percent of responses from this
[2:27:41] time last year to this end, into the corridor. I
[2:27:45] think the more, more people down in that area and
[2:27:50] just more incidents that we've had to deal with. Our
[2:27:57] medical calls. Are averaging out. We've had 196 calls for
[2:28:02] medical first responder calls within all, all four stations. Uh,
[2:28:07] throughout the department. Some of our false alarms. Which we,
[2:28:15] we send warning letters out. Levy fines, that sort of
[2:28:19] thing. Uh, when they come in, we've had 175 incidents
[2:28:23] that we've been dealing with, with false alarms with different
[2:28:27] areas that we go into. Our training, uh, that's taking
[2:28:32] place in the first six months. Told a number of
[2:28:35] hours for all the members in. We had 894 sessions
[2:28:40] of training sessions and 7, 993 hours combined total for
[2:28:46] everybody for the training that they've taken. And it's ongoing
[2:28:50] year round. So that number will increase by the time
[2:28:53] the end of the year comes. Our fire inspections division,
[2:28:59] um. We've, we've dealt with 662 files that we've touched
[2:29:03] on fire inspections pre inspection visits. What we found success
[2:29:10] in is that we actually go to a business ahead
[2:29:14] of time, a cursory. This is what we're looking for.
[2:29:17] Schedule another date to come back. Give the owner the
[2:29:20] occupant time to meet the requirements as the fire inspection.
[2:29:23] So they're more successful. Um, so we're doing an education
[2:29:28] component. As you know, we hadn't the district hadn't done
[2:29:33] many inspections from prior years. And we just introducing how
[2:29:37] the inspection program works and we're getting some fairly good
[2:29:40] compliance. We do have some that take some extra work
[2:29:44] to get there. But, uh, I think we're doing, we're
[2:29:49] doing much better than we were before. Structure fires, including
[2:29:55] outdoor fires, uh, buildings vehicle fires. We had 159 reportable
[2:30:00] fires. On there. And, uh, back to our Public Education
[2:30:06] Component that's going into the schools, community events, that sort
[2:30:12] of thing. Uh, we've able to speak to 1982 participants
[2:30:18] that came to those in the first six months. So.
[2:30:22] Um, lots of, lots of stuff going on with the
[2:30:25] Department and everybody staying, um, quite busy. But one of
[2:30:29] the things that makes our department, what it is, is
[2:30:33] the support we have from, not only from Council, but,
[2:30:37] uh, Human Resources. We do have a lot of HR
[2:30:42] issues we need to deal with. And I wouldn't be
[2:30:44] able to do it without their support. And the other
[2:30:47] piece that we've been really taping into lately is trying
[2:30:50] to work with our communications team with the district, uh,
[2:30:54] puts a lot of pressure on them. But we're trying
[2:30:55] to communicate out to the community sooner when activities are
[2:30:59] taking place. Uh, anything that's coming in, and especially in
[2:31:03] the summer season, anybody who sees smoke, we've seen them
[2:31:06] again multiple calls and that sort of thing. So the
[2:31:09] Public is very aware. And we pass it over to
[2:31:11] our communications to try to take the angst out of
[2:31:14] people when they do see things. So, uh, the support
[2:31:17] from our comms team has been great. And that's what
[2:31:22] all I have. Anybody has questions. Thanks, Chief. I've got
[2:31:26] Councillor Callio and Councillor Justice and Councillor Finley at their
[2:31:29] hands up. Thanks, Chief, for the report. Um. The new
[2:31:36] training centre that's going to be operational in October is
[2:31:40] the plan with that, I believe to have other jurisdictions
[2:31:45] come here and actually pay us to use that facility.
[2:31:48] Yeah. Trading centre. Yeah. That's correct. We'll set a model
[2:31:52] up. In the past. We've been having to travel out
[2:31:56] of town to have a training centres. Um, being that
[2:31:59] we have 120 members, uh, we looked at trying to
[2:32:03] create a program that we can train in - house.
[2:32:06] So we've developed 12 of our own live fire instructors
[2:32:09] that are certified to NFPA standards. Building out the training
[2:32:14] livefire training centre in the back. When we're running courses.
[2:32:17] If we have spare seats, we have opportunity to invite
[2:32:20] other municipalities or fire departments to come in and start
[2:32:24] to use it. So the business model is create some
[2:32:26] revenue, put it back into the system and that'll help
[2:32:29] keep the system going for ourselves unless in our costs
[2:32:32] overall. Fantastic. One more quick one. Um, when it comes
[2:32:37] to false alarms, I mean 175, you know, that's quite
[2:32:41] a bit. And these false alarms, you have to attend.
[2:32:45] And so the question is the system for dealing with
[2:32:48] these false alarms. How does that work? Is it you
[2:32:52] verbally warn them? There's a written warning and then, then
[2:32:56] you find them. Yeah. Um, if it's a residential false
[2:33:01] alarm, uh, we make sure that what is the reason
[2:33:06] the alarm has gone off. And a lot of, uh,
[2:33:10] homeowners will call back and say there's no issue. It's
[2:33:13] just false. We follow up to make sure why this
[2:33:16] system went off. This is a system that is failing
[2:33:18] and triggering for no reason. Or was it an incident
[2:33:21] in a house. And, uh, cooking dinner and setting an
[2:33:24] alarm off. The alarm did what it's supposed to do.
[2:33:26] So that's not technically false. But they get reported in
[2:33:29] different ways. Uh, that gets me an opportunity to get
[2:33:32] our crews into residents to make sure that everything is
[2:33:35] good and that they understand how their systems work. Commercial
[2:33:38] ones, we do have a lot of, uh, repeat offenders
[2:33:42] in different areas just for the clientele that's coming in
[2:33:45] and out of their buildings, setting alarms off and that
[2:33:47] sort of thing. So I work with those and with
[2:33:50] bylaw. We work with them to try to mitigate those
[2:33:53] false alarms coming in. The best we can. Uh, but
[2:33:55] they do get, uh, they get warning letters in their
[2:33:57] 12 month period. I look at what, what is taking
[2:34:01] place and what they're doing. Is it a system that
[2:34:04] needs to be serviced and reviewed. They'll get a letter
[2:34:07] to service your system. And then we'll move into Laby
[2:34:10] as the last resort. Okay. Thanks, Chief French. Council of
[2:34:15] Justice. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Chief French. Um,
[2:34:21] there's been some very difficult times for the fire department
[2:34:25] recently. And I hope the firefighters recognise how much they're
[2:34:29] dedication is appreciated. I'm sure it's been very difficult for
[2:34:33] many of them. Um. I wanted to ask you about
[2:34:37] something slightly different. Which is about a year ago, as
[2:34:40] you recall. This Council made wildfire preparedness is strategic. Priority.
[2:34:46] And you've already touched on that. But I like you
[2:34:51] for the benefit of the community as well as Council.
[2:34:56] To just give us a little overview of what we're
[2:34:58] doing to prepare for wildfires wildland fires in our municipality.
[2:35:08] So part of the preparedness for it was to develop
[2:35:11] that position of the wildland assistant chief in wildland operations.
[2:35:15] That position will look at anything that has any type
[2:35:18] of forest or mitigation strategies that go with it. We'll
[2:35:23] be developing out, uh, in - house fire smart program
[2:35:27] that he'll manage that as well. Uh, we are looking
[2:35:31] at an over our report that's going to come in
[2:35:36] identifying where we need to go, what the roadmap looks
[2:35:38] like to protect the district better and what we actually
[2:35:41] need to do to make that happen. So that'll come,
[2:35:44] uh, with part of the funding from last year. The
[2:35:48] consultants review that we'll work with them to set what
[2:35:50] we're looking for out of it. Once that comes in,
[2:35:53] then we'll start to put those pieces in play. What
[2:35:55] has to happen. So we'll be looking at, uh, areas
[2:35:58] of response in the district, how we respond to it,
[2:36:01] what type of equipment we respond to it with, that
[2:36:03] sort of thing. Um, we had the pre - Voltier.
[2:36:08] We did respond to that. And it taught us a
[2:36:11] few things about where we're going with our apparatus and
[2:36:13] what type of apparatus we have and what our capabilities
[2:36:16] are and aren't. Um, so that, that'll all come into
[2:36:19] this package as we move forward. But one of the
[2:36:22] biggest things that'll come out is we'll be able to
[2:36:24] start helping residents with FIRE smarting around their property. And
[2:36:28] then we'll be working on what the district needs to
[2:36:30] protect its forest reserve and other areas of the, of
[2:36:33] the district as well. It looks at our training to
[2:36:36] make sure that we are getting the adequate training for
[2:36:38] our members to go do the work in the wildland
[2:36:41] areas that they need to do as well. Thank you
[2:36:44] for that. Councillor Finley. Thanks Mr. Mayor and I'll try
[2:36:52] to lead in a little more. So, uh, Ms. Benson
[2:36:54] can hear me because apparently I'm one of the worst
[2:36:55] offenders. The false alarms 175 false alarms are they included
[2:37:00] in the 936 incident calls. Yes. And those false alarms
[2:37:06] is that whether you roll a duty officer truck or
[2:37:09] not. We roll in every alarm will roll a truck.
[2:37:15] We'll respond to it. Okay. So and the reason I
[2:37:17] ask is, is my hood fan people triggered my alarm
[2:37:20] and my pub three months ago. And RCMP showed up.
[2:37:24] Not fire. So I'm just curious if, if that call
[2:37:27] is in there or if that would be on RCMP's
[2:37:29] list. That'd be on RCMP list. So it's probably your
[2:37:32] security system to tagged. Yeah. Okay. Great. And, um, the,
[2:37:38] the three operatus we sent over to BC wildfire fire
[2:37:42] is over in summerland and Clinton and places like that.
[2:37:45] Um, BC wildfire. Did they reimburse us for those? The
[2:37:49] use of our apparatus and our firefighters. Yeah. That's correct.
[2:37:52] There's a document. It's called the interagency agreement between BC
[2:37:57] fire chiefs association, which represents solvent municipalities of the fire
[2:38:01] departments and BC wildfire. So there's a, it's a very
[2:38:06] well laid out document. It lines out everything that we're
[2:38:08] compensated for. So our members go out and they're compensated.
[2:38:13] We get cost recovery back for their time that they
[2:38:15] spend in the field and then we get compensated for
[2:38:17] our apparatus as well. So it helps us in the
[2:38:21] long, long run. Um, we look at what we're sending
[2:38:24] out. And I make sure that if we're sending something
[2:38:27] out, we still have good coverage here. Um, and then
[2:38:31] it goes out on a, they'll send out a resource
[2:38:34] request for the type of apparatus you're looking for. And
[2:38:36] if we have that already pre - registered with them,
[2:38:39] we can assign the crew in the way they go.
[2:38:40] But, uh, it does benefit us in the end of
[2:38:43] the day financially as well. We'll have, uh, we'll have
[2:38:47] some hopefully left over resources that going back into the
[2:38:50] funding. Councillor Manasse. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, friend
[2:38:58] Chief, for your presentation there. Um, you mentioned 58 percent
[2:39:01] increase. Does that include when you have to go and
[2:39:04] play and walk someone to individuals also or satches fires.
[2:39:08] No, that would be for any type of incident down
[2:39:10] there. Uh, so first responder calls, that sort of thing
[2:39:13] that we're called to as well. It's every type of
[2:39:16] call that we go down to. Can you give us
[2:39:18] a numbers what percent or percentage of what is actual
[2:39:21] fires? What was the actual for Navoxone or other calls?
[2:39:26] I'd have to dig into that and try to figure
[2:39:28] out what, what percentage we're first responder calls to go
[2:39:31] to and what. Uh, where we actually administered an Illuxon
[2:39:35] to a patient that would take a bit of time
[2:39:38] to actually go because the record of those go to
[2:39:42] the BC online service. We all take it as a
[2:39:45] first responder called incident and not they actually work we
[2:39:51] did with that patient. Look, I think that'd be interesting
[2:39:53] to see if what percentage that is, especially if what
[2:39:57] you're supposed to be doing is fighting fires, but you're
[2:39:59] spending most of your time, do another stuff. Yeah. And
[2:40:03] our first responder program, medical side of the house that
[2:40:07] we deal with, uh, that's, that's at Council's directions for
[2:40:11] us to be in that program or not be in
[2:40:13] that program. Um, we have different levels that we have
[2:40:16] set in different areas that we respond to to try
[2:40:19] to limit out, uh, because we just couldn't respond to
[2:40:23] every first responder call that the Amulet system has. So
[2:40:28] we do the delayed and the purple most severe calls
[2:40:31] that we respond to. I was talking to the Duncan
[2:40:34] Business Approvement area a couple, a couple of days ago.
[2:40:37] And they've had a rash of incidents of broken windows
[2:40:39] now and theft and fires in the downtown core there.
[2:40:43] And what they have hired is actually a security team
[2:40:47] from 10 a. m. to 6 p. m. to help
[2:40:49] them with that. So just want to give that, you
[2:40:52] know, thanks. All right. Um, Chief French on BFA Council.
[2:40:58] I just want to express our appreciation for all the
[2:41:00] firefighters who are deployed to the interior this summer. I
[2:41:04] believe you mentioned it was four rotations. So about 30
[2:41:06] different firefighters almost, uh, I know a lot of time
[2:41:09] away from their families, but, uh, these communities in the
[2:41:12] Tyrion appreciate have been in contact with one of the
[2:41:14] mayors there who are really happy about, obviously not about
[2:41:18] the situation, but there's so much support coming from communities
[2:41:21] across the province like ours. And as you noted, uh,
[2:41:24] chief French, this provides our firefighters with valuable training and
[2:41:29] firsthand experience. Um, in the event that we're going to
[2:41:32] have to combat firefighters here in our own community, we
[2:41:35] saw a couple scares over the summer. And based on,
[2:41:38] uh, what we're seeing with the warmer and drier summers
[2:41:41] and we can expect more of these going forward. And
[2:41:43] we're lucky to have yourself and the team there at
[2:41:46] the, uh, North Country Fire Department who are preparing us
[2:41:48] for these, uh, events and making sure we take the
[2:41:52] right steps to protect our communities, especially in these, uh,
[2:41:57] wildlife and interfaces, which there's a lot of homes in
[2:42:00] that position with the size of our municipal forest reserve
[2:42:03] and our overall municipality. Thank you, Mayor. Great. Thank you.
[2:42:08] Any other questions or comments from Council. Ari. Thanks, Chief
[2:42:11] French. All right. Okay. Uh, one
[2:42:21] site Council Justice. We're on item 9. 1 developer donations
[2:42:24] and disclosure of meetings. Um. As I was the author
[2:42:28] of this, uh, propose I would like to speak to
[2:42:31] it first. Although I think there might be an interest
[2:42:32] in deferring it. But if I could just offer a
[2:42:34] few comments first and then I'll. You want to speak
[2:42:37] now. Or wait for me. I would like to move
[2:42:40] the motion to recommend emotion. Okay. It's been moved. Is
[2:42:43] there a seconder. Second obey Councillor Stash. I will yield
[2:42:48] my right as a mover to speak to offer a
[2:42:50] few comments and I'll turn it to you. And then
[2:42:52] if there's, um, interest in deferring it to a future
[2:42:55] meeting, we can certainly entertain that. So just to refresh,
[2:43:03] everyone's memory, uh, I brought this motion forward almost exactly
[2:43:08] a year ago. And, uh, I think it's important to
[2:43:11] remember what this was about. It was about transparency. The
[2:43:14] motion would establish. Clear expectations around campaign donations and meetings
[2:43:19] involving people or entities with significant financial interests and municipal
[2:43:23] and use matters. It would provide for disclosure those relationships
[2:43:26] and ask Council members to consider recusal one - those
[2:43:29] relationships could create a perceived conflict. And so you may
[2:43:32] ask why that matters. And I would say it matters
[2:43:35] because Public Trust is fundamental to local government. When Council
[2:43:39] makes decisions about rezonings, development applications, variances, or other land
[2:43:44] use matters, the financial stakes can be enormous. These decisions
[2:43:48] can potentially affect property values and financial interests by millions
[2:43:52] of dollars. Residents should be confident that those decisions are
[2:43:56] being made fairly and in the public interests. They shouldn't
[2:43:58] have to wonder whether a campaign contribution, a private meeting
[2:44:02] or relationship with someone who stands a benefit from a
[2:44:04] decision as influence, how a Council Member votes. I don't
[2:44:07] want to be clear that this motion isn't suggesting that
[2:44:09] anyone around this table has done anything wrong. It's about
[2:44:13] transparency and avoiding the appearance of undue influence. I brought
[2:44:17] this motion forward last year and I appreciate the Council
[2:44:20] referred it to a legal opinion. Really do appreciate that.
[2:44:24] I think some folks maybe came into the meeting wanting
[2:44:26] to vote against it, but we're curious enough and kept
[2:44:30] an open mind that you did refer it back to
[2:44:32] staff. And again, we got that legal opinion. And Council
[2:44:36] did Just decide prior to this meeting to release that
[2:44:38] legal opinion for PublicView. So that will be posted on
[2:44:42] our website shortly. Now I reviewed that opinion carefully. And
[2:44:47] I think there's an important distinction that needs to be
[2:44:49] made. The legal opinion raised a number of legal and
[2:44:53] technical concerns about the proposed policy. Those concerns, in my
[2:44:57] view, are worth considering, and I'm open to addressing them
[2:44:59] through changes to the wording or structure of the policy.
[2:45:03] But those concerns shouldn't cause us to lose sight of
[2:45:05] the underlying policy question. No one is suggesting that campaign
[2:45:09] donations from developers are illegal. That's not the point of
[2:45:12] this motion. The question is whether Council should have a
[2:45:15] higher standard of transparency when the financial relationship between a
[2:45:20] Council member and someone who has made a significant financial,
[2:45:23] who has a significant financial interest in a matter before
[2:45:25] Council through a donation. So something can be legal and
[2:45:30] still raise legitimate questions about public confidence. Our role isn't
[2:45:34] simply to ask if it's allowed under the law. But
[2:45:37] we should also ask that this is the best standard
[2:45:39] for Public Trust. And I believe we can answer those
[2:45:42] two questions differently. This motion does not prohibit campaign donations.
[2:45:46] It does not prohibit Council members from meeting with developers,
[2:45:49] consultants, lobbyists, or other people with an interest in land
[2:45:52] use decisions. Simply says that we must be transponible this
[2:45:56] relationships. And when the potential or perceived conflict take it
[2:46:00] seriously. And I recognise that there are legitimate questions about
[2:46:03] how terms such as developer or development interest should be
[2:46:06] defined. And this was raised a year ago when it
[2:46:08] was brought forward to Council and has come out in
[2:46:10] our legal opinion as well. And in my view, those
[2:46:13] concerns can be addressed through better wording in the policy.
[2:46:17] We can focus on the policy. We can focus, sorry,
[2:46:20] the policy on people or entities that I direct financial
[2:46:23] interests in a specific development or land use matter before
[2:46:26] Council rather than trying to create an overly broad definition.
[2:46:32] They're also concerns raised about the enforcement and how the
[2:46:35] policy would apply if the Council Member did not follow
[2:46:37] it. Again, I think those issues we can address. If
[2:46:41] must just do strong in certain provisions and willing to
[2:46:44] consider changing it to should. But I don't think technical
[2:46:47] questions about definitions are enforcement should cause us to abandon
[2:46:51] the underlying principle. In fact, I believe a clear policy
[2:46:54] can protect Council members as well as the public. Clear
[2:46:58] expectations around disclosure give Council members a straightforward way to
[2:47:01] demonstrate that they have nothing to hide and that they're
[2:47:05] following the same standards everyone else. It also give Council
[2:47:08] Members guidance when they find themselves in a situation where
[2:47:10] there may be a perceived conflict. Ultimately, this is about
[2:47:13] the confidence residents having their local government. People don't expect
[2:47:17] Council members to have no relationships with developers, businesses, or
[2:47:21] others who have interest in municipal decisions. That's simply part
[2:47:24] of participating in local government. What residents should be able
[2:47:27] to expect is transparency. The law established the requirements for
[2:47:33] the Council must follow, but Council can also choose to
[2:47:36] set a higher standard for transparency and ethical conduct. I
[2:47:40] believe we should do that, particularly when the decisions before
[2:47:42] us can have such significant financial consequences. The motion isn't
[2:47:46] about assuming Ron doing. It's about creating a system that
[2:47:49] gives residence confidence and council's decisions and that they're being
[2:47:53] made openly, fairly, and in the public interest. And for
[2:47:56] those reasons, I would ask Council to support the motion
[2:47:58] on the floor. Council Justice. Thank you, Mr. Tumehr. Um.
[2:48:06] I'd like to start out by actually thanking the mayor.
[2:48:11] For his leadership and bringing this policy idea forward. I'm
[2:48:15] one of the things we learned was a lot of
[2:48:16] communities. Struggle with this issue, but very few have directly
[2:48:21] taken it on. So kudos to you for directly taking
[2:48:25] this on. I've been thinking quite a bit about it
[2:48:28] over the last year. Um, I think what the key
[2:48:34] issue is, as you just said, about maintaining the public
[2:48:38] trust. We've known from the start that the Community Chartered,
[2:48:45] the legislation that governs our behaviour and things that we
[2:48:51] can and cannot do, does not legally prohibit accepting a
[2:48:58] donation from someone and then voting on a proposal that
[2:49:01] they bring to the Council. We know that's not legal.
[2:49:06] We knew before we did a legal review, that illegal,
[2:49:10] thank you. Um. But legality is not what this is
[2:49:15] about, right? Like the thing is, even though things may
[2:49:18] not be, um, illegal, they can still be negative and
[2:49:25] cause harm. Um, a person can legally throw up a
[2:49:31] handful of sand on a windy day on a beach.
[2:49:34] That's not illegal. The question isn't whether it's legal, the
[2:49:38] decision point should be. What harmed does this do? What
[2:49:41] how does it affect the people around us. Um. Point
[2:49:49] is that it's not a question of whether it's legal
[2:49:52] to take a campaign donation. And then vote on the
[2:49:56] person who's given it to you their development application. Rather,
[2:50:00] this is an ethical and a practical issue. It's wrong
[2:50:04] because it does damage to the social fabric. I think
[2:50:10] most of us would agree. With what the mayor said
[2:50:13] earlier that it's really important to maintain public confidence in
[2:50:19] all of our decisions, but especially land use decisions because
[2:50:22] of the huge amount of money that's involved in those.
[2:50:25] Um, and we know we've been taught this from the
[2:50:29] very beginning of our time on Council that such confidence
[2:50:33] depends both on impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. So
[2:50:43] taking donations from developers or anybody else with a financial
[2:50:48] stake in a Council Decision. And then voting on that
[2:50:52] proposal. Is bad for the community because it undermines the
[2:50:58] trust of the community in the decision making process. And
[2:51:02] I just want to be really clear on this one
[2:51:05] point. This is not about taking campaign donations from people
[2:51:10] who are like - minded. Nobody's saying suggesting that's a
[2:51:14] problem and developers are like - minded with some people
[2:51:18] who support development. This is about when you've taken a
[2:51:21] donation and a decision from the donator comes before the
[2:51:27] Council. And in such situations, um, the donation will, um,
[2:51:35] will cause the public to perceive that there is influence
[2:51:40] being purchased. And that certainly undermines the public trust. So
[2:51:44] in my opinion, absolutely we need a policy where councillors
[2:51:49] recuse themselves from decisions. Where they have received a donation.
[2:51:53] Um, again, it's irrelevant that it's whether it's legal or
[2:51:59] not. This is a question of perception. And of trust.
[2:52:04] And I also want to say that the previous mirror
[2:52:09] John Leferbur, who was himself a developer and thus immersed
[2:52:13] in the development community, um, as mayor used to recuse
[2:52:18] himself regularly. From any decision that involved a campaign donor.
[2:52:23] And he did this precisely to maintain Public Confidence. And
[2:52:28] this seems to me to be just an eminently sensible
[2:52:32] practice as I think the words we heard earlier. Um,
[2:52:36] from a member of the public. So if you have
[2:52:39] received a donation, a donator's decision comes before Council just
[2:52:45] recuse yourself. It's very easy to do. It's honourable thing
[2:52:50] to do. It builds public trust. What do you have
[2:52:53] to lose. On the other hand, if you really want
[2:52:55] to be a part of the vote, you should reflect
[2:52:57] on why it's so important for you to be part
[2:53:00] of that vote. And. Just to reiterate what the mayor
[2:53:06] said, this is, this is not just a theoretical issue
[2:53:10] for us. This discussion started because members of the public
[2:53:13] were coming to this chamber and publicly naming councillors on
[2:53:17] this Council who have taken donations and then participated in
[2:53:22] votes that were brought by the person who donated the
[2:53:27] money. Clearly this issue was and is alive one for
[2:53:33] us in terms of undermining the public faith and the
[2:53:37] fairness of decision making. So I think a policy like
[2:53:41] this will protect. All of us. From such accusations and
[2:53:45] will protect the integrity of Council in the, in the
[2:53:49] public trust. So I am with the mirror and I
[2:53:52] would highly urge you all of you to support this
[2:53:55] motion. Councillor Hawk. Oh. What. If you're called.
[2:54:06] Council Hoglin Councillor Stash. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I understand
[2:54:10] everything you said Councillor Justice. Now where I sit here
[2:54:15] and look at this is people do get donations from
[2:54:18] committees. Who are against a lot of development. So, um,
[2:54:23] those decision making is also can be. Suede, I guess.
[2:54:31] From land development. And so this is where I have
[2:54:34] a hard time with, um, being pinpointed every time someone
[2:54:39] brings it up. And, uh, I was new to running
[2:54:44] for Council and I had a financial agent and I
[2:54:47] had e - transfers come through. I had no access
[2:54:50] to. I don't know people's names. I didn't know who
[2:54:53] they were. It doesn't say a company. And I'm amazing.
[2:54:58] Sorry. Thank you everyone for donations, but I'm easily even
[2:55:02] 500 dollar donation is not going to make me want
[2:55:04] to ruin or do something bad to the community that
[2:55:07] I grew up in and was born and raised here.
[2:55:10] And I have so much care for it. And that's
[2:55:12] why I'm sitting at this table. So, um, it's very
[2:55:14] frustrating. Thank you. Council, Stash. Thanks Mayor. Thank you. How'd
[2:55:22] you tell you? You missed my second hand pump when
[2:55:26] I seconded it. So that's no worries. Yeah. Tough thing
[2:55:31] I've always had with elections. I don't like the fact
[2:55:33] that often in some cases, I'm glad Canada has good
[2:55:36] laws to keep the value low. But I've never appreciated
[2:55:40] the fact that sometimes elections are decided on who's the
[2:55:43] best fundraiser and who can spend the most money. So,
[2:55:46] um, as I've said when this discussion first came up,
[2:55:49] I made all attempts last election to collect nothing and
[2:55:53] spend nothing. And I've, uh, in honour of what you've
[2:55:56] done here to show that extra level transparency that I
[2:56:00] think is, um, a responsibility of the public I shared
[2:56:04] all of my financial documents online. And, uh, furthermore, when
[2:56:09] you first brought this motion forward at that point, I
[2:56:12] started disclosing at meetings where, uh, that I had, if
[2:56:16] I had met with anybody that was building or in
[2:56:19] the development community, because often they want to share what
[2:56:23] they're doing. And their perspective, uh, they do that through
[2:56:26] emails. And sometimes they want to meet for coffee and
[2:56:29] chat as, you know, we do with any residents. So
[2:56:31] I've shared them in that same equity as residents that
[2:56:33] I would afford to anybody else. But what I chose
[2:56:36] to do was disclose them. So as we saw with
[2:56:39] the Grant Road OCP amendment, I said that I had
[2:56:42] met with that property owner, uh, I mean, I did
[2:56:45] ultimately vote against that OCP amendment. And then, uh, I
[2:56:49] didn't mention that I had met with Wes Vista property
[2:56:53] owners as people with the community invested interests in the
[2:56:56] community. I felt it was fair to meet with them.
[2:56:58] Uh, I disclosed that. There was no requirement, but I
[2:57:01] thought what you had brought forward at that time. I
[2:57:04] figured I would just personally implement the policy myself. And
[2:57:07] I, it's, uh, as Council of Justice said, it's pretty
[2:57:10] easy to do. You just state it, um, there was
[2:57:13] no pecuniary interest or conflict of interest there. So I
[2:57:16] participated in the discussion. Um, but I felt it was
[2:57:19] right to share that. So, um, that was the only
[2:57:22] reason I was sharing at that time. With this, it
[2:57:26] seems pretty straightforward and easy. And I just had a
[2:57:29] curiosity though. Would this live as its own policy or
[2:57:31] does it fit within our code of conduct policy? Is
[2:57:35] this a supplemental to that? Is this where it more
[2:57:37] fits? Because the other curiosity of this is this just,
[2:57:41] this is just a guiding policy and the, is there
[2:57:45] anything that comes up or follows it? I think, um,
[2:57:47] as I said, we're going to be able to review
[2:57:49] the legal document more and also the Public's going to
[2:57:52] be able to see that. But, um, there's no instruments
[2:57:55] in here that Council or staff can utilise. And definitely
[2:57:59] of course, because, uh, the local government Act is so
[2:58:02] strong, um, and utilization of the Umbludsman that's the Publix
[2:58:07] recourse, but I'm just curious internally with Council where this
[2:58:11] would live. And is we're not, um, assuming that there's
[2:58:15] going to be any tools for recourse within it. It's
[2:58:17] just a guiding policy. And the onus is on that
[2:58:19] individual then. That's so I'm envisioning especially based on the
[2:58:25] legal opinion, which noted that there would be challenges in
[2:58:28] terms of censure sanctions and enforcing the policy. So what
[2:58:32] I would see is changing a lot of the must
[2:58:34] - wording to should. And it would be voluntary, but
[2:58:37] we would set that standard and expectation. I would hope
[2:58:41] around the table and what the public would be that
[2:58:43] we would all follow with. In terms of the code
[2:58:45] of conduct, because that is now a bylaw that would,
[2:58:48] um, it would be much more of a process with
[2:58:50] that. I think it's something we could consider. Again, it
[2:58:53] would be difficult to enforce. But, um, my understanding is
[2:58:56] we are going to, our Council is going to be
[2:58:58] reviewing the code economic bylaw next year. And that may
[2:59:01] be a opportunity to consider how we may want to
[2:59:03] incorporate some of these, uh, ideas into that bylaw. So
[2:59:07] the interim is the thought as the standalone policy. Um,
[2:59:10] and then lack, quick clarification for you. In my willingness
[2:59:16] to support the discussion right away. I thought we were
[2:59:20] carrying on from our last meeting that we were going
[2:59:22] to go with recommendation too. Was it recommendation one or
[2:59:25] two. I understand Council of Justice moved recommendation number one.
[2:59:30] Because was his recommendation not on the floor and we
[2:59:33] just paused it? Or it was his, his original amendment
[2:59:36] withdrawn. Yeah. So what happened there? Um, was Council Justice
[2:59:41] read out his suggested alternative motion. We didn't actually move
[2:59:46] in seconded at that point as accounts. We decided just
[2:59:49] to refer both the original motion and his suggested alternative
[2:59:53] to the next meeting for discussion. So it hasn't actually
[2:59:56] been moved or seconded yet. Okay. The alternative that is
[3:00:00] what's so then, cause that's kind of what Council of
[3:00:02] Justice was trying to do was find, um, ZU spoke
[3:00:05] to is you're okay to find language that meets the
[3:00:08] legal kind of supports legal document a little bit more,
[3:00:12] but isn't as watered down as Councillor's justices motion. So
[3:00:16] your intent is to stay with the original recommendation, but
[3:00:19] change the very strong language to more the kind of
[3:00:23] the spirit that Council of Justice was bringing. Yeah. That
[3:00:27] would be my expectation is that if this did pass
[3:00:30] comes back to Council Paul as a policy that it
[3:00:32] would, uh, incorporate some of the, um, feedback. Legal Council.
[3:00:37] Because if so then if it passed, it still has
[3:00:38] to come back for first and second reading. And through
[3:00:40] first and second reading, there can be proposed amendments to
[3:00:42] that then. Yeah. I would envision it as a policy.
[3:00:47] So we wouldn't necessarily have to go through the four
[3:00:49] readings on that if it is a policy. Although if
[3:00:51] we didn't eventually decide to incorporate something along these lines
[3:00:54] and our code conduct bylaw, then we would, uh, be
[3:00:57] looking at for a second, third rig an adoption. Okay.
[3:01:00] Um, I feel comfortable with that, but I'd maybe like
[3:01:04] to hear from Council of Justice. Council Cow, your next,
[3:01:07] can he jump in quick to respond to that or
[3:01:09] do you want to speak next. Okay. Quickly. Yeah. Just
[3:01:13] to that, I think the, what I brought forward was
[3:01:18] only relative to one part of this, which was the
[3:01:21] recusal part. And really, I think the main point of
[3:01:25] that was it was adding some language that was making
[3:01:31] this about anybody with a financial interest, not just developers
[3:01:36] who are one sort of person with a financial interest
[3:01:38] in a land use decision. But the second part of
[3:01:41] it was that it was, um, the idea in there
[3:01:46] was that if councillors did consider, um, the necessity of
[3:01:51] a recusal having received a donation, um, that then they
[3:01:55] would have to publicly disclose the reasons why they were
[3:02:01] or were not deciding to recuse themselves and explain why
[3:02:06] it was in the public interest. So it was sort
[3:02:10] of a refinement in many ways, but it didn't deal
[3:02:12] with the entire picture. The Councillor Calio. Oh, it's just
[3:02:17] wavy. Mr. Mayor, I just want to point out that
[3:02:19] the motion is very directive that this is a policy
[3:02:22] that you're adopting. If you want staff to bring back
[3:02:25] something, you need to make the motion provide that direction.
[3:02:31] So Swaby Council Callew. Thanks to your patience. Yeah. Thanks,
[3:02:37] Mayor. We just had a legal. Decision made, uh, the
[3:02:47] mayor's motion. Um, I'm not quite sure where we're going
[3:02:52] with this right now. It seems to me like this
[3:02:56] is looking up to referral. Uh, sorry, a deferral, what
[3:03:02] it looks like to me till after the election. So
[3:03:04] this is going to hang in the air for, until
[3:03:07] after that. And the thing is. That being the case
[3:03:14] since your original motion had a legal opinion, which basically
[3:03:18] said, um. It could not move forward. Um, you've already
[3:03:23] spoke to the fact that you've decided to change the
[3:03:26] language in your own motion. So that cannot come out
[3:03:29] until after the election. Um, because this is the last
[3:03:33] meeting until that is done. And the next Council, whoever
[3:03:38] they may be will be looking at your motion. Um,
[3:03:43] in the future. So. I'm looking at Councillor Justice's motion
[3:03:49] and I'm wondering because of the legal opinion that we
[3:03:52] got on your emotion, I think that we need a
[3:03:55] legal opinion on his motion. Mr. Mayor, can I just
[3:03:58] clarify Councillor Justice's motion doesn't exist. It's not on the
[3:04:03] table. What has first and second reading is the mayor's
[3:04:07] motion as written in the agenda. That has first and
[3:04:09] second reading now. You're debating whether you're going to approve
[3:04:13] that motion. As it's written. Councillor Calculate. DeMair has already
[3:04:21] spoken to the fact that he wants to change language
[3:04:23] in his own motion. So that means we'll have to
[3:04:27] be deferred until after the election. What I'd suggest is,
[3:04:32] um, so we've got a couple options here. You mentioned
[3:04:34] deferral. So you can certainly move that we defer further
[3:04:37] consideration this to the next regular Council meeting, which would
[3:04:41] be in, you know, third week in November. Um, the
[3:04:44] other thing we could consider is to amend the motion
[3:04:48] on the floor. And we would just be basically changing
[3:04:49] the first sentence. So that would be Council direct stat
[3:04:53] to develop policy based on the following resolution. Um, incorporating
[3:04:58] the feedback from Council during the, uh, September 2nd meeting.
[3:05:03] So I would address issues around changing the must, the
[3:05:06] should, for example. Or clearly defining a developer, someone with
[3:05:11] an interest in a land use related matter? I'm just
[3:05:13] wondering how this can move forward after the legal opinion
[3:05:17] that we had from our council. This is, this is
[3:05:21] not. Well, then stop us from having a voluntary policy.
[3:05:27] The issue is, um, censoring and sanctions. And remember, the
[3:05:33] legal opinion focused much of its attention on whether it
[3:05:36] was legal or not to make a campaign contribution and
[3:05:40] have that Councillor vote on the matter, which was never
[3:05:41] actually a question raised around this table. I think we've
[3:05:44] all understood over the last year that's perfectly legal to
[3:05:48] accept a donation and to vote on that. And so,
[3:05:51] I mean, that's a bit unfortunate. I think the legal
[3:05:53] analysis, it's helpful in many ways, but kind of miss
[3:05:57] the mark on that one point because that wasn't a
[3:05:58] contentious aspect of it that we debated last year.
[3:06:08] So I mean, based on what you're seeing Councillor Cawy,
[3:06:11] I'd suggest we either. What I'm saying is I think
[3:06:13] the public needs to see that legal decision, that legal
[3:06:16] decision from our lawyers, which cost us a fair amount
[3:06:20] of money to have that done. Um. Before. This decision
[3:06:26] is made. Do you want to move deferral? I will
[3:06:29] move to furl. Okay. So moving to defer. To the
[3:06:32] first regular meeting and regular meeting of November in November.
[3:06:36] Yeah. All right. It's moved. Is there a second by
[3:06:39] Councillor Manass. So discussion on the deferral. Council of Justice.
[3:06:47] Just to the logic that the Public needs to see
[3:06:51] this legal document before we decide. Um, Council is actually
[3:06:55] the, uh, decision making body and the, um, Public might
[3:07:00] have some interest in it. But I think that the
[3:07:02] points that the, uh, mayor has made, um, will hold,
[3:07:08] um, this legal opinion doesn't have anything to say about
[3:07:14] the appropriateness of this policy. We already knew exactly what
[3:07:19] it told us, which was that the Community Charte does
[3:07:23] not prohibit this behaviour. So on deferral, any further debate
[3:07:30] or do we want to call the question. Call the
[3:07:33] question. So to defer the motion on the floor to
[3:07:37] the first regular meeting in November, all in favor. And
[3:07:40] opposed motion carries with the mayor Council of Stash and
[3:07:44] Council Justice opposed. All right. That concludes that. We're now
[3:07:49] going to move on to. Phylaws. Turn to the corporate
[3:07:55] officer. Thank you Mayor. So intercommunity business license bylaw number
[3:08:02] 4075 is before Council for Adoption. All the pre -
[3:08:06] adoption conditions have been satisfied. So Council may now proceed
[3:08:09] with adoption. The recommendation is that Council adopts intercommunity business
[3:08:14] license bylaw number 4075 2026. Some like to move that.
[3:08:19] Mut by Council Justice. Second by Councillor Finley. Any discussion.
[3:08:21] Call the question all in favor and oppose and oppose
[3:08:24] motion carries. We'll now move on item 10. 2. Fire
[3:08:28] safety amendment bylaw 4088 is before Council for Adoption and
[3:08:33] all of the pre - adoption conditions have been satisfied.
[3:08:36] The recommendation is that Council adopts fire safety amendment bylaw
[3:08:40] number 4088 2026. Move by Councillor Calio, seconded by Councillor
[3:08:44] Finley. Any discussion. I'll call the question all in favor.
[3:08:47] And oppose and oppose motion carries. We might move on
[3:08:50] item 10. 3 Road naming bylaw 4086 is also before
[3:08:55] Council for Adoption and all of the pre - adoption
[3:08:58] conditions have been met. The recommendation is that Council adopts
[3:09:02] road naming bylaw bull rush and salishin streets number 4086
[3:09:07] 2026. Move by Council Justice. Second by Councillor Cali. You
[3:09:11] want any discussion. I'll call the question all in favor
[3:09:14] and oppose and oppose motion carries. We'll now move on
[3:09:16] to the final byla item 10. 4 tax sale redemption
[3:09:20] period extension by allow 4091 is being introduced to Council
[3:09:25] tonight. If adopted the Bylaw would allow the former owners
[3:09:28] of two properties purchased by North Couch and at the
[3:09:32] 2025 annual tax sale. And additional year to redeem their
[3:09:36] properties. The recommendation is that Council Give first, second and
[3:09:39] third readings to tax sale, redemption period, extension bylaw number
[3:09:44] 4091 2026 Councillor Finley. Thanks Mr. Mary. I'm curious why,
[3:09:51] why we're dating on these two properties. It's the process
[3:09:54] has always been there that it's a one year redemption.
[3:09:56] So I'm just curious why we'd offer a second year
[3:09:58] other than we're nice. Mr. Corson. Yeah. Thanks for your
[3:10:03] worship. Um, so the reason here is to give the
[3:10:05] give the people another year. These are properties that we
[3:10:08] don't necessarily want to inherit. Um, they're complicated. So we'd
[3:10:12] be taking on potential liabilities. So our preference would be
[3:10:16] for the owners to have as much time to redeem
[3:10:19] these. So move by Councillor Manass, seconded by Councillor Calio.
[3:10:24] Any discussion. Call the question all in favor and oppose
[3:10:27] and oppose motion carries. We'll now move on to reports.
[3:10:31] Um, 11. 1, the notice on title for 3425 River
[3:10:34] Road. Thank you Mr. Mayor. This is, uh, as you
[3:10:38] stated a report to consider authorizing the filling of a
[3:10:42] notice untitled for the property located at 3425 River Road.
[3:10:46] And accordance with section 57 of the Community Charter due
[3:10:49] to the owner's failure to obtain required building and occupancy
[3:10:53] permits unlawfully development unlawful development with the riparian assessment area
[3:10:58] and multiple contributions of the North Cowching zoning and building
[3:11:03] regulations, including parking landscaping and shipping container requirements. The recommendation
[3:11:10] is that after providing the building inspector and the owner
[3:11:14] of 3425 River Road an opportunity to be heard, Council
[3:11:18] confirms the recommendation of the building inspector and authorizes the
[3:11:22] corporate officer to fell and notice on land titles against
[3:11:24] the title of the property located at 3425 River Road
[3:11:28] pursuant to section 57. 3 of the Community Charter for
[3:11:31] contraventions of the Building Regulations due to unresolved billion infractions.
[3:11:35] And further the notice state one that the resolution relating
[3:11:38] to the land has been made under Section 57 of
[3:11:41] the Community Charter and two that further information about it
[3:11:44] may be inspected at the Municipal Hall. All right. So
[3:11:48] first I'd like to all come up our building inspector,
[3:11:51] Chris Druin of the podium. Good evening Mayor Council. Thank
[3:11:59] you. I haven't prepared anything to discuss. So I move
[3:12:04] on to you guys by the report. I'm open to
[3:12:05] questions. Um, but I do recommend that this, uh, that
[3:12:08] you confirm the recommendation. All right. New members of Council
[3:12:13] have any questions for cheap building inspector. Seeing none. Thank
[3:12:18] you. Thank you. All right. And I'd like to welcome
[3:12:22] up the owner to the podium.
[3:12:36] Mayor and Council. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, thank
[3:12:40] you for the opportunity to address Council and Mayor. My
[3:12:43] name is Chantal Clark. I'm the chief financial officer at
[3:12:46] West Coast PREFA. I'm speaking today on behalf of the
[3:12:49] property owner, Adrian Crisp regarding the staff's recommendation to register
[3:12:53] a notice on title under Section 57 of the Community
[3:12:56] Charter. I would like to begin by emphasizing we are
[3:13:01] not disputing the need to achieve compliance. We recognise the
[3:13:05] responsibilities and remain committed. To addressing all outstanding matters. West
[3:13:13] Coast Prefab. Has operated in the Couch and Valley for
[3:13:19] more than 20 years as a mechanical forestry company for
[3:13:23] the bullpen paper sector. We employ more than 120 full
[3:13:28] - time staff, including engineers. Tradespeople, project managers, CSOs and
[3:13:33] QCs and professional administrators, not including the over 350 casual
[3:13:37] workers. Last year alone, I completed 478 T4s. We live
[3:13:43] here. We work here. We raise our families here. And
[3:13:46] we contribute to this community every day. The people affected
[3:13:49] by this decision are not numbers on a page. There
[3:13:52] are employees, our neighbours, our friends. And the families who
[3:13:55] depend on these jobs. Progress being made. We met with
[3:13:58] the municipal staff on July 9th. The beginning of the
[3:14:03] meeting was tough, but at the end of the meeting,
[3:14:06] we came together with a very complex amount of work
[3:14:10] that needed to be achieved. We committed to that. But
[3:14:14] we also made clear that there was certain timelines that
[3:14:18] were out of our control. Since then, we have submitted
[3:14:21] building permits. Applications we've updated a survey work. We've completed
[3:14:25] an environmental assessment through qualified professionals. We've advanced the condition
[3:14:30] and impact assessment process continued engineering and draft working on
[3:14:34] the remaining structures. Worked closely with planning, building, met with
[3:14:39] bylaws staff. Arrange for the relocation of RITCO units affected
[3:14:43] by the CEPA boundaries serve notice on our RV. Um,
[3:14:49] the RV that was in noncompliance. I'm assuming most people
[3:14:52] have read the notes that were attached. Um, he is
[3:14:57] going to be leaving the property by the end of
[3:14:59] the month. We have said that he is not allowed
[3:15:02] to stay on the property after October 31st. Try to
[3:15:07] go as fast as I can. The compliance effort extend
[3:15:10] far beyond the permits currently under review and include significant
[3:15:13] environmental engineering, planning and permitted work. We ask you consider
[3:15:18] that section 57 was intended to address building safety concerns.
[3:15:23] We understand that it's a starting point. To our knowledge,
[3:15:28] no professional retained by ownership has concluded that the structure
[3:15:31] presents an immediate risk to public safety. And it is
[3:15:35] not a case where the property owner has ignored municipal
[3:15:39] requirements or refused to pursue compliance on the contrary. We
[3:15:43] have retired, retired, or we have to trained retained engineers,
[3:15:50] supervisors, environmental professionals and consultants submitted applications completed substantial studies
[3:15:56] and assessments invested amounts of resources over 25, 000 dollars
[3:16:02] in the last three months. We've spent on this process
[3:16:05] not including our time. What matters is the condition of
[3:16:13] the impact assessment. Is still underway and will provide important
[3:16:18] information for a final path to compliance. Council, I want
[3:16:23] to be candid. The last year has been incredibly challenging
[3:16:25] for our business. Our industry and our community. We have
[3:16:29] been dealing with significant changes in the forestry sector while
[3:16:33] also working through engineering reviews and virtual assessments, preparing requirements
[3:16:39] and financial transitions. But our company has always worked its
[3:16:42] way through challenges. We adapt. We solve problems and we
[3:16:46] keep moving. We have not walked away from any of
[3:16:48] our responsibilities. We have continued to invest in compliance. Working
[3:16:53] with staff, investing in our community. At the same time,
[3:16:57] we have focused on building a sustainable future for our
[3:16:59] workforce. We have worked her hard to diverse beyond forestry
[3:17:04] into military defence, marine industry fabrication and public sector. I'm
[3:17:09] proud to say those efforts are producing results. We have
[3:17:13] successfully completed work with organisations such as B. C. ferries,
[3:17:17] B. C. Hydros, Fort SBC, helping replace the lost forestry
[3:17:21] work and support local jobs. Our goal is simple. Achieve
[3:17:25] compliance, preserve more than 120 local jobs and continue contributing
[3:17:29] to the Couch and Valley Economy. We are not asking
[3:17:32] for a waiver. We are not asking for special treatment.
[3:17:35] We are simply asking for three months to complete. A
[3:17:40] very conflict process that is already well underway. With, we
[3:17:47] respectfully request that Council defer the consideration of Section 57
[3:17:53] notice on title. Until December 2nd. December 2nd, 2026 to
[3:18:00] allow the remaining reviews, permit applications, and client compliance work
[3:18:05] to be completed. Thank you for your time, consideration. And
[3:18:09] I would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
[3:18:12] Any questions. Council Justice. Yeah.
[3:18:23] I just. I'm not very familiar with your future plans.
[3:18:30] But there was some indication that there's rumours that you're
[3:18:35] thinking of leaving. That current site and going to another
[3:18:40] site. Can you speak to that at all? Is there
[3:18:43] any truth to this? Do you have plans to move
[3:18:46] to another site. Our plans are to stay where we
[3:18:50] are. We are in negotiations for a second location. Um,
[3:18:58] I have NDAs signed, um, there's a lot of military
[3:19:02] and defence work coming to this area. Um, but what
[3:19:06] we have been doing to get into compliance, we are
[3:19:09] working with TALIS. I'm not sure if. You're, I have
[3:19:12] to be careful what I say. Um, we are controlled
[3:19:14] goods space. We just went through our ISO certification, our
[3:19:19] core certification. We had, um, different groups coming to our
[3:19:24] facility the last two weeks to make sure that our
[3:19:27] facility can now change from forestry to this. We're still
[3:19:30] participating with a lot of forestry work. Carmack is one
[3:19:33] of our largest clients. And you spoke earlier on a
[3:19:37] lot of the potential for the island. Um, that's coming
[3:19:40] this way. Our number one goal right now is to
[3:19:44] get into compliance, ask for a deferment for three months.
[3:19:48] We've got a lot we're doing, but we realise that
[3:19:50] this, we have to follow the rules. We're not asking
[3:19:53] for any favors. Originally, the development for that property was
[3:19:59] going to be pretty significant supporting the Crofton Domtar Mill.
[3:20:04] Unfortunately, that is not going to happen now. Um, a
[3:20:07] lot of the spaces were for, um, drum repairs, which
[3:20:11] we supplied to Haousound, which is now closed last week.
[3:20:15] Um, so that revenue stream and that type of business
[3:20:17] that we were doing is gone also now. Um, but
[3:20:21] we work hard. We find alternatives. We look at, uh,
[3:20:25] different ways at the end of the day. We want
[3:20:30] to keep everybody locally and working. Um, that's always been
[3:20:33] our objective for the last 20 years. Um, these are
[3:20:36] well paying jobs in the community that go far. Great.
[3:20:42] Thank you. Any further questions. It's your mic. Still. No
[3:20:46] further questions, but I would like to speak to this
[3:20:48] after. All right. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Thank you. Uh,
[3:20:57] Councillor Stash, or sorry, Councillor Justice and Councillor Stash. Yeah.
[3:21:02] Um, thank you. Maybe this will be a question for
[3:21:05] staff. Um, there's obviously a number of very significant outstanding
[3:21:11] issues here. Which we've, uh, heard quite a bit about.
[3:21:15] This is obviously complicated by the need to consider the
[3:21:20] circumstances we were dealing with right now. Um, Councillor Galio
[3:21:26] and the mayor, myself sitting on the mill closure response
[3:21:30] working group, certainly have heard quite a bit about the
[3:21:34] forestry industry generally being under significant pressure. And in North
[3:21:39] Couch and it's taking some very serious economic hits that
[3:21:42] we all aware or aware of the milk closure and
[3:21:46] the closure and curtailments of sawmills. So in these times,
[3:21:53] I think we do really need to be vigilant of
[3:21:57] the businesses and jobs. That are important to our community.
[3:22:04] Um, so where there is evidence that an owner is
[3:22:06] making an effort to bring a property into compliance. I
[3:22:11] do think it's reasonable for a council to go the
[3:22:14] extra mile. And trying to figure out some way of,
[3:22:19] of making it work for them. But here's where I'm
[3:22:24] sort of struggling a little bit because we did hear
[3:22:28] from, um. Speaker, not civil. Whose name I've forgotten. Mr.
[3:22:34] John, thank you. Um, you know, quite a long list
[3:22:39] of things that have been done. But I didn't see
[3:22:42] those reflected in the staff report. Oh, sorry from the
[3:22:46] owner, Ms. Clark. Yes. Got up. So if staff could
[3:22:53] help us with that, and it's a complex question to
[3:22:58] ask, but does that reflect what we just heard? Is
[3:23:02] that sort of reflect staff's reality. Mr. Swayer, Mr. Caucus?
[3:23:08] I think that question has, um, has multiple issues associated
[3:23:13] with. And I think our building inspector, chief building inspector.
[3:23:16] Should speak to some of the issues I heard the
[3:23:18] applicant speak to. We can certainly speak to a three
[3:23:22] month deferral would not allow time for a development per
[3:23:26] motion, which is required to be issued. Council won't be
[3:23:28] sitting. Well, I guess you'll be back. So there's multiple
[3:23:35] strings. And Mr. Farkas can remind Council of those, but
[3:23:38] I think the building inspector might want to comment on
[3:23:41] some of the issues that I heard the applicant state
[3:23:44] that had been resolved. Because I'm not sure that you've
[3:23:47] agreed with that. Mr. Farkers and Mr. Joan, someone want
[3:23:52] to. Or Ms. Young, apologies. Thank you. Um, so we,
[3:24:00] um, do have, uh, two incomplete building permit applications for
[3:24:07] two of the eight buildings that are unpermitted. They are,
[3:24:12] as of yet incomplete, applications. And they are incomplete in
[3:24:17] a similar way to applications we receive from them in
[3:24:20] 2024. Um, it's, uh, this, this has been ongoing for
[3:24:26] two and a half years. The development permit, we have
[3:24:29] not yet received an application. We did receive a copy
[3:24:31] of their survey and they, of a new survey, the
[3:24:36] spea line is different in that than it is in
[3:24:38] the wrapper that we have from the Development Permit from
[3:24:43] when there were buildings constructed that were permitted. Um, so
[3:24:49] we haven't received the Environmental Reports and such that would
[3:24:53] allow us to understand why that line is different. Um,
[3:24:59] so would there's still a great deal of information outstanding?
[3:25:05] Um, I'd also like to speak to, um, the understanding
[3:25:11] that a Section 57 notice on title is related to
[3:25:15] building safety. It's certainly one measure that we can take
[3:25:18] in relation to building safety, but generally if we had
[3:25:21] reason to believe there was eminent threat to the public
[3:25:23] or to the workers, we would be going with remediation
[3:25:26] order rather than a notice on title, a notice on
[3:25:29] title is more meant to inform, um, potential purchasers, financers,
[3:25:36] et cetera. Anybody that might pull that title, um, that
[3:25:40] the property is not in compliance. It also is not
[3:25:43] written in stone and once compliance is achieved, it can
[3:25:46] be removed. And as practice removed. And Mr. Me, I
[3:25:51] also believe that notices on title help with removing the
[3:25:56] liability to the public for any claims that may be
[3:26:00] made as a result of the building issues that were
[3:26:03] stated that have been built without a permit failing. So
[3:26:07] although we don't think the eminent, you certainly want to
[3:26:11] protect the public from, uh, liability associated with that. Notices
[3:26:15] on title don't prevent the businesses from operating. And they
[3:26:19] don't prevent the owners from actually coming into compliance. They're
[3:26:24] meant as a notice. And as a, uh, check on
[3:26:28] liability issues. Councillor Stache. Thank you Mayor. Um, as this,
[3:26:36] uh, unfortunately Councillor Hog couldn't get the tour because it
[3:26:40] was prior to the Biolection Council had a really great
[3:26:43] tour of West Coast prefab and saw how significant of
[3:26:46] employer they are in the community. How much work they're
[3:26:49] doing and how well run of a facility is. And
[3:26:53] myself having been a, uh, regional operational and facilities manager
[3:26:57] for a large industrial company that had to meet core
[3:27:01] audits in ISO audits. I feel, uh, the strains of
[3:27:06] rapid growth and trying to, uh, build out a facility
[3:27:09] as we did with my company that I worked for.
[3:27:11] We were building a brand new facility in the province
[3:27:13] I lived. And we were trying to meet the demands
[3:27:16] of growth. But, uh, knowing, and I'm using the words
[3:27:21] with the ISO and core audit is we met the
[3:27:23] obligations in that process. Uh, and thinking of companies that
[3:27:27] can meet those type of auditing standards I would feel
[3:27:30] that they should, should, uh, should have the skill set
[3:27:34] and the, the team behind them to meet the requirements.
[3:27:37] So the municipality, um, being building permits, uh, follow kind
[3:27:41] of those same guidelines of getting a core audit and
[3:27:45] especially ISO certification is a very rigorous process. Um, so
[3:27:49] I have all faith that they can accomplish those goals.
[3:27:52] But my question is, and Mr. Sway, you touched on
[3:27:55] it quickly there was that it doesn't impede the operation
[3:27:58] of the company. They can still bid and do their
[3:28:01] work and go on about the daily business and employees
[3:28:05] aren't affected. They can keep doing their good work. But
[3:28:08] how easy is it take to take that, uh, notice
[3:28:12] title off, I guess is just my simple question. Um,
[3:28:15] through all that Mr. Sueve, uh, it says, uh, once
[3:28:21] the work is complete to the satisfaction of the building
[3:28:23] inspector and to the municipality, then we would, um, recommend
[3:28:27] that the notice be removed. Councillor Hog. Thank you Mayor.
[3:28:42] With the notice on title, no, it wouldn't affect the
[3:28:45] employees up front. Um, but they did mention that they
[3:28:48] were trying to look at a second location. And I
[3:28:50] would assume that would affect financial. Barriers with moving forward
[3:28:55] and expansion. As Mrs. Clark stated, they're looking for, they're
[3:29:02] not looking for, um. To be dismissal of it more
[3:29:06] of a three month extension. And, um. I'm wondering if
[3:29:12] I could make a new motion and see if we
[3:29:16] can get seconded and I can talk to it. No
[3:29:21] one's moved to yet though. Yeah. So. I think you
[3:29:26] would just, you would move that we defer. The recommend
[3:29:33] and then however long you want to defer it for.
[3:29:35] Well, I'm happy to, to defer for three months and
[3:29:40] December 2nd, 2026. Okay. So moving to defer the recommendation
[3:29:44] to December 2nd, 2026 that's moved. Is there a seconder?
[3:29:48] Second by Councillor Manhouse. Councillor. Can I speak to us?
[3:29:51] Yeah. For sure. I actually wrote notes. Usually I speak.
[3:29:56] Just from the heart, but today I actually wrote notes.
[3:29:59] As we heard this business has been hit hard with
[3:30:02] hit hardships. And now looking at restructuring due to multiple
[3:30:08] meal closures, it's three month extension doesn't mean we are
[3:30:11] accepting the noncompliance. It simply provides amount a small amount
[3:30:14] of time to comply. It still gives a solid timeline
[3:30:19] for compliance. Without the implications that notice on title would
[3:30:27] might cause the business due to financing. As they're looking
[3:30:32] to restructure and keeping over the 120 people employed. And
[3:30:36] as we just heard more contractors. We sit here at
[3:30:44] the table and we do want to be fair. And
[3:30:46] we've done this before. I've nervous sat here for a
[3:30:48] notice on title, but we've done this before for, um.
[3:30:52] The houses on York Street and push things forward, the
[3:30:54] fencing. This is a big employer in the North Cowlich
[3:31:00] and, um. I just, I want to see them succeed.
[3:31:06] And if they can move forward with this, and you
[3:31:10] know what, if it's not done by December 2nd, then
[3:31:11] we have the notion title. But we get in a
[3:31:13] little bit of room to comply. And there is a
[3:31:17] timeline of pressure on them. So I am very hopeful
[3:31:21] we can get support beyond that. Thank you. Councilman House
[3:31:24] and then Councillor Finley. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah.
[3:31:27] I agree with everything that Councillor Hag just mentioned. And
[3:31:32] it looks like these folks are moving forward towards compliance.
[3:31:35] Um, it may have taken a couple of years, but
[3:31:37] they're moving forward at least now. So I think, um,
[3:31:39] it's, it's a start. And I think, well, let's see
[3:31:43] what three months what get done in three months. And
[3:31:46] then we'll go from there. So I support the three
[3:31:48] month extension Councillor Finley. Thanks Mr. Mayor. I think if
[3:31:54] it was business as usual out there with, with Croft
[3:31:57] and how sounds still going, I wouldn't be in favor
[3:31:59] of this in any way. But this is from what
[3:32:02] sounds like a significant, uh, impact to this, uh, to
[3:32:05] this company, uh, local small business. Well, maybe not medium
[3:32:09] sized business, large business, 120 employees. It's pretty big for
[3:32:11] our valley. Um, so I think if they, if they
[3:32:15] weren't going along the process, um, with business as usual,
[3:32:19] I would not be in favor of this extension. But,
[3:32:21] uh, the way things are going now with how sound
[3:32:23] and, and Crofton and other mills that seem to be
[3:32:26] curtailing and closing down, then I think we should give
[3:32:29] them the benefit of the doubt. And I'm in favor
[3:32:31] of the three month extension. All right. Any further discussion?
[3:32:35] Are you ready for the question Councillor Stash. Supposed to
[3:32:41] be neutral and unbiased and stick to policy at the
[3:32:45] table? That's the hard part. I understand very sympathetic to
[3:32:48] what Councillor Finley and Hog have said. But I just
[3:32:52] wanted to refer to the report though that initial notice
[3:33:00] was over two years ago. Um, they were, there was,
[3:33:06] uh, request to come into compliance two years ago. And
[3:33:09] then this particular, um, the notice of intent for on
[3:33:15] title, um, was almost two months ago. And staff already
[3:33:19] gave a bit of an extension and gave time to
[3:33:22] moving it from July to September. So you've had two
[3:33:26] years plus another two months extension, um, again, absolutely sympathetic
[3:33:31] to market conditions. But on the contrary to Councillor Finley's
[3:33:35] comments, it's, I would say it's the small business just
[3:33:38] starting out. That's not a large, very sophisticated corporate entity,
[3:33:45] uh, would be the ones that we would give leniens
[3:33:47] to, but a company of this reputation and caliber and
[3:33:51] commitment and being that large of employer are unfortunately are
[3:33:56] the ones that we have to hold to a higher
[3:33:57] standard. So that's why my, my, my conflict on this.
[3:34:02] And again, why, while my facility was much smaller and
[3:34:06] was a fraction, it was one building of their many.
[3:34:10] As I said, I enjoy that tour, but I understand
[3:34:13] the type of quality of work they're doing and why,
[3:34:15] again, that core auditing an ISO reference to wearing development
[3:34:19] permits and building permits should be reasonable expectations of achievement.
[3:34:24] Um, if it was just a building that needed to
[3:34:26] be repermated or built, uh, the one thing in here
[3:34:29] though, is there is a riparian area in a water
[3:34:32] course that was altered. So that's something on the environmental
[3:34:36] side that we do have to be cautious on. So
[3:34:39] again, absolutely all, uh, empathy for the situation. Uh, especially
[3:34:45] as Councillor Finley said, uh, mill closures and curtailments and
[3:34:51] things affecting that part of industry and then having to
[3:34:53] pivot and change rapidly and tariffs and real impacts on
[3:34:58] the prime commodity of their business being steel and, uh.
[3:35:04] Prefab structures. Again, full empathy and concern for their plight.
[3:35:11] But at the Council table is supposed to be a
[3:35:14] unbiased as possible and try to really stick to policy.
[3:35:20] And unfortunately our largest and again, most sophisticated companies need
[3:35:24] to be held to the highest standard. Is any further
[3:35:28] discussion or we want to call the question? Oh, sorry.
[3:35:31] It's May. Mayor, thanks. Uh, just to clarify, um, what
[3:35:35] we're voting on here. All I kind of heard was
[3:35:38] to defer the motion. Are we deferring, um, registering of
[3:35:45] the title to December the 2nd, 2026? Okay. Thanks, big.
[3:35:52] That was your intent. Okay. Council stash. Deferring debate or
[3:36:00] you're executing notice untitle, but with a delay. So either
[3:36:06] should be clarification on that then. Cause that's, that's totally
[3:36:10] different things. And I think that's what miss Maine was
[3:36:12] talking to. Councilman House? Yeah. Because if it's after three
[3:36:17] months and they may considerable, um, advance towards compliance, I
[3:36:21] think we should, you know, we can extend it. So
[3:36:23] I don't think the December 2nd should be hard, hard
[3:36:25] date. I mean, the way I understood it is we
[3:36:32] are deferring the recommendation to December 2nd. So we'll come
[3:36:36] back at December 2nd meeting for the sitting Council to
[3:36:40] decide on whether to proceed with it or not. Yeah.
[3:36:43] Yes. Yeah. So if they're complying to it, then yeah,
[3:36:45] you wouldn't want to put that on if they are
[3:36:47] complying to it. I agree. Yes. Yes. All right. So
[3:36:52] miss me if that's the collective understanding. I just want
[3:36:54] to make sure I understand exactly what we're voting on
[3:36:57] because, um, so deferring the whole motion to furry the
[3:37:00] whole topic to bring the whole thing back. Beginning of
[3:37:04] December, the first meeting in December. Council makes the decision
[3:37:07] at that point. Okay. Thank you. How are any further
[3:37:10] discussion? We want to call the question. All in favor.
[3:37:14] And opposed. Unopposed motion carries. Well now move on to
[3:37:18] item 11. 2. Mr. Mayor, this is a similar motion
[3:37:23] for 30, 57 couch and lake road. Similar issue and
[3:37:28] the recommendations that after providing the building inspector and the
[3:37:31] owner of 3057 Council Lake Road an opportunity to be
[3:37:34] herd Council confirmed the recommendations of the Billing Inspector and
[3:37:38] authorized the corporate officer to file a notice on the
[3:37:40] land title's office against the title of the property located
[3:37:42] at 3057 Council Lake Road pursuant to section 57, three
[3:37:46] of the Community Charter for contravention of the building regulations
[3:37:49] due to unresolved building infractions and further that the notice
[3:37:52] state won that the resolution relating to the land use.
[3:37:57] Has been made under Section 57 of the Community Charter
[3:38:00] and two that further information about it may be inspected
[3:38:03] at the municipal hall. All right. So first I like
[3:38:07] to welcome our building inspector back up to the podium.
[3:38:14] Good evening again. Thank you again. Um, the only thing
[3:38:17] I have to add to this beyond the what's of
[3:38:19] the report is that I believe we received a 20th
[3:38:22] complaint on this property today. For illegal, uh, disposal of
[3:38:27] sewage. So that didn't make any port cause it just
[3:38:31] happened today. But other than that, I just ask that
[3:38:32] you confirm the recommendation. Any questions for Mr. Drone. All
[3:38:38] right. Thank you. I now like to welcome the owner
[3:38:43] up to the podium. All right. Well, it's not here.
[3:38:48] All right. So we have a recommendation before us. You
[3:38:51] like to move it? Move it. It's moved. Is there
[3:38:53] a second or second by Councillor Callio any discussion. Call
[3:38:56] the question all in favor. And oppose. Then oppose motion
[3:38:59] carries. We'll now move on to item 11. 3 and
[3:39:03] I believe Dr. Preakshock introduced this one.
[3:39:15] There just, uh, little change before we get started with
[3:39:18] this one. The motion that is shown on the front
[3:39:22] cover of the agenda is slightly different from option one
[3:39:27] in the report. The only difference being that the word
[3:39:34] implementation is changed to organisation. It's a really minor prioritization.
[3:39:41] Pardon me. But we want implementation or we want priorities.
[3:39:44] We want prioritization, please. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Go for
[3:39:50] it. Um, before Dr. Bree Shot starts here, this is
[3:39:54] a 217 page document that's being presented to us seven
[3:39:58] years after the first initial, uh, motion to the Council
[3:40:01] at the time. Um, or strategic priority at the time,
[3:40:04] um, I think this is an extremely big, uh, report
[3:40:09] and something that should be postponed until after the election.
[3:40:12] So I'd like to actually make that motion to postpone
[3:40:14] the support till November 4th. Whatever the first meeting is.
[3:40:20] All right. It's been moved. Is there a second. By
[3:40:23] Council Manhas. Councillor stash. If I recall, um, through our
[3:40:30] budgeting processes, we've brought up even if we remember Miss
[3:40:35] Saldara spoke, uh, extensively about the reason that we would
[3:40:39] be getting this report while she was still here and
[3:40:43] talking to the importance of natural asset management, uh, we
[3:40:47] were all versed on it knowing that this was coming.
[3:40:50] And again, uh, we, we understand this, this keeps coming
[3:40:54] up at the CBRD table. Keeps coming up at AVICC
[3:40:58] and UBCM. I would think we're well versed in understanding
[3:41:01] what natural asset management is. Uh, and it's even touched
[3:41:05] in our, uh, it was reviewed and lightly touched on
[3:41:09] in our, uh, climate adaptation and mitigation report is saying
[3:41:15] that we, uh, the emphasis on our natural assets and
[3:41:18] the management of them is precursor for adaptation and mitigation.
[3:41:23] So, uh, I'm not in favor of deferring it. I
[3:41:25] think we can confidently take these recommendations here and act
[3:41:30] upon them today. The next Council can then help work
[3:41:35] out the implementation of it. But I see no reason
[3:41:38] why we need to defer. Councillor Cayo. Thank you. Excuse
[3:41:46] me. Um, yeah, I'm in support of Councillor Finley's motion
[3:41:52] simply because, um, being the head of the EAC committee,
[3:41:57] I think this is a very, very important report. That
[3:42:02] needs to be looked at and to be studied. It's
[3:42:06] been in the works for many, many years. And. You
[3:42:11] know, the NAP is going to be important moving forward
[3:42:15] with all the, um, developments that are coming on in
[3:42:20] North Cowching. So I'm thinking to myself that this, this
[3:42:25] actually would be good to come on. And I think
[3:42:27] it's so important that we need to have the next
[3:42:30] Council, whoever they may be. I think this would be
[3:42:33] a good opportunity for, for them to have a look
[3:42:35] at this and make a decision on something as important
[3:42:38] as this. Council of Justice. Yeah. I certainly understand the,
[3:42:45] uh. Positions of Councillor Calio and Councillor Finley. And initially
[3:42:51] I thought, Oh, I wish I have this at a
[3:42:54] committee of the whole meeting and really get a chance
[3:42:55] to beat it up. But the more I read it,
[3:42:58] the more I realised that actually the next step is
[3:43:02] the really important part. So here we're formally recognising these
[3:43:07] assets natural assets. Um, but the next thing that we're
[3:43:12] going to be doing is developing a practical plan for
[3:43:15] determining which of these actions should come first and how
[3:43:18] they're going to get done. That's when the real work
[3:43:20] starts. It's like what we did with the biodiversity policy,
[3:43:24] right? You look at this huge thing. You go, yeah,
[3:43:26] let's go. And then let's develop an implementation thing. So
[3:43:30] I don't think it's a really huge thing to do
[3:43:33] right now just to say, yeah, this is a great
[3:43:36] report. Like let's go. We're committed to natural asset management.
[3:43:41] Let's take the next step. For the next Council can
[3:43:44] start looking at an implementation plan looking at the particular
[3:43:47] actions. Which ones we should prioritize and go from there.
[3:43:51] So let's, let's approve this thing tonight and move on
[3:43:54] to the implementation for the next Council. Council Hog. Thank
[3:43:58] you Mayor. I was actually thinking about the biodiversity report.
[3:44:04] And it was referred to as a cookbook, but another
[3:44:06] cooks. Is this the same reference. I can't remember. That.
[3:44:11] Does anyone else remember that? It was a cookbook, not
[3:44:13] the cooks. Well, go back and look at a meeting
[3:44:18] because that was said. Maybe it's a cookbook. We haven't
[3:44:22] decided which recipes we're going to cook yet. Yeah. There
[3:44:26] you go. Anyways, that's all I wanted to make sure
[3:44:30] that this was just, um, to push it through. And
[3:44:34] then the implementation would start after. Is that a yes?
[3:44:38] Are we saying yes to that? Yeah. That's, that's my
[3:44:40] understanding. Okay. Understanding for sure. Okay. Okay. Thank you. This
[3:44:46] strategy outlines like a whole range of options. Um, like
[3:44:49] ongoing actions already doing short term medium term long term,
[3:44:53] but it's really that, uh, implementation or prioritization plan that's
[3:44:58] going to drill down to what we want to pursue.
[3:45:00] And some of that we may be able to be
[3:45:02] incorporated into our existing work plans or it may require
[3:45:05] approval from Council through the budgeting process of extra resources
[3:45:09] are required. But ultimately, and I'm going to go to
[3:45:12] you in one moment, Council Fish dash. I mean, we,
[3:45:15] uh, received a 200, 000 dollar grant through the Canada
[3:45:18] Community building fund to pay for this thing. We brought
[3:45:21] in urban systems to do the work. They've completed the
[3:45:23] work. They've submitted their report back in June. And it's
[3:45:26] now coming back to us. Now the staff had a
[3:45:28] chance to review it. But I mean, if we were
[3:45:30] going to refer the strategy itself to the next council,
[3:45:35] I mean, I'm not sure what they would do with
[3:45:36] it. Would we, if we've already fully expended the 200,
[3:45:40] 000 dollar grant and federal funding, if we want to
[3:45:43] change it, are we going to bring urban systems back?
[3:45:46] Are we going to get a staff to bring in
[3:45:51] new suggested actions and keep in mind, like it's a
[3:45:53] whole menu of actions there. And it's truly through that
[3:45:55] implementation plan that we decide on which ones we want
[3:45:58] to pursue and incorporate into our Departmental work plans. Councillor
[3:46:02] Cawyo. And then Councillor Stash and he'd been waiting patiently.
[3:46:05] Thanks, Mayor. Yeah. Some good points. And I mean, we
[3:46:12] sit at this table and we listen. I know myself.
[3:46:16] I listen. And I listen with everybody says. And I,
[3:46:19] and I weigh, you know, the points that they make.
[3:46:23] And I think in this situation, I think, uh, the
[3:46:27] mayor and, uh, Councillor Justice have made a good point
[3:46:30] with me. And so, um, I think I might be
[3:46:35] voting the other way. Thank you. Councillor Stash, thanks for
[3:46:38] your patience. All good. As everybody was talking, I was
[3:46:42] thinking on the other point to this is, um, I'd
[3:46:45] want to speak to the plan itself, uh, quickly because
[3:46:47] we're speaking about the wise choice to defer or not
[3:46:53] defer, but to the plan itself, um, what I've seen
[3:46:56] accomplished over this four years of this term are a
[3:46:59] lot of good things are actually happening. Towards actually these
[3:47:03] are all the building blocks of coming up with our
[3:47:08] hopeful future full community buying on a forest strategy. Um,
[3:47:14] our biodiversity policy and all of our riparian work we've
[3:47:18] done through that and understanding that the force and the
[3:47:21] ecosystems. And then working on natural asset management. All of
[3:47:25] these are the building blocks that inform, uh, how best
[3:47:28] to steward the local force. And then this report itself
[3:47:32] is, and this plan is another important document that we're
[3:47:35] going to be able to provide to coatzination to really
[3:47:37] come up with a folsome, uh, co - management plan
[3:47:40] with them. So any deferral in this has us deferring
[3:47:45] coming out with a good future, uh, policy and, uh,
[3:47:49] management plan that reflects North Collish and wishes. Of course,
[3:47:53] we saw that again in the citizen satisfaction, uh, replay.
[3:47:58] I guess the happy side to me is this all
[3:48:01] started eight years ago when we asked for a pause
[3:48:03] on the forest. So, uh, if this council wishes defer
[3:48:06] that, you're just going to make me happy. And we're
[3:48:08] going to have a pause longer and our forest are
[3:48:10] going to have a continued time to heal and regenerate
[3:48:13] and perform their natural asset value. So I guess I
[3:48:16] win if we approve it today and I'm going to
[3:48:18] be very happy if they do defer it because it's
[3:48:20] just going to take longer to come up with four
[3:48:22] strategies. So, uh, I'm grateful either way, but I do
[3:48:25] urge you to, uh, pass this today as most notably
[3:48:30] on if you look on the chart on page 17,
[3:48:34] nothing even comes close to the natural asset value of
[3:48:37] the local force in North Couch and provide. Most notably,
[3:48:41] water retention, storm management. And then soil erosion and soil
[3:48:46] retention in the valley. So, um, either way you're going
[3:48:50] to, I'll be fine with your vote, but I hope
[3:48:52] that the vote is to make this happen today. On
[3:48:56] deferral, we ready for the question then. It's all in
[3:48:59] favor of deferring this item. And opposed. Councillor's Calio, Estach
[3:49:05] Hog Justice in the Mayor Oppose motions defeated. All right,
[3:49:08] back to you Dr. Prekshaw. Mr. Swabi, anything to add.
[3:49:19] Um, good evening worship. Good evening Council. Thanks for the
[3:49:22] opportunity to speak to you on this. And Councillor Hogg,
[3:49:26] MeaKalpa. I introduced the metaphor of these items being like
[3:49:31] recipe books. And that, uh, what staff is seeking here
[3:49:36] is permission to come back and discuss with Council which
[3:49:40] one of these recipes we want to cook. Um, our
[3:49:43] belief is that this report has lots of great instructions.
[3:49:48] And well, we can decide later how we want to
[3:49:50] take those and what subset of that we can use.
[3:49:53] So I just like to begin by, um, pointing out
[3:49:57] that we do have the, uh, report lead author, uh,
[3:50:01] online in case the technical questions, but I understand your
[3:50:06] schedule isn't quite busy. So I'd like to quickly go
[3:50:08] through the presentation and allow Council to begin deliberation on
[3:50:12] the recommendation that we adopt a report and, uh, then
[3:50:17] direct staff to work with EAC and Council on, uh,
[3:50:20] on preparing a prioritization plan so that we can start
[3:50:24] looking at some of these. This is the, uh, way
[3:50:29] to advance the slides. Uh, pointed out
[3:50:38] before, uh, this project has its genesis in 2019 when
[3:50:42] Council adopted a strategic plan, which included a goal of
[3:50:46] integrating natural assets into our outset management program. Uh, in
[3:50:50] 2022, Council Dr. Resolution directing staff to approach federal funding
[3:50:56] agency to get funds to look at how that might
[3:51:00] be done. And in, uh, in 2023, uh, 2022, we
[3:51:04] were awarded 200, 000 dollars through UBCM from the federal,
[3:51:10] um, uh, agencies to actually fund a study which included
[3:51:18] looking at an actual natural asset inventory, looking at risk
[3:51:22] and level of service assessment from the, for those natural
[3:51:25] assets, uh, sketching out what natural asset management plans would
[3:51:29] look like in North Cowlichan doing a detailed assessment of
[3:51:33] Bing's Creek to provide an example in very specific detail
[3:51:37] of how that could unfold in a readily identifiable and
[3:51:42] recognisable natural asset in our community. And, uh, and then
[3:51:46] looking at what tools we have to actually implement that
[3:51:49] and make it happen. Project started up in 2024 when,
[3:51:54] uh, an RFP was issued to ask firms to bid
[3:51:58] on, uh, a contract to do those things. In February,
[3:52:03] 2024, we also apprised Council of our intention to pursue
[3:52:06] that through a bulletin outlining the RFP and what we
[3:52:10] were seeking, um, uh, contractor to do in July the
[3:52:15] summer, we awarded the contract to urban systems. And, uh,
[3:52:19] the project was initiated in October, 2024. With urban systems
[3:52:25] looking at initiating 11 tasks. And this is looking at
[3:52:30] our current natural asset management practices in North Cowching. It's
[3:52:33] important to recognise we do manage natural assets. One of
[3:52:36] the goals of this program really is to be a
[3:52:38] little bit more purposeful and formal about how we do
[3:52:41] that. Uh, and, and that can improve our efficiency and
[3:52:45] help deliver more recognisable goals. Uh, there's an asset inventory
[3:52:50] looking at, um, not exhaustive, but fairly complete examination of
[3:52:56] kinds of natural assets we have in this community. Looking
[3:52:59] at their condition, looking at their level of service. Level
[3:53:02] of service is really key way at which the function
[3:53:05] that those assets provide is identified and assessed. And then,
[3:53:11] uh, and then valued. And typically it's on a, what
[3:53:14] would it cost for us to build some sort of
[3:53:17] infrastructure to replace what this is doing. And, uh, great
[3:53:20] example is something like a wetland, which floods regularly, um,
[3:53:24] but provides flood protection for surrounding lands. And in fact,
[3:53:28] North Couch and has several assets in which we own
[3:53:32] wetlands, which we maintain the stormwater detention facilities, which help
[3:53:36] control flood waters from impacting neighbouring communities. In a planning
[3:53:42] phase where looking at what are the elements of a
[3:53:44] natural asset management strategy, uh, what our elements of an
[3:53:48] implementation plan. And that's a prioritization plan that staff is
[3:53:52] recommending. And looking at an action plan for Bings Creek
[3:53:56] in particular to provide a guidance of how that could
[3:53:59] be done in one place or the kinds of, uh,
[3:54:02] processes and procedures you would use to take on an
[3:54:07] asset to augment what we already have as an asset
[3:54:10] management, as assets that we do manage. And then finally
[3:54:14] looking at implementation, what would you be doing to monitor
[3:54:19] and report on those to know that you're actually achieving
[3:54:22] what those assets are intended to be doing. Big aspect
[3:54:27] of the work we did included engagement First Nations. And
[3:54:30] we had two engagement events with First Nations staff, uh,
[3:54:35] from all five First Nations within North Cowching. And we
[3:54:38] also were able to establish regular engagement sessions with elders
[3:54:42] from Panelicate and Halal tribe. And we're still, we're still
[3:54:47] talking to Couch and tribes about setting up, um, a
[3:54:50] similar sort of, um, series with, um, their elders and
[3:54:55] or community members. And we found this as really, uh,
[3:54:59] become an important thing that we do regularly and has
[3:55:02] really helped improve how we conduct relations on topics which
[3:55:07] are primary importance to a lot of folks in those
[3:55:10] communities. What are we doing to restore and protect a
[3:55:14] lot of the habitats that are seen as having been
[3:55:17] changed fundamentally. The work, as I mentioned, began in 2024
[3:55:25] and staff advisory team really involved all parts of North
[3:55:30] Cowlician's staff team, uh, folks from the senior at the
[3:55:35] asset management specialist who we have on staff. Michelle Miller,
[3:55:40] myself, of course. Director of Financial Services, directors, as they've
[3:55:44] changed director of planning and building an environment, the Environmental
[3:55:49] Programs Manager, the Manager of Engineering, Director of Parks and
[3:55:52] Recreation Municipal Forester, GIS staff support, and of course, participation
[3:55:57] of Communication staff. And so all of these eyes have
[3:56:02] been on the report. And we're there to point out,
[3:56:07] uh, deficiencies, weaknesses and places that could be augmented. So
[3:56:12] really, I have a feeling that this report captures a
[3:56:16] lot of what staff think is achievable, uh, from, from
[3:56:20] different, the capabilities within different departments to recognise where this
[3:56:26] could be applied and used. Uh, just a brief look
[3:56:32] at the project timeline with work starting at 2024. Initially,
[3:56:35] we'd intended to be finished earlier in 2025, but with
[3:56:40] the, uh, preparation of the final report and reviewed by
[3:56:43] staff. It took a little bit longer. Um, but, uh,
[3:56:47] better to deliver a good product late than a half
[3:56:51] bake product. Uh, early. For finalising the report, I'm sticking
[3:57:01] with a cooking metaphor. It's pretty hard, aren't I? For
[3:57:05] finalising the report, we, uh, like I said, started, uh,
[3:57:10] in early 26 with staff reviewing the report, providing feedback
[3:57:13] to urban systems. That was, um, and involved, uh, an
[3:57:18] involved process. But I think really worth it giving staff
[3:57:21] members a more complete understanding what the report was all
[3:57:25] about and how we could take this advice and bring
[3:57:27] it to bear. And I think that will help bear
[3:57:30] fruit in the discussions with EAC and Council in the
[3:57:33] future when we're figuring out how exactly we are going
[3:57:37] to prioritize different strategies and assets in our community that
[3:57:42] we can start emphasizing for management. So just to give
[3:57:51] you some highlights of the report, then reference made to
[3:57:56] its size, but I think one thing you can focus
[3:57:58] on is really it's the first 45 pages that provide
[3:58:01] you the real meat of the report. Majority of it
[3:58:06] are very highly detailed technical aspects of how some of
[3:58:09] the assessment work was done. The guts of how the
[3:58:11] Bings Creek analysis was done. And that, um, maybe, uh,
[3:58:16] less compelling for some. But, uh, the report itself, uh,
[3:58:20] really does a good job of looking at the natural
[3:58:23] asset context of North Couch and it's not going to
[3:58:25] surprise anybody to see that we really are blessed with,
[3:58:31] uh, significant amount of forest and stream aquatic habitats that
[3:58:37] we treasure because of their existence. But also provide a
[3:58:42] surprising amount of service to the community. Um, and, and,
[3:58:46] and the process and practices that we already have in
[3:58:48] North Cowlich and where as I refer to we are
[3:58:50] managing natural assets, uh, and how that work really which
[3:58:55] is not haphazard, but definitely hasn't been approached from a
[3:58:58] strategic perspective how, you know, being a little bit more
[3:59:01] purposeful about that can help us be more efficient about
[3:59:04] where we choose to do this and how we choose
[3:59:06] to expand on the assets we already do manage. Like
[3:59:10] I said, mostly, uh, detention punds wetlands and these sorts
[3:59:13] of things, uh, tied in with stormwater, uh, conveyance. And
[3:59:18] that's really, I think where the report is looking for
[3:59:20] us to focus some of our initial work is building
[3:59:24] on that stormwater, uh, conveyance that is a big part
[3:59:28] of what we do and what natural assets can easily
[3:59:31] provide and provide in a better way. If manage properly.
[3:59:36] We did a risk assessment looking at, you know, just
[3:59:38] what are the potential risks given climate change and just
[3:59:43] given natural climate variation to those things. These are, these
[3:59:46] are things like floods and where you have failures in
[3:59:50] different systems. Forest fires, for example. The Bins Creek pilot
[3:59:54] study really provides, um, look at, um, what that really
[3:59:59] will mean in terms of staffing that's required to look
[4:00:02] at management. And it's not, these aren't daunting things. Um,
[4:00:06] the one thing I suspect a lot of people will
[4:00:08] find daunting is when the report actually does a valuation
[4:00:12] of all the natural assets in the community. The estimated
[4:00:16] value of all those natural assets is about five billion
[4:00:19] dollars. And that's not to say that North Cowlican would
[4:00:23] be assuming management of five billion dollars worth of assets
[4:00:28] with some sort of replacement plan or management plan to
[4:00:31] cover that whole thing. But it is just to point
[4:00:34] out that if you look at, especially you can see
[4:00:37] in this graph that the vast majority of those services
[4:00:39] are in stormwater management from water courses and rainwater mitigation
[4:00:46] and carbon sequestration in forests. And so we already knew
[4:00:50] a lot of this, but it is important to understand
[4:00:53] that. And the five billion dollar figure, although it may
[4:00:58] seem shocking. So actually comparable. In fact, it's, it's about
[4:01:03] what private property. And in North Couch. So the number
[4:01:12] itself is, is actually quite comparable to private property in
[4:01:18] terms of its total value. And I think that is
[4:01:22] probably appropriate and it gives an indication that it's probably
[4:01:25] something that it's on the right scale. And. Just to
[4:01:31] look a little bit more specifically at the Bings Creek
[4:01:33] example, Look at how the assessment is done looking at
[4:01:37] the different reaches of the creek, seeing where the pressures
[4:01:40] are where the services are provided. And figuring out ways
[4:01:44] that by managing that creek and being a little bit
[4:01:47] more purposeful about where we decide to do things to
[4:01:50] the creek, we can help prevent failure. Um, one of
[4:01:55] the things that I really came to the realization of
[4:01:58] during this process was we do manage these natural assets.
[4:02:02] But what we tend to do is manage them when
[4:02:04] they fail spectacularly and we get floods. We get fires.
[4:02:07] And we get these sorts of events happen where we
[4:02:09] spend millions of dollars to clean up the mess. Most
[4:02:15] recent example being the 2021 floods in the Shimani's River.
[4:02:19] The banks failed. Communities get flooded. So we do wind
[4:02:22] up managing the asset by spending money on gravel removal.
[4:02:26] I'm building dikes. And so what asset management from this
[4:02:28] perspective, the seeking to do is to switch the paradigm
[4:02:32] from this unplanned crisis management model to something that's more
[4:02:37] purposeful looking at where our places where we can meaningfully
[4:02:40] make a difference and work to create plans to avoid
[4:02:43] the crisis management scenarios. So for the next steps, we'd
[4:02:52] like to, uh, obviously we've gone through some of these
[4:02:55] steps already, but this is now at the phase where
[4:02:59] I'm reporting to Council and recommending looking at developing a
[4:03:03] prioritization plan where we have a report that provides some
[4:03:07] great methods that provides some great, uh, foundation upon which
[4:03:12] we can have a discussion on which natural assets we
[4:03:16] might choose to focus on. I think it would be
[4:03:19] great if we could start that with stormwater because we've
[4:03:22] already made a great start on that and have some
[4:03:24] significant assets, which we could build on and add to.
[4:03:29] And, uh, I think our things that would be highly
[4:03:30] recognisable in the community, but we can talk about that
[4:03:34] in developing that prioritization with Council and the EAC is
[4:03:38] where we'd like to go next and looking at a
[4:03:40] developing a timeline for bringing those on board and discussing
[4:03:43] what the costs are. So just like thank you very
[4:03:49] much for your time. And I'm happy to take any
[4:03:51] questions. And as I said, if there's any technical, we
[4:03:55] do have someone from urban systems too. All right. Councillor
[4:03:58] Justice. Great report. Thanks. It has been eight years since
[4:04:07] we put this into the strategic plan. So it's really
[4:04:11] neat. And I know, um, you've been really involved in
[4:04:15] a lot of the natural asset management that we have
[4:04:18] been doing. So I'm thinking about the work that you've
[4:04:22] been involved with. I guess, um, in two different capacities
[4:04:27] with the Salmanos Marsh wildlife society, right? Who are really
[4:04:32] doing a lot of good natural asset management. Although not
[4:04:35] in the sort of systematic way that we're talking about.
[4:04:37] Um, and also with Kwamechin Lake. And so this is
[4:04:41] a really, uh, sort of natural fit for you. Anyway,
[4:04:46] I just, I think it's a very positive step forward
[4:04:50] for the municipality. Really excited to see how it unfolds
[4:04:54] in the future. Any further comments or questions from Council.
[4:05:01] Council Man ask. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Mr.
[4:05:03] Peakshot. Oh, Dr. Peak Chat for your presentation. Um, so
[4:05:07] if this is adopted, does just mean that everything we
[4:05:10] do will be looked at through the lens of this
[4:05:13] plant. Dr. Prekshaw. Yeah. Thanks for the question. Um, no,
[4:05:19] I don't think so. Um, I think what this is,
[4:05:22] like I said, is a guide. Recipe book. Um, a
[4:05:28] guide which provides us with a really excellent foundation upon
[4:05:33] which we can make some decisions. And, um, as it
[4:05:37] points out, we, we already have embarked on the road
[4:05:40] of managing natural assets. So I think the real important
[4:05:44] next step is, is doing, uh, prioritization plan with Council.
[4:05:49] And I think that's really, that would be the kind
[4:05:52] of necessary outcome of adopting is, uh, beginning a discussion
[4:05:56] about how are we actually going to take some of
[4:05:59] the rules that are in here. And adopt them to
[4:06:01] what we have in our community and go forward with
[4:06:04] that. With the consent of counsel in the AC. Am
[4:06:09] I concerned is that we had the master transpiration plan.
[4:06:12] We have the, we have the climate plan, whatever. And
[4:06:14] everything has we looked out through those because, you know,
[4:06:17] we, we hear things that, well, it's in the master
[4:06:20] transportation plan. So that's, it's in the report. So we
[4:06:23] have to look at, so this is not that. S
[4:06:27] my understanding. And perhaps, um, Mr. Swabi or Mr. Farkis
[4:06:33] might have a different perspective, but what I would say
[4:06:35] is that this provides you with a very specific, uh,
[4:06:40] set of guidelines and rules to help you make decisions
[4:06:42] about managing natural assets, which is kind of a specific
[4:06:46] subset of, of what we do as a community. So,
[4:06:50] so I don't think it's creating a framework through which,
[4:06:53] uh, other policies would be judged. Dr. Presha, whether we,
[4:06:58] uh, adult the strategy of pursue the recommendations, the fact
[4:07:02] of the matter is, is that a big part of
[4:07:04] the strategy is, uh, an inventory of our existing natural
[4:07:08] assets. Um, evaluation of the services they provide. And an
[4:07:13] assessment of their condition. And whether we do anything with
[4:07:17] report from here on out doesn't change the fact that
[4:07:20] we've got that 5. 3 billion dollars worth of natural
[4:07:23] assets and other 48 billion dollars worth of, uh, Bings
[4:07:28] Creek watershed. Yeah. Thanks for the comment. I agree with
[4:07:32] that. And it's, um, it's, it's kind of, it's more
[4:07:35] of a process thing. There's a lot of process stuff
[4:07:40] in here. And I think that's, uh, the discussions are
[4:07:45] really around the guts of how do you make, you
[4:07:48] know, help make these financial and management decisions on specific
[4:07:53] things. What actually winds up being, uh, worked on for
[4:07:57] natural assets will be for council to decide and, uh,
[4:08:00] for the community to advise on in the EAC potentially
[4:08:03] if they're, um, if they, uh. Ask to advise on
[4:08:07] it after the next election. Councillor Calio, you're next up.
[4:08:16] Thanks, Mayor. Yeah. Real good. Can I talk now?
[4:08:26] Sorry. Um, yeah, thanks Dr. Preshrut for your report. Excellent
[4:08:31] report. And going through the report from, was it urban
[4:08:38] systems. Urban systems? Um, yeah, it's very detailed. And I
[4:08:45] never knew that we had five billion dollars worth of
[4:08:48] assets in natural fluorin fauna and our municipalities. So it's
[4:08:54] a bit of an eye opener. You know, it's, I
[4:09:00] know that when we live in this valley, we, we
[4:09:03] appreciate it. We love it. But we don't realise the
[4:09:07] actual value of, of where we live in a lot
[4:09:09] of ways. And, um, like you were talking about, uh.
[4:09:15] You know, swamps that are, you know, wetlands that are
[4:09:20] detention areas and that. And this is, uh, something that
[4:09:23] we have quite a few of. And we need to,
[4:09:26] and we will have more in the future. Um, you
[4:09:28] know, I just like to say that, uh, you know,
[4:09:30] if I am reelected, I'd like to be the, uh,
[4:09:35] chair of the, uh, environmental advisory committee again, because I'd
[4:09:39] like to work with those extremely knowledgeable people. And implement
[4:09:42] this, uh, any MP plan. And thank you for your
[4:09:46] report again. Councillor Stash, then Councillor Finley. Thanks, Mayor. Just
[4:09:52] now on the report itself, like I said, we're talking
[4:09:54] really high level. And whenever anybody's asked me or when
[4:09:58] Miss Salder kind of came out for the RFP process
[4:10:01] was just speaking to the general public and when you
[4:10:04] think about what natural asset management is, is just understanding
[4:10:08] that a small investment into our local ecology, our waterways
[4:10:13] in the forest is a massive taxpayer saving, uh, especially
[4:10:17] when we look at the reports for Mr. Reitzman understanding
[4:10:20] the costs of hard assets of sewer pipes and storm
[4:10:24] pipes. And as you said, man - made detention ponds
[4:10:28] when if we actually understood and managed our natural assets
[4:10:31] and efficient manner, we would actually have to spend less
[4:10:34] on our hard assets. You know, it's the same way
[4:10:38] as some way would build a retaining wall on their
[4:10:40] property or plant trees and grass so that their soil
[4:10:43] doesn't erode. We have those natural assets in place. So
[4:10:47] from a small amount, as you said, just maintaining the
[4:10:50] assets we have, that's where that value comes from is
[4:10:53] what's the value of service they provide rather than us
[4:10:55] putting in hard assets that we have continually managed. And,
[4:10:59] uh, we get reports from Mr. Reitzma saying their red
[4:11:02] need to be replaced and get them done. Uh, nature
[4:11:05] in its own essence is naturally regenerative. So we just
[4:11:08] have to do our part to be responsible to them.
[4:11:11] And, um, I think, uh, Councillor Manasseh's concerns. Is it
[4:11:15] being an overarching document, need not be worried. And actually,
[4:11:19] it's a document you could get behind being that it's
[4:11:21] very financially pragmatic to dig into your natural assets because
[4:11:26] they lower taxpayers cost. Anything we can do to keep
[4:11:29] costs down by looking after what we have more responsibly.
[4:11:33] It's reports like this that do it down. So let's
[4:11:35] just call it nature's water lines and sewer pipes and
[4:11:39] retaining walls. So, uh, keep it down simple like that.
[4:11:42] It's an overly complicated document. We just underneed the high
[4:11:45] level. And that's where we have talented staff like you
[4:11:47] that have those titles beside your name that really enjoy
[4:11:51] those extra 200 pages. Councillor Finley. Thanks for smear. Dr.
[4:11:58] Preekshad, I want to make sure I fully understand this.
[4:12:02] So you're saying the five billion dollars worth of assets
[4:12:04] in North Council, but North County doesn't own those five
[4:12:06] billion dollar assets. They are privately owned like the creeks
[4:12:10] and rivers and add around by the crown, if I
[4:12:13] understand correctly. So this is a overarching five billion dollar
[4:12:17] asset natural asset valuation for private and public lands. Yeah.
[4:12:23] Thanks for the question. That's, that's right. It's the primary
[4:12:29] method of valuing these assets was essentially asking the question.
[4:12:34] What would it cost to build something to do what
[4:12:37] this thing is already doing for free. But, but a
[4:12:42] great example of, of how it's not actually for free
[4:12:45] is when the Shimanous River broke its bank, we no
[4:12:49] longer had that natural asset performing its most important service
[4:12:54] on November 15th on that year, which was taking stormwater
[4:12:59] to the ocean. And so we had to go in
[4:13:01] with the provincial emergency management team. Uh, with the Ministry
[4:13:04] of Environment. And we had to restore flooded lands. We
[4:13:08] had to restore channels. And so we wound up doing
[4:13:11] all of this disaster response stuff, which is essentially natural
[4:13:15] asset management. Um, and we did it because we hadn't
[4:13:19] really thought ahead. And so we're not saying either that
[4:13:24] we need to manage all the assets, but we can
[4:13:27] pick some that we think that's a place where we
[4:13:30] could really make a difference and avoid that crisis response.
[4:13:33] And in cases like, uh, where we have grey infrastructure
[4:13:37] that already exists. Sometimes we can help it. So for
[4:13:40] example, if you can flood certain areas that are protected
[4:13:43] by the dike, maybe the dike and the pumps associated
[4:13:47] with the dike don't have to work as hard during
[4:13:49] storm events because you've got a sacrificial area that you're
[4:13:53] allowing to flood. So it's looking for opportunities like that.
[4:13:57] Follow. So in the case of Shimani's river, let's use
[4:14:00] that because you just talked about it. Um, one of
[4:14:03] the suggestions that we've heard from farmers in the area,
[4:14:05] including Mr. Ellingham and the crowd here is to get
[4:14:07] in there and take out the gravel. But we don't
[4:14:09] own that. Um, so in the case of the implementation
[4:14:11] plan, maybe one of the recommendations is to do more
[4:14:14] gravel removal. How do we do that when we don't
[4:14:17] own it? And our taxpayer is taken on that, that
[4:14:21] cost and risk. Yeah. It's a great point. And that's
[4:14:25] actually where the rubber is going to hit the road.
[4:14:29] On developing a prioritization plan is identifying those opportunities. And
[4:14:34] you're right. Uh, the gravel removal and the shamanus river
[4:14:37] is something that a lot of folks have talked about
[4:14:39] all property owners, uh, municipal staff, um, but the province
[4:14:44] has actually been fairly adamant that that's not something they
[4:14:46] really want to get behind. And so there will be
[4:14:49] cases where, uh, we're going to have to think long
[4:14:53] and hard about where we can move the dial. And
[4:14:56] I think like something like Bing's Creek is a more
[4:14:59] tractable and early, easy example of, of where we would
[4:15:03] be able to move the dial. Um, but there are
[4:15:06] bigger picture stories, which maybe we can be part of
[4:15:08] as well. Uh, I'm sure Halal would be a very
[4:15:11] willing participant in a discussion on how we should be
[4:15:14] managing gravel in the shaman as river. And this would
[4:15:17] be a natural avenue to help that make more sense
[4:15:19] for North Cowlican. Thanks. Councillor Justice. He had just following
[4:15:24] up on that number 5. 3 billion. Cause I think
[4:15:28] that may mislead a few people. Um, and tell me
[4:15:33] if I'm right as I understand, take an example of
[4:15:36] a little creek running through a property. I mean, it
[4:15:41] may provide many, many, it's not the value of that.
[4:15:46] Creep, that create provides habitat, biodiversity, and maybe some enjoyment
[4:15:52] for people who play in it or walk along it
[4:15:54] or that sort of thing. The value we're talking about
[4:15:57] is what it would take because when it starts raining,
[4:16:01] water flows away from that property in the creek. And
[4:16:04] if that creek was not there or was destroyed or
[4:16:08] filled in or something, the cost of replacing that drainage
[4:16:13] service alone is what that cumulative five point three billion
[4:16:17] dollars, is that right? Um, That's right. Um, in the
[4:16:21] case of the small creek like you're describing, it would
[4:16:24] probably be two main things. One would be erosion control.
[4:16:27] And the other would be stormwater conveyance. So that would
[4:16:30] effectively be what would cost to put in a pipe.
[4:16:34] Along or a culvert along that length of land. And
[4:16:38] that sort of is applied to all the waterways and
[4:16:42] the forests for those sorts of service. Other services that
[4:16:45] come in are pollution mitigation. And, uh, but yeah, the
[4:16:49] vast majority of the value that you saw in that,
[4:16:51] that one graph is looking, it's associated with, with stormwater
[4:16:56] stuff. Right. Just to make the point, that 5. 3
[4:17:00] billion is just a minuscule portion of the pricelessness of
[4:17:05] our natural assets. Obviously. All right, Dr. Preakshat1, uh, recognise
[4:17:14] all the effort that, uh, you and your team and
[4:17:17] the, uh, consultants from urban systems put into preparing this
[4:17:20] as was noted, it's eight years in the making, but
[4:17:23] it's going to be a valuable resource for, uh, the
[4:17:26] future council and for staff going forward. When we think
[4:17:30] of, uh, assets, I think most of us tend to
[4:17:32] think of the engineered assets. The roads, the bridges, the
[4:17:35] water mains and sewer mains. We know that those are
[4:17:38] expensive to build. Um, expensive maintain and even more expensive,
[4:17:42] uh, two replace. But as we've learned from this report
[4:17:46] before us, uh, these natural assets throughout our municipality, whether
[4:17:49] it's forests or lakes or the cosine or the wetlands
[4:17:54] have a value of, um, that they provide to the
[4:18:00] municipality and the residents. And that includes, you know, erosion
[4:18:04] control, um, stormwater conveyance and detention, uh, climate regulation, water
[4:18:10] purification. And with this, uh, this document before us, we
[4:18:14] have a menu of options to consider in terms of
[4:18:16] how we want to not only maintain, but also, uh,
[4:18:20] enhance these assets. And as we've seen with the case
[4:18:22] study of, uh, the Bings Creek watershed, um, that has
[4:18:26] evaluation of, uh, 48 million dollars in terms of the
[4:18:29] services it's providing our community. And the report from Urban
[4:18:34] Systems has outlined a whole series of actions. We can
[4:18:36] take, um, again, protect and maintain and restore that asset
[4:18:41] recognising that the different reaches of Bing's creaker and are
[4:18:44] much different conditions depending on the level of development to
[4:18:48] date. So I'm excited to see the municipal to get
[4:18:51] working on the prioritization plan. I hope the REST account
[4:18:54] sol feels the same. We have recommendation before us wondering
[4:18:58] if someone would like to move that, move by Councillor
[4:19:01] Stash, seconded by Councillor Calio. Any discussion. So this is
[4:19:06] to adopt the strategy and also direct staff to work
[4:19:09] with our environmental advisory committee to prepare the prioritization plan.
[4:19:14] Call the question that all in favor. And opposed. Menapose
[4:19:18] motion carries. It was not opposed, right? All right. Okay.
[4:19:24] We're now going to move on to item 11. 4.
[4:19:27] Mr. Swayby. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, this report from staff
[4:19:30] is regarding the ecom service fees and projected cost increases,
[4:19:34] uh, for 2027 to 2029. The recommendations that Council receive
[4:19:39] the Ecom service fee projected cost increases for that time
[4:19:43] frame from the director of financial services for information only.
[4:19:49] So we do have a recommendation. I will just comment,
[4:19:52] uh, for, for counseling members, the Public who may be
[4:19:55] watching this meeting that we, uh, as a municipally, like
[4:19:59] so many others are struggling with, with escalating costs and
[4:20:02] a whole range of areas. With infrastructure being one of
[4:20:05] them. What's frustrating though, is that we're continuously having these
[4:20:08] new costs, uh, downloaded on us from the senior levels
[4:20:11] of government. So with the ecom service, um, for the
[4:20:14] nine - in - one one calls, that was historically
[4:20:16] a service that was paid for by the scene levels
[4:20:19] of government. We, uh, we were informed, previous Council that
[4:20:24] that was going to be downloaded, but luckily we did
[4:20:26] get an extension on that. As Council recall, we organised
[4:20:30] the other municipalities across Southern Vancouver Island. We did a
[4:20:32] whole press conference and the steps of the legislature. Bit
[4:20:35] of a Hail Mary. Unfortunately, um, we didn't get any
[4:20:38] reprie from the province on that. So now we are
[4:20:41] facing significant new costs that are being downloaded onto us.
[4:20:45] And it's, again, frustrating that, um, it's one thing to
[4:20:49] be, say, raising property taxes on residents and businesses knowing
[4:20:54] that that money is going to be going to infrastructure
[4:20:56] improvements or enhancements and services. But if something altogether to
[4:21:00] be paying for costs that were traditionally provided by the
[4:21:04] senior levels of government. Councillor Cayo. Thanks, Mayor. Couldn't agree
[4:21:12] with you more. I mean, everything you've said was right
[4:21:16] on. Um, I do have a question for, um, finance.
[4:21:21] And that is, um, how many jurisdictions in the province
[4:21:24] right now are paying ecom costs. It's better. Uh, thank
[4:21:32] you for the question. Um, as far as I can
[4:21:35] see, only the 10 South An Municipality so far are
[4:21:39] in this funding arrangement. And one last question is what
[4:21:45] percentage has the ecom costs gone up since we've incurred
[4:21:49] them. From 2025 to 2027, almost 69 percent. 663, 000
[4:21:58] was in 2025. However, the senior levels of government did
[4:22:02] fund the first quarter. This year was 884, 000 and
[4:22:07] next year it's expected to be 1, 119. And what
[4:22:11] 1. 5 million in 2029. Yeah. So it's 1. 5
[4:22:14] million dollars in new costs that fall on our taxpayers
[4:22:17] that wasn't the case a few years. And only 10
[4:22:20] communities in the whole province are paying it. And all
[4:22:22] of the run the southern Vancouver Island, Mr. Murray Justify,
[4:22:27] there is more than 10 communities. Ecom started as a
[4:22:31] radio dispatch governance. Part of the lobbying effort that the
[4:22:35] South Island Municipalities were successful in getting was that the
[4:22:39] province would undertake a review of the service given that
[4:22:41] it's expanding its type of service delivery to municipalities. That
[4:22:46] report came out earlier this year. That report resulted in
[4:22:50] a whole bunch of, uh, new recommendations for governance of
[4:22:54] which we have one representation on the board now, but
[4:22:57] the more changes made in the future. Uh, they've also
[4:23:00] recognised that their capital costs of their delivery of their
[4:23:04] service wasn't being picked up by the island communities and
[4:23:07] that or any communities and that they needed to include
[4:23:09] their capital costs and how their funding model. So this,
[4:23:13] although this was a downloaded service, this is now a
[4:23:15] contract with a service provider who is trying to make
[4:23:18] sure that they capture the real cost for delivering the
[4:23:21] services. So we have gone through an extensive process with,
[4:23:25] uh, ecom to understand why the costs are the way
[4:23:28] they are. Uh, they will keep continue to go up.
[4:23:32] Uh, is our expectation as they develop new facilities to
[4:23:35] deliver their service. Uh, the one Hail Mary still is
[4:23:38] that there's no charges for cell phones to return to,
[4:23:43] uh, this service to help offset the cost. Like in
[4:23:46] most other provinces. And that lobby can be continued by
[4:23:51] our Council in the future. Um, as we move this
[4:23:54] forward, there are no other providers that have capacity to
[4:23:57] take this on. Uh, all the CAOs are, uh, working
[4:24:01] with, uh, other organisations to see if they want to
[4:24:05] increase their capacity. But at this point, this is the
[4:24:07] only game in town. And these are the actual costs.
[4:24:10] And we're confident that they are the cost as high
[4:24:14] as they are. And as unbelievable as they can sound.
[4:24:22] With someone like to move the, uh, recommendation to receive
[4:24:25] the report moved by Councillor Calio, seconded by Councillor Finley.
[4:24:29] Any discussion all in favor and opposed, not opposed motion
[4:24:32] carries. And then we move on to 11. 5. Thank
[4:24:36] you, Mr. Mayor. This is the Community Amenity Contributions Negotiations,
[4:24:40] which you had a delegation earlier today speak to. The
[4:24:43] purpose is to present for Council consideration of the applicants
[4:24:46] request to negotiate a reduced community amenity contribution rate for
[4:24:50] Bylaw 4077 on 3037 and 3047 West Hill Place. The
[4:24:57] recommendation from staff is that Council declines the applicants proposed
[4:25:01] amenity contribution. To 2, 500 dollars to the short -
[4:25:05] term infrastructure community, our CAC fund and 1000 dollars to
[4:25:09] the Affordable Housing CAC fund associated with zone amendment bylaw
[4:25:13] number 4077 for the properties located at 30, 37, 30,
[4:25:18] 47 West Till Place. Council Stash. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[4:25:24] I've got two questions. I don't know if the second
[4:25:26] one is more for Mr. Osborne or if Mr. Farkas
[4:25:31] can answer both of them. It's the two parts in
[4:25:34] there, um, when we first part is, um, being that
[4:25:40] it's kind of Mr. Farcus's, he's very intimate on, uh,
[4:25:45] speaking on the scales of economy and was instrumental in
[4:25:49] the support of bringing that land economist in. And just
[4:25:51] quickly, if you could speak to the landlift cost that
[4:25:55] come through subdivision and change in zoning, which increases a
[4:25:58] property owner's property value, uh, when they are successful in
[4:26:02] subdivision. Is the DCCs are increases to where they are
[4:26:07] now was merely as we're just attempting to have some
[4:26:10] cost recoveries in part in there as well. So, uh,
[4:26:14] just trying to find some more rationalization on while there
[4:26:17] is an increase in current cost to the homeowner. Part
[4:26:20] of it is for actual cost recoveries. And then in
[4:26:23] second part is, uh, out of this process, while there
[4:26:27] is up front cost to the municipality, there is a,
[4:26:31] uh, increase in property value for the property owner. Thank
[4:26:35] you. Thank you very much for the question. I won't
[4:26:38] speculate around what the land lift might be. That would
[4:26:40] be very difficult to do. But clearly single family lots,
[4:26:44] uh, provide quite a huge market price. So that's easy
[4:26:48] enough to sort of identify. But one thing I'd like
[4:26:51] to remind Council of is, you know, this policy was
[4:26:54] put in place as a stopgap measure, uh, given that
[4:26:57] the municipality is running a pretty large infrastructure deficit. And
[4:27:01] it was meant as a stopgap measure up until we
[4:27:03] have the DCCs in place. So really what we're doing
[4:27:06] here is charging, uh, early on and it needs to
[4:27:10] be negotiated process through rezoning. Um, what we would normally
[4:27:14] capture in DCCs. Right. So one point of clarity for
[4:27:18] Council is we're not charging for sewer water given that
[4:27:22] they're out of the water and sewer area. So really
[4:27:25] what the fees that are attracted here really for Parks
[4:27:27] and Rhodes. Uh, certainly have heard arguments from the applicant
[4:27:31] that, uh, you know, for family reasons, this is what's
[4:27:34] driving, uh, their need to subdivide. But of course as
[4:27:38] Council is quite familiar with, um, the rights don't go
[4:27:41] to the owner. They go to the property. And there's
[4:27:44] nothing stopping a future owner or even these owners from
[4:27:48] eventually moving forward with additional units in increasing density. And
[4:27:53] clearly when we're planning for infrastructure, we need to think
[4:27:55] about the long - term implications. Right. So again, this
[4:27:58] is a stopgap measure. Uh, there's been a standard methodology
[4:28:03] applied where these applicants were treated fairly and consistently with
[4:28:07] other applicants. And I would also just remind Council as
[4:28:10] we move forward with the DCC bylaw, uh, single family
[4:28:15] lots would be subject like they are today to full
[4:28:19] fees through the bylaw. Turn to Councillor Manhas. Then Council,
[4:28:25] Justice, and Finley, but just a question for, uh, Mr.
[4:28:28] Farkas. So you mentioned that there is an increase in
[4:28:31] density associated with this application. Although the applicant has stated
[4:28:35] in the written submission that there isn't an increase in
[4:28:37] density, could you clarify that. So absolutely there's an increase
[4:28:42] of density of two units. But I will point out,
[4:28:46] unlike DCCs, where they get paid at building permit time,
[4:28:49] when the clear knowledge that buildings are coming forward for
[4:28:52] authorization for a building permit, this is somewhat of a
[4:28:54] unique situation that it is true that while we're still
[4:28:58] charging for those extra units, because there is a cost
[4:29:00] associated with that, uh, there could be no intent from
[4:29:03] these current owners to bring forward any future applications. The
[4:29:07] challenge we have is, unless we capture the fees up
[4:29:10] front, we're not in a position legally to charge any
[4:29:15] additional fees if, for example, they do come forward with
[4:29:18] subsequent applications. All right. And I would remind Council as
[4:29:22] well. We did recently have a similar request from an
[4:29:26] applicant to, uh, reduce the, uh, short term infrastructure contribution.
[4:29:32] So that was the June 17th meeting. We had a
[4:29:34] request from St. Michael's Null Angels, Anglocan Church and Chemanus.
[4:29:39] And if you recall, um, they had a home on
[4:29:43] the property there that they rent towed as a source
[4:29:45] of revenue for the church, which is obviously nonprofit. They
[4:29:48] were looking to increase the density of that from one
[4:29:51] to two units to put a, to put a suite
[4:29:53] in there. And at the time Council did decline that
[4:29:57] request. I believe I was the only one who did
[4:29:59] vote to accommodate it. But it was a six to
[4:30:01] one vote to decline that request from that, uh, nonprofit
[4:30:06] applicant to waive the contribution for the short - term
[4:30:10] infrastructure contribution as outlined under our community amenities, contribution policy.
[4:30:15] So I'm not going to, yeah, miss you. Uh, just
[4:30:19] to offer some further clarification on what is being requested
[4:30:22] of the applicant, we are not requesting the CACs for
[4:30:28] the additional units. This does increase density and that it
[4:30:31] increases the allowable units on this piece of land by
[4:30:35] two, um, because they're currently allowed to per lot two
[4:30:38] lots. Then they'll be allowed to, but the current, what
[4:30:41] we're currently asking for with the CACs is three times
[4:30:46] the DCCs for the creation of an additional lot. It's
[4:30:51] not for additional units that may or may not be
[4:30:54] built in the future. Those units would be charged. The
[4:30:58] DCC rates applicable at the time that they apply for
[4:31:01] building permit. Great. Thank you. I brought Councillor Manhouse and
[4:31:06] then Council of Justice and Councillor Finley. Thank you, Mr.
[4:31:08] Meyer. I like to move that Council accepts that applicants
[4:31:11] propose Community Menity Contribution of 3, 500 dollars. I cannot
[4:31:19] see a second. Oh, did you second it? Second Amy
[4:31:22] by Councillor Finley. All right. You want to speak to
[4:31:23] it? Yeah. To me, this is just a line. Between
[4:31:27] two lots. It's not, so the house is already there.
[4:31:30] Everything's already there. I think this is pretty straightforward for
[4:31:33] us. For me, anyways, you know, we're going to get
[4:31:36] an increase and we're going to get increase in, um,
[4:31:38] in property taxes with this additional separate lot. Um, I
[4:31:43] think the 3, 500 euro is very fair. It's not
[4:31:46] no increase for infrastructure costs or anything for us. Uh,
[4:31:48] so I think 3, 500 is fair. Council of Justice.
[4:31:54] Thank you. I've got a question for staff. Um, and
[4:31:59] then I'd like to also speak to it. The question
[4:32:01] is this is a little unusual. It's sort of part
[4:32:05] of a negotiation. So although I acknowledge that the motion
[4:32:10] is made to accept the offer, if we declined the
[4:32:13] offer, um, we'd still be in a negotiation. Right? Or
[4:32:19] just would this somehow end it and they would be
[4:32:21] obliged to pay the full amount of asked. Miss Young
[4:32:25] or Mr. Farkas. Miss Yao? Uh, thank you for the
[4:32:28] question. Um, yes, you can still. What we have, what
[4:32:34] staff I put forward is what is in the adopted
[4:32:37] CAC policy from Council. If Council wished to propose something
[4:32:41] other than that amount or what the applicant has proposed,
[4:32:45] that's within Council's purview. I think maybe, uh, a nuance
[4:32:49] to that if the question was also asking is the
[4:32:53] negotiation still open. I think we heard the applicant state.
[4:32:56] This is an unusual situation to negotiate and open. Uh,
[4:33:00] so they're putting forward their best case scenario. But if,
[4:33:03] if Council wanted to send us back, probably you would
[4:33:06] send us back to see if there's, uh, any movement
[4:33:10] between what we're asking and what they're asking. Do you
[4:33:16] have a statement to make now? Yeah. Our comment. Yeah.
[4:33:19] Uh. Thank you. So I won't be supporting the motion
[4:33:23] to accept this reduction in the community amenity contribution. Um,
[4:33:29] these costs associated with additional development potential. A real future
[4:33:34] costs. Even if they're not immediate costs. Um, we should
[4:33:40] therefore assess this application based on the development rights. Being
[4:33:45] created and not simply on the applicants current intentions. Um,
[4:33:51] this application does significantly increase the development. Right to the
[4:33:56] property. And although the applicant's intention may be to simply
[4:34:00] provide properties for family members, um, ownership can change in
[4:34:06] the additional development potential will remain. Um, future additional homes
[4:34:12] will, as we've heard. Eventually place demands on municipal infrastructure
[4:34:18] and parks, transportation, other services. And those are costs, the
[4:34:24] municipality will have to address in the future. Um, reducing
[4:34:28] CACs is merely asking future taxpayers to subsidize this reduction.
[4:34:37] Um, and this actually is a really good example of
[4:34:40] how we got into our Big fat infrastructure debt. We
[4:34:45] absolutely need to insist that people creating costs are covering
[4:34:50] those costs instead of letting them fall to our children.
[4:34:54] And other future taxpayers. So I think it's a real
[4:34:58] mistake to start, you know, going, Oh yeah, yeah, no,
[4:35:03] we can reduce that. Well, it's not going to cost
[4:35:04] us anything right now. Cause it is going to cost
[4:35:07] us. It's just, it's going to be our kids after
[4:35:08] pay. Councillor Finley. Thanks Mr. Mayor question for Miss Young.
[4:35:17] You said that, uh, let's say this, this does get
[4:35:20] subdivided in 10 years from now. One of the property
[4:35:23] owners decides to add another residence on that property. That
[4:35:27] application will trigger DCCs. On that new unit. Is that
[4:35:31] correct? That is correct. This proposal, um, the CAC's proposed
[4:35:38] right now are for the creation of an additional lot.
[4:35:41] Right. Okay. Um. Yeah, my position hasn't changed on this.
[4:35:46] I think, uh, you know, the acceptance, 3, 500 is
[4:35:49] the right thing. Um, and it comes down to something
[4:35:52] Councillor Justice said earlier about thrown sand in the air.
[4:35:55] And what harm does it affect on the people around.
[4:35:57] And so that's where I'm hanging my hat on this
[4:35:58] one. So I'll be in favor of the motion. Any
[4:36:03] further discussion Councillor Kelly. Thanks Mayor.
[4:36:12] Yeah, I'm in support of the production of the CAC's
[4:36:15] amounts, um, and also the Affordable Housing Contribution. This family
[4:36:20] is not a large developer. Um, they're a mom and
[4:36:23] pop family looking for a splitting of one five acre
[4:36:27] property into two 2. 5 acre properties so that they
[4:36:32] can have a fee simple so that one of their
[4:36:35] family can have, uh, a feasible home to live in.
[4:36:41] They've already paid out thousands of dollars to this point.
[4:36:46] And. There's absolutely no cost incurred by municipality because they
[4:36:52] have their own sewer and their own water. Yes. You
[4:36:56] know, we will be reducing the CACs. But I honestly,
[4:37:00] the amount that we're reducing our CAC is not going
[4:37:04] to affect North Collins. We have a big fat infrastructure
[4:37:09] deficit. You know, I'll agree with that. But I don't
[4:37:13] think this splitting this property into two is going to
[4:37:16] affect that infrastructure deficit. And I think that, you know,
[4:37:24] giving them a break on their CAC. Is, you know,
[4:37:28] the right thing to do. And in one way, it
[4:37:31] creates two tax contributions instead of one for the municipality.
[4:37:35] Instead of having one tax payment, now the. Two. And
[4:37:39] there's zero costume municipality for infrastructure on this. Um, I
[4:37:44] think a lot of this comes down to empathy in
[4:37:47] a lot of ways. And. Thank you. All right. I'm
[4:37:56] getting the sense. We're going to pass the motion on
[4:37:58] the floor, but I'm wondering if Council wants to re
[4:38:00] - invite the St. Michael's and all angels, Anglican Church
[4:38:04] to come back. And have us reconsider their application because
[4:38:08] that was almost 14, 000 dollars reserve fund. Which is
[4:38:17] a significant amount for a small church like that operating
[4:38:20] on a nonprofit basis. Or you got a motion on
[4:38:28] the floor then? No, Mutt's going to do emotion on
[4:38:33] the floor. I just want to stress to Council the
[4:38:36] inconsistency and how we're applying this policy. Councillor Caglio. Yeah,
[4:38:43] I see the point you're making. The thing is, uh,
[4:38:51] are you going to put emotion onto the floor right
[4:38:53] now then? I'm not putting a motion on the floor
[4:38:54] right now, just if I were the St. Michael's, if
[4:38:58] we have the, if we have the empathy to, uh,
[4:39:02] relook, or just if they're watching this meeting and they're
[4:39:05] seeing that we're being leaning on this application, not on
[4:39:07] the ears. I'm not sure exactly how I would respond
[4:39:10] to them on that. But I can support that. All
[4:39:13] right. So we've got a motion on the floor for,
[4:39:17] uh, reduced, um, Community Menity Contribution. So I'm going to
[4:39:22] call the question then all in favor. Oh, sorry. Councilman
[4:39:26] House. Mr. Mayor, we look at these things on the
[4:39:28] case by case basis, not as a whole group for
[4:39:32] special circumstances like this. Um, so I'm going to be
[4:39:36] voting against us. All right. Oh, are you withdrawing the?
[4:39:42] Are you withdrawing the motion? Which motion? Yours? The one
[4:39:45] that you move. I haven't moved. No, I haven't done
[4:39:46] anything. Sorry. Mr. Mayor, I think the confusion. The mirror
[4:39:49] was suggesting that it comes, the motion on the floor
[4:39:52] is related to this application. Okay. We'll call the question
[4:39:57] then on the motion that Councillor Man has moved. It
[4:39:59] was second ed. Option two. Call the question that all
[4:40:04] in favor. And oppose motion carriers with the Mayor Councillor
[4:40:07] Stash and Justice opposed. We'll now move on to item
[4:40:11] 11. 6. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. This is a report
[4:40:16] regarding the accessible parking in Chemanus. The purposes to respond
[4:40:20] to Council's direction from its September 17th, 2025 regular Council
[4:40:25] Meeting to review the feasibility of creating an additional accessible
[4:40:28] parking spaces in Cheminus around water wheel part. The recommendation
[4:40:32] is that Council direct staff to one install necessary traffic
[4:40:36] signs and markings to relocate two existing accessible stalls from
[4:40:40] the inside of Waterwool parking lot to outside and place
[4:40:44] them adjacent to the two existing accessible stalls on water
[4:40:47] will crescent in front of the museum to install necessary
[4:40:51] traffic signs and markings to convert too accessible stalls inside
[4:40:55] the parking lot to three regular parking spaces and three
[4:40:59] convert two existing regular parking spaces in front of the
[4:41:03] museum to 15 minute posture loading spaces by installing signs
[4:41:07] and pavement markings. Councillor Stash. I'm going to have two
[4:41:12] questions for staff and two separate staff members. One will
[4:41:16] be to inform if an amendment is possible to item
[4:41:20] one, which would subsequently affect number two. So my first
[4:41:23] question is going to be to the engineering staff. I
[4:41:25] support what they're doing and I'm fine with moving 11
[4:41:28] and 2. My question to staff is on the Johnson
[4:41:33] block of Willow Street. On the corner with Legion Street.
[4:41:38] Why did we not consider moving space 11 to the
[4:41:42] very north end of mere space six. On to Willow
[4:41:47] Street, which would make sense because that would allow the
[4:41:50] seniors is that's the largest demographic in Chemanus to have
[4:41:53] direct access to the bank and why the original planners
[4:41:56] put 11 and 12 beside the bank. So I'm referring
[4:41:59] to page 387. That's page number five of the report.
[4:42:04] So if you can speak to why we chose to
[4:42:06] move those as far as possible to the actual services
[4:42:09] that the seniors require, uh, rather than splitting them, which
[4:42:13] would work and be feasible, I could, I could see
[4:42:15] it having space two and three. And then number 12
[4:42:18] go beside three. But the north end of the Willow
[4:42:21] Street Johnson block, I would strongly urge Council to support
[4:42:26] my amendment request if there isn't a strong case compelling
[4:42:30] to move number 11 to that North corner there. Being
[4:42:33] that directly supports the post office, the bank and the
[4:42:38] pharmacy, which is highly utilised by seniors in and that
[4:42:42] as we recall was the direct original concern by caregivers
[4:42:46] and shamanus who transport the seniors in town that they
[4:42:49] couldn't forget access. So, uh, first I'll let engineering answer
[4:42:54] this question. And then my second question, I believe is
[4:42:56] going to be operations as they're responsible for the painting
[4:42:59] program downtown Chemanus. Mr. San. Thank you Mr. Mayor and
[4:43:06] Council. If I understand correctly, the stall, uh, the question
[4:43:11] was why 11 and two or 12 could be placed
[4:43:15] where six is shown. Not 11 and 12 to clarify.
[4:43:19] Just one of them to take one single spot at
[4:43:22] the north end, which on beside it is a community
[4:43:26] amenity space, which actually provides better accessibility because the parking
[4:43:31] decide it because there's a bull boat there. Uh, so,
[4:43:37] uh, based on the survey that we have shown in
[4:43:41] figure five that we see that the highest demand for
[4:43:45] accessible space is near the parking lot itself. So the
[4:43:50] recommendation that we place those two stalls outside our effort
[4:43:56] was to keep them closest to the, what they currently
[4:43:59] are, uh, except like they're inside the lot, uh, where
[4:44:04] the post office is like there are like three spaces
[4:44:08] handicapped spaces there. And the survey results shown in figure
[4:44:14] five of the report shows that they're not well utilised
[4:44:17] as of today. So they're not always busy. They're sitting
[4:44:21] empty. So if we add another space, it will not
[4:44:24] be as utilised. I'll refute that. And I don't often
[4:44:29] push back against staff. My business is directly right here.
[4:44:32] And they also live one block away. I'm at this
[4:44:35] spot probably on average one hour per day looking at
[4:44:39] this spot. So I'm speaking with expensive, extensive experience here
[4:44:43] that I think we're under, we're making an error moving
[4:44:47] both of them away. I only point at, if you
[4:44:49] look at number six, it's the highest utilised spot in
[4:44:52] the entire downtown core. Directly in front of the bank,
[4:44:56] directly beside the pharmacy is all I'm asking is where
[4:44:59] a number 11 to be put there. So I just
[4:45:01] would ask then if staff could see that that does
[4:45:03] make a bit of sense. We did have a moment
[4:45:05] in time survey take place. But number six is so
[4:45:09] high to utilise because it's right in front of those
[4:45:12] banks. Number four and five are actually private property of
[4:45:16] the post office. And number seven is private property of
[4:45:19] anthem properties. So, uh, those are tough ones while they
[4:45:22] are as a business required to provide adequate accessible parking.
[4:45:26] I just looking at what opportunities we have with North
[4:45:29] Council is our own parking. And those that we have
[4:45:31] control over. I'm wondering before Mr. Son answers, if we
[4:45:39] Councillor said, you want to refer this back to staff
[4:45:41] to investigate the, I just, I'm putting a lot there
[4:45:46] is just my business has been here for 12 years
[4:45:49] and I've been active as a member of the chamber
[4:45:51] and an active president passed as on the BIA. And
[4:45:55] I said, I live on the street and I don't
[4:45:56] drive my car downtown. I walk. So I watch vehicles
[4:45:59] intimately and understand where they're going. And I talk to
[4:46:02] those seniors and have often help them across the road.
[4:46:06] So just I understand in the 11 and 12 is
[4:46:09] a problematic area because a lot of people without handicap
[4:46:11] park there. So in that follow - up report then
[4:46:14] mayor, if we could add to that, my follow -
[4:46:16] up question was going to actually be Mr. Cater. We've
[4:46:20] seen in the last four years, and I understand that's
[4:46:22] because of the constraints in our budgets. Line paintings, downtown
[4:46:27] Cheminus have drastically deteriorated. We're not marking the EV spots.
[4:46:32] We're not marking the handicap spots. Uh, we're not maintaining
[4:46:36] to the crosswalks efficiently enough. And I think that's because
[4:46:39] we have a limited budget and we're doing the best
[4:46:41] we can. And staff is just doing what's possible. But
[4:46:44] we're not catching the no parking spots. We're not catching
[4:46:47] the cycling and walkway path spots that we're all painted
[4:46:50] on the roads because we don't have signage. So there's
[4:46:52] a lot of handicapped spaces in Chemanus being parked in
[4:46:55] by non - handicap people because all the financial constraints
[4:47:00] North Couch is under. So maybe that little, uh, side
[4:47:03] question can be in that because Mr. Cater might have
[4:47:06] that answer to this evening. Well, the answer Mr. Meris
[4:47:09] Council should increase the budget. And that's why I said
[4:47:12] I'm, I'm aware of that does a fall up to
[4:47:14] Mr. Seth, you want to move that refer item 11.
[4:47:19] 6 back to staff to consider the feedback that you
[4:47:21] provided. Yes. And, um, and as well, I'm just curious,
[4:47:27] did engineering staff, did they reach out to the shamanist
[4:47:29] chamber and the shamanus BIA on this project. Yes. Uh,
[4:47:33] Mr. Mayor, we did get a huge support from both
[4:47:37] chamber and BIA. Okay. Great. But yeah, I'd just like
[4:47:43] to see if we could cut into a follow -
[4:47:44] up, but just, I really think I'm just curious on
[4:47:46] that. Number six, cause it wasn't even put as an
[4:47:48] option in the report. So just to add contextual information,
[4:47:53] one early input, like at the very beginning when it
[4:47:56] started the review, even before the survey was done, uh,
[4:47:59] the response from RBIA was that do not put any,
[4:48:03] uh, more accessible parking on willow because that's the prime
[4:48:07] spot for general parking. So, uh, but, but we just,
[4:48:11] uh, that wasn't the logic per se, but of course
[4:48:13] we can take another look. It's the will account, so
[4:48:16] the vote against me. Do you want to move to
[4:48:20] refer? I would move to refer. I just, I'm not
[4:48:23] convinced on moving those all that far away. All right,
[4:48:26] second of by Councillor Calio, any further discussion. Call the
[4:48:29] question all in favor and oppose and oppose motion carried.
[4:48:32] It's been referred. Item 11. 7, Mr. Swabi. Uh, Mr.
[4:48:37] Mayor, item 11. 7 is the request to approve two
[4:48:41] frontline fire engines for delivery in 2028. The recommendations that
[4:48:46] Council Direct staff to start the procurement process for the
[4:48:49] purchase of two fire engines for deliver in 2028 and
[4:48:53] authorize the CAO to sign the purchase order. Move by
[4:48:57] Council Hog, seconded by Councillor Calio. Any discussion, Councillor Finley.
[4:49:02] These are obviously big dollar items. And, uh, I did
[4:49:07] a bunch of research on this, uh, last night, uh,
[4:49:10] just who the Canadian fire underwriter survey is. And interestingly
[4:49:16] enough, it's not even a government organisation. And it's a
[4:49:19] privately owned organisation by a New Jersey company that happens
[4:49:22] to be owned by Vanguard BlackRock, who happens to own
[4:49:26] the majority of the insurance companies that aren't credit unions
[4:49:28] in Canada. So they're setting the priority, the requirement for
[4:49:32] insurance for all these things, for their own net benefit.
[4:49:37] We're handcuffed. We can't do a lot about it. Um,
[4:49:40] I understand our staff are very good at looking into,
[4:49:44] um, extending the life as we can with used and
[4:49:47] refitted fire engines. And I'm sure, uh, the chief has
[4:49:51] done that, but, uh, I just find it quite interesting.
[4:49:54] That we are absolutely handcuffed by a private organisation, private
[4:49:57] American organisation that controls the insurance industry in Canada. And
[4:50:03] I find that really, really frustrating. Um, so at the
[4:50:06] end of the day, it's something that we, we require
[4:50:09] because our residents require it for insurance purposes. To ensure
[4:50:13] those companies that are on by Vanguard and Black Rocket
[4:50:15] paid. So frankly, I'm kind of pissed off that we're
[4:50:20] handcuffed by this group that's not even government driven, a
[4:50:23] government owned. So I'll leave it at that. I, we
[4:50:26] need it, but I'm not in favor of the cost,
[4:50:28] but we're absolutely handcuffed by this. And it's, it's pissing
[4:50:32] me off. So excuse my French. Councillor Stash. I don't
[4:50:38] know if it's. The friendly thing to say to the
[4:50:41] rest of Council, but I told you so. This is
[4:50:44] the, but this year was the fourth budget in the
[4:50:46] Road that I pushed for the reserve increase every year.
[4:50:50] I was voted against. But thankfully this year, Council did
[4:50:54] support listening that our reserves were insufficient. And as this
[4:51:01] said, uh, we knew that we had a little bit.
[4:51:04] The big increase this year was barely going to help
[4:51:06] us pay for the new trucks. And at least we
[4:51:08] are going to pay for them. But then we're put
[4:51:10] in a deficit again. So I'm in full support of
[4:51:13] the staff recommendation to do this and hope that the
[4:51:16] next year's, well, actually it's this year's, but the next
[4:51:19] Council's budget deliberations understands the very, very serious implications of
[4:51:25] underfunding, uh, fire apparatus reserves. All right. Can I call
[4:51:30] the question all in favor and oppose? Not a pose
[4:51:33] motion carries. We'll now move on to 11 point item
[4:51:35] 11. 8 Mr. Swaby. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The last
[4:51:39] item, uh, on the regular agenda is 11. 8, which
[4:51:42] is the Memorial Bench and tree policy review. The purpose
[4:51:45] is to provide Council with a review of the Memorial
[4:51:48] Bench and tree policy and seek direction regarding the tribute
[4:51:51] program administration. The recommendation from staff is that Council direct
[4:51:57] that Council Direct staff to one amend the fees and
[4:51:59] charges Byla to reflect the proposed fees outlined in table
[4:52:03] two, tribute program pricing review, full cost recovery. Two increased
[4:52:08] the applicable fees annually by three percent for a period
[4:52:14] of five years. And three continues to provide eligible pre
[4:52:18] 2009 tribute program participants with a one time 10 year
[4:52:21] transition period, beginning from the date they were contacted. And
[4:52:26] informed the current policy requirements policy. Some like move the
[4:52:31] recommendation. The Council of Justice, second by Councillor Callio, any
[4:52:34] discussion. We called the question all in favor. An opposed
[4:52:37] and opposed motion carries. And then we move on to
[4:52:39] new business. We have two items. I'll start with item,
[4:52:43] sorry, 12. 1. I'll turn it over to Councillor Stash.
[4:52:51] Thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, it's on the table now. I
[4:52:54] said, uh, pretty clear I tried to make it as
[4:52:57] simple and explicit as possible for the, uh, motion, uh,
[4:53:02] the reason being that, you know, the table, but just
[4:53:04] trying to see, um, it's a wrapply evolving space and
[4:53:09] being that we've got some land uses that might change
[4:53:12] or large properties becoming available. And as well, learning the
[4:53:15] best practices of being ahead of things before they're on
[4:53:20] the table or is important and definitely seeing what an
[4:53:23] enamel has been grappling with while that was only a
[4:53:25] data centre and isn't as resource demanding. Um, and then
[4:53:29] as well, the speculative, uh, investment economy happening around data
[4:53:34] centres. And opportunities to buy up large industrial spaces, uh,
[4:53:39] for repurposing. So there's lots of things in there, but
[4:53:42] this is just a proactive, um, the word, I was
[4:53:48] thinking of like a moratorium initially, but then speaking with
[4:53:51] staff, they were really wise in support of them saying
[4:53:54] that if we change the zoning, then staff would have
[4:53:56] to come through for the public would have to come
[4:53:59] through for a zoning amendment, uh, to make this happen.
[4:54:03] And then at least that, in that case would trigger
[4:54:05] public hearing. But mostly what I wanted is, um, that
[4:54:10] if something were to happen, the public has their say.
[4:54:13] That's the root of all of this is that we
[4:54:15] have our upcoming comprehensive zoning bylaw review. We're a topic
[4:54:19] like this and new industrial land uses would be informed
[4:54:24] and regulations and stipulations would be discussed to in that.
[4:54:28] And then as well, we have a five year OCP
[4:54:30] review coming up, uh, when that process started six years
[4:54:34] ago, um, over, well, almost eight years ago when he
[4:54:37] got into the initial planning of the major comprehensive OCP
[4:54:41] review, uh, this wouldn't be something that would have been
[4:54:43] thought of. So that's of course why it's good to
[4:54:45] have reviews, but those opportunities for public input, uh, what
[4:54:48] Nanaimo saw was that there was no explicit language that
[4:54:52] would trigger public hearings or public input on that use
[4:54:55] because it's been allowed use. And then the way the
[4:54:58] local government Act and the Community Charter is, is if
[4:55:01] we're zoned, we have to provide service and provide the
[4:55:04] opportunity to then follow through that. And of course we,
[4:55:07] I do understand we have our policy in regards to
[4:55:09] infrastructure capacities, but just looking at the lay of the
[4:55:13] land here, I felt being proactive and, uh, having Council
[4:55:17] put something in place that would at least mostly at
[4:55:19] the root of this is just trigger a public hearing
[4:55:22] if something does come forward. Cause I think the residents
[4:55:25] deserve to have a say and what they want to
[4:55:27] see for business and most notably on, uh, when we
[4:55:32] look at value add. We want to provide good paying
[4:55:34] jobs as many jobs as possible. And also, uh, industry
[4:55:39] that utilises other businesses in the valley. A large data
[4:55:43] centre that Nanae was getting absolutely going to generate lots
[4:55:46] of, uh, revenue for, uh, construction. But then once that's
[4:55:49] gone, uh, it's hard to argue that the taxation revenue
[4:55:54] is enough to sustain resources and the environment. So, um,
[4:55:59] I'm just putting it to Council. And I thought this
[4:56:01] was a good, uh, very timely subject matter to discuss
[4:56:04] at the table. And so here is the author. Do
[4:56:07] you want to, uh, move the motion. I would do
[4:56:10] so. Thank you. Is there a second by Councillor Justice?
[4:56:14] I've got Councillor Hog then Councillor Justice. Then Councillor Finley.
[4:56:20] Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for bringing us to
[4:56:22] the attention. I think it is really important. Um, the
[4:56:25] word prohibit does worry me a little bit. We try
[4:56:28] to push industry here. Um, I did a little research
[4:56:31] myself last night. And, uh, Microsoft since 2024 has been
[4:56:35] using a closed loop. Non evaporative cooling system. And they've
[4:56:39] also started piloting more projects. There's some air cooled ones.
[4:56:43] Uh, they use non - potable water and reuses the
[4:56:47] water over and over. So I agree with you. I
[4:56:51] don't want it to be hard on infrastructure, but using
[4:56:53] the word prohibit. No one will even look to come
[4:57:01] here. Um, not saying we want that either, but I
[4:57:04] just, I worry about that part. Um, whether it's a
[4:57:08] data centre or not, does it put other industries off
[4:57:10] because we don't, you know, we do prohibit certain things.
[4:57:16] Rosemother notes. So I'm wondering if the interest is not
[4:57:21] completely banning, but would have to use a cooling technology
[4:57:25] that do not, um, consume potable water. I'm going to
[4:57:32] do it wrong. Oh, sorry. And I was also wondering
[4:57:39] about, um, there is an initial field when you use
[4:57:41] one of those cooling loop systems. And if it could
[4:57:45] be non - potable water, for example, being wastewater. Those
[4:57:49] are just my tidbits. Thank you. Before I turn it
[4:57:53] over to, uh, Councillor Justice, I would note, um, Councillor
[4:57:56] Hoog, you're concerned about prohibiting. So if you go back,
[4:58:00] uh, a number of years ago, we were concerned around
[4:58:03] this table of these, uh, industrial, like concrete bunker style
[4:58:07] cannabis facilities that were, we were seeing constructed on ALR
[4:58:11] properties for the lower mainland. So we did was, um,
[4:58:14] I brought Ford a motion to prohibit them in North
[4:58:17] Couch and we adopted that in fall of 2020. But
[4:58:20] basically, um, under our zoning right now, you can't build
[4:58:23] one of these large industrial cannabis facilities on farmland unless
[4:58:28] you apply to Council and get permission, which triggers the
[4:58:32] public hearing. So even earlier this year, we did have
[4:58:34] one out in the Salem area where the, uh, the
[4:58:37] applicants went through that whole process and had to present
[4:58:39] to us and we had to decide if it was
[4:58:41] appropriate or not. And I believe that's Councillor stash's intention
[4:58:44] here that it doesn't mean no one can submit an
[4:58:47] application, but if they do that it's going to have
[4:58:49] to go through Council for approval. Yeah. All right. Councillor
[4:58:54] Justice and Councillor Finley. I'll say, actually, you know what,
[4:58:57] before you start, as Councilman Us noted, we're needing extension
[4:59:01] in our meeting time here. So I'm going to ask
[4:59:03] from Ocean to extend to 830. Move by Councillor Manhouse.
[4:59:06] Second by Council Calle. All in favor. Of pose and
[4:59:09] oppose motion carry. So over you, Council of Justice. Thank
[4:59:12] you. I'll start by saying thanks to Councillor Stash for
[4:59:16] showing the leadership of bringing this motion forward. I will
[4:59:19] be voting in favor of it. We have as Councillor
[4:59:24] Stadd. We've heard concerns from residents, particularly about water and
[4:59:29] electricity use. And I think that those concerns need to
[4:59:32] be taken very seriously. Also North Couch and does have
[4:59:37] a finite resources and finite amount of industrial land. And
[4:59:40] we need to be very thoughtful about how we allocate
[4:59:44] those resources and what kind of economic activity. We want
[4:59:48] to encourage and our industrial lens can support manufacturing. They
[4:59:53] can support value added wood manufacturing. They can support food
[4:59:58] production. There's a lot of possibilities for other businesses that
[5:00:03] provide employment and contribute to a diversified local economy. So
[5:00:08] for me, the question is whether data centres are in
[5:00:12] appropriate use of North Collection's limited land and infrastructure resources.
[5:00:18] Um, and whether allowing them could compromise other community priorities.
[5:00:24] And in my opinion scarce industrial land, water and electricity
[5:00:27] are much better used for employment intensive and value added
[5:00:32] industries. Um, I also see. This marriage spoke to this
[5:00:40] a little bit, but I see this motion is establishing
[5:00:42] direction. Rather than making a final decision. Staff will need
[5:00:47] to come back. To Council with details. Implications, public input
[5:00:53] for whatever means of prohibitation. It's getting late provision. Provision.
[5:01:04] Yeah. Is adopted. So I think it's reasonable for Council
[5:01:08] to take this precautionary approach. And direct staff to pursue
[5:01:13] this prohibition. Again, thanks Councillor Stash. Councillor Finnley, over to
[5:01:20] you. Well, I must say I'm a hundred percent agreement
[5:01:26] with this. And the reason is that I don't want
[5:01:30] the robots taken over North Couch taking over. I mean,
[5:01:36] data centres need to be defined. I mean, the server
[5:01:40] farms, I had a server in, I don't even know
[5:01:43] where it was for my websites that I paid for.
[5:01:46] And the other versions of data centres and AI data
[5:01:48] centres. And I think we're all freaked out mostly about
[5:01:50] these big AI data centres that I use in massive
[5:01:53] amounts of water. I did the same research at Councillor
[5:01:56] Hogg did about three nights ago about how to cool
[5:01:58] these things. And there are great ways to do it.
[5:02:01] But again, is it worth the, say, a five acre
[5:02:05] chunk bot in our industrial park? And yeah, we get
[5:02:07] a bunch of construction jobs to build it. And then
[5:02:10] there's two just custodians that are cleaning it. And that's
[5:02:13] it. So property taxes might be nice, but at the
[5:02:15] end of the day, I don't want the robots taken
[5:02:18] over. So I'm a hundred percent in favor of this
[5:02:19] one. All right, any further discussion. Albeit voting in favor
[5:02:25] of this as well. Since he brought this motion forward,
[5:02:27] Councillor Stash, we've heard concerns from people in the municipality
[5:02:31] throughout the Cowgetan region about the water usage, energy usage
[5:02:35] footprint of some of these facilities. And if you look
[5:02:38] at the polling right across Canada, this is the common
[5:02:41] trend right now. And as was noted earlier, by passing
[5:02:43] this motion, it doesn't actually prohibit anyone from smitting an
[5:02:48] application. It does require them to go through a proper
[5:02:50] application process and a public hearing where residents can weigh
[5:02:54] in on whether they think that kind of development is
[5:02:57] appropriate and our municipality. So we'll be sporting it. Can
[5:03:01] I call the question then? All in favor. In opposed,
[5:03:04] not opposed motion carries. The other item for new business
[5:03:07] that I pulled from the agenda was a letter from
[5:03:10] the Salminos Marsh Wildlife Society. So they have asked for
[5:03:15] additional funding of 26, 400 dollars to cover their cost
[5:03:20] this year with regards to restoring the Somino's watershed. So
[5:03:24] I will turn a staff on this. If anyone wants
[5:03:26] to comment at this time or if we could refer
[5:03:29] this item back to staff to look into it and
[5:03:31] report back to Council to Future Meeting. Yeah. Can I
[5:03:36] get a referral motion then? Preferred by Councillor Family Second
[5:03:39] Am I Councillor Calio. Any discussion. All in favor. And
[5:03:43] a pose and a pose motion carries. And then Councillor
[5:03:46] Calio, I believe you have a notice of motion, but
[5:03:48] that would be for debate at a future meeting. Am
[5:03:56] I being optimistic? Yeah. For you or someone to debate
[5:03:58] it a future. Well, that's just it. Yeah. Isn't it?
[5:04:01] Thanks. All right, we'll now move on to question period.
[5:04:05] Are there any members of the public? We have a
[5:04:07] question for Council.
[5:04:17] Thank you Mayor and Council. My name is Joyce Benson.
[5:04:20] As you already know, drink water road. My question is
[5:04:21] regarding the asset management plan. And my question would be,
[5:04:27] is will there hopefully be included in that asset management
[5:04:30] plan a sincere. Effort to clean up the creeks and
[5:04:36] streams that have been neglected for decades and are grown
[5:04:39] over? I can drive around community areas and see them
[5:04:44] fair field over at Penns and Corners. I think it's
[5:04:46] called Butcher Creek. Different places. They've been totally neglected for
[5:04:50] decades. And I do believe that's why the Ximenous River
[5:04:53] ended up flooding because it had been neglected for keeping
[5:04:55] it clean and bonsai cleaned and cared for. I don't
[5:05:00] even understand how badly they've been grown over with Blackberries.
[5:05:04] They're not even Creeks and streams anymore. That's my question.
[5:05:07] I don't know if it gets an answer, but I
[5:05:09] certainly hope it's on the list. Great, thanks, Ms. Bens,
[5:05:12] for the questions. So we are doing some of the
[5:05:15] work right now through our service agreement with the Salmon
[5:05:17] of Smarsh Wildlife Society. They're doing great work to restore
[5:05:21] Bing's Creek and Insomnials Creek and in other areas. And
[5:05:25] the Salman's watershed. Ultimately for some of the other water
[5:05:28] courses throughout the municipality, it's going to depend on what
[5:05:31] the future council decides to do with that prioritization plan.
[5:05:34] So that will be going first to the Environmental Advisory
[5:05:37] Committee and then coming back to the future Council decide
[5:05:40] how they want to proceed with it. And obviously if
[5:05:43] they decided dedicate more resources to implementing it, we're going
[5:05:45] to be able to cover a large area of the
[5:05:48] municipality and more of these water courses that have been
[5:05:51] neglected over the years. A Z highlighted. Thank you. Even
[5:05:54] to the fish being gone that the kids used to
[5:05:57] love to watch. So in neighbourhoods, thank you very much.
[5:06:00] Thank you. And the other questions for Council. Don Allegam8567,
[5:06:08] she made us road. Shimani. Your amendment, your natural Access
[5:06:14] Management Plan. I use the word plan loosely, I think.
[5:06:19] Shimaina's River. I've lived there for six years. You've all
[5:06:22] been there. Why is it flood? I ask you. Maybe
[5:06:26] the challenge full of sediment. The water can't get out.
[5:06:31] Do you think. I got a question even for these
[5:06:34] gentlemen here that are on the Cowitchen, North College in
[5:06:38] payroll. Next time when it floods. The questions are for
[5:06:42] the mayor's. You got to you got to. Sorry, Mayor.
[5:06:45] Yeah. I hope everybody's listening. Next time it floods. Next
[5:06:50] winter, the winner after. When my neighbours lose their houses,
[5:06:53] their basements. All they're valuables. The family pitchers. Family heirlooms.
[5:06:58] What am I supposed to tell them. North Cowlicks done.
[5:07:04] Thank you. Any questions. No, I think it's questions for
[5:07:09] me as mayor on behalf of Council. But in terms
[5:07:13] of our role, I mean, we have been advocating at
[5:07:15] the province for this. We were successful working with yourself
[5:07:20] and residents and the whole nation and getting that initial
[5:07:23] bit of funding there that helped address some of the
[5:07:26] damage caused by the atmospheric river event. But ultimately we
[5:07:29] do need ongoing support from the province. As you and
[5:07:31] I have discussed that that should include a regular program
[5:07:35] for regular gravel removal, which, um, people like you have
[5:07:38] lived in the area for decades have pointed out. And
[5:07:41] you've seen how that can have a positive effect. If
[5:07:44] I may. It's just not here their pick spots on
[5:07:47] the Shimeas River. It's the whole river needs to be
[5:07:49] addressed. The whole river. Top to bottom. If you start
[5:07:54] picking away, it's like picking away at a boo -
[5:07:57] boo. It's never going to get better. Okay. Thank you.
[5:08:02] Thanks guys. Anyone else with a question for Council. Yeah,
[5:08:06] Mr. Wrestling. Thanks for
[5:08:15] worship. Uh, and these will be questions. Uh, the asset,
[5:08:20] the natural asset, uh, study, um, I agree with Council
[5:08:24] Hartash. This is a great idea for, uh, building blocks
[5:08:29] on the Environmental and Smart growth, uh, assets of our
[5:08:38] OCP. Um, and so I'm thinking these would be yes
[5:08:42] or no. I'm assuming that this plan would also sweep
[5:08:46] into how to clean up Kwamachin Lake, the Sominose Lake,
[5:08:50] which is full of giant bullfrogs and parrot feather, as
[5:08:53] you well know. Um, and the craft of millsite, uh,
[5:08:58] I'm thinking about all the land around that. Uh, where
[5:09:01] there's been toxic, uh, flyash buried for years. Swoll field
[5:09:05] farm. Um, and even on the, we still don't know
[5:09:09] what's toxic on the Croft and millsite itself. Um, and
[5:09:13] as well, Couch and Bay, the, of course, the North
[5:09:16] Cowlican side of the bay. Uh, where we are thinking
[5:09:21] of, uh, spending about 130 million dollars if I still
[5:09:25] have that right muster eatsma to move our at fall.
[5:09:31] Joint utilities board outfall over to there to the mouth
[5:09:33] of the bay. What all those, those four or five,
[5:09:38] are they part of this? Or will they be or
[5:09:40] could they be? All right. We're at time right now,
[5:09:43] uh, Mr. Raussen. But out of those four, um, so
[5:09:45] one thing to keep in mind with that natural asset
[5:09:47] management strategy is it highlights that we're not starting from
[5:09:50] scratch. We're already doing a lot of that work here
[5:09:53] in North Council. And the idea is that, um, with
[5:09:56] that resource, we can, um, really ingrain it in the
[5:10:00] organisation and ensure that staff are properly trained on how
[5:10:04] to incorporate those principles and other work they're doing. But
[5:10:07] again, we are doing a lot of that work already.
[5:10:09] And one example of it is, uh, with the Kwaminchen
[5:10:12] watershed and then also with the Sominose watershed where we
[5:10:15] do have the service agreement in place with the Somino's
[5:10:18] Marsh Wildlife Society. And throughout the year, I mean, they
[5:10:21] removed parrot's feather from Salmo's Creek. They're restoring riparian areas
[5:10:26] and doing regular water quality testing. Um, the other one
[5:10:30] with the sewage outfall. Yeah. The cost now, I think
[5:10:33] it's gone from 27 million to 97 million, which is
[5:10:35] well beyond what we can afford as a municipality. Um,
[5:10:38] even though we would be co - funding it with
[5:10:40] other local governments, ultimately it's going to depend on whether
[5:10:44] the federal and provincial governments want to contribute, uh, two
[5:10:48] thirds of the cost of that project. And we've had
[5:10:51] no indication from them to date that they're going to
[5:10:54] step out for that. And sorry, it was quickly the
[5:10:56] fourth. Oh, uh, cropped a mill. Yeah. Yeah. Like if
[5:11:03] we, if we were to get to get into remediation
[5:11:05] for a site like that, if you look at Port
[5:11:06] Alice, I mean, the hundreds and millions of dollars have
[5:11:09] been spent on that. So it's well beyond what we
[5:11:11] could afford as a municipality. And, um, I mean, a
[5:11:15] lot of that's going to depend on what the owner
[5:11:16] does and what the future uses of the site. Oh,
[5:11:19] maybe I'm talking pay for it. Um, the, uh, well,
[5:11:22] thank your worship. It's been quite an environmentally friendly night
[5:11:25] tonight. Uh, and, uh, keep it up by. Thank you
[5:11:29] for, for passing the, uh, data centre one. It's great.
[5:11:33] Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Council. Good
[5:11:41] evening, your worship and Council. I'm curious, uh, given the
[5:11:45] West Hill, I believe decision. If I decide to subdivate
[5:11:49] my property for my kids to have a lot that's
[5:11:53] worth 300, are you going to not charge me any
[5:11:57] of the development costs as well so that they can
[5:12:02] get property and make a big bonus on it. I
[5:12:07] think it's all to move in to the next Council
[5:12:10] of the side, how they want to approach the Community
[5:12:13] Menity Contributions Policy and how it's applied. Which allow me
[5:12:16] one more? Yeah, I think you said at times. What
[5:12:19] I really just want to thank you all for the
[5:12:21] support tonight for the data centre. I heard how you
[5:12:25] voted. I couldn't hear it while I was driving. But
[5:12:27] also for the support for the natural asset management plan.
[5:12:32] And I particularly want to thank Mayor Douglas. Councillor. Justice.
[5:12:41] I was going to call you by your nickname. And
[5:12:44] Councillor Istash. Well, that's ripe coming from you for your
[5:12:52] service for the Environment. And all of you for your
[5:12:55] service in general. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Any other
[5:12:58] questions for Council. Derek Maslink, 2816 Crowsy Road. Just
[5:13:08] a question regarding the natural asset management plan. If it
[5:13:14] included, maybe this is a question for staff, but if
[5:13:17] it included the areas adjacent, uh, to the municipality that
[5:13:23] are within, that are contributing to the watershed areas. Particularly
[5:13:27] for, as dawn brought up with regards to the floods.
[5:13:32] And with regards to the health of the rippers, how
[5:13:35] is, how does that plan consider these adjacent areas that
[5:13:40] are having an effect or on, on our natural assets.
[5:13:46] Yeah, my understanding is it's only focus on those natural
[5:13:49] assets within North Couch and boundaries, but I can follow
[5:13:52] up with staff afterwards and get back down that. Okay.
[5:13:55] Yeah. I think it's important because with the flood event
[5:13:58] that happened, a large part of that event was because
[5:14:02] of what was happening outside of the municipality. And adjacent
[5:14:07] property owner. Thank you. Agreed. Any other questions for Council.
[5:14:13] Seeing none that concludes our business. So I'll declare this
[5:14:16] meeting adjourn.