[0:12] Hey, good morning everybody.
Welcome to our August board meeting.
[0:19] I'm just going to see we've got we did
check sound. Director Fe, do you want to
[0:22] check your sound?
[0:28] He's got to go get his earphones. Do we
have Jess?
[0:35] » Okay.
And we have everybody else.
[0:40] Yes. Okay.
Welcome everybody. August.
[0:46] We can see the sky.
Begin by acknowledging respecting the
[0:51] indigenous people within whose
traditional lands we are meeting today.
[0:56] I ask for adoption of the agenda,
please. Thank you, Huitt. Second,
[1:00] Lockwood. Discussion.
All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
[1:07] Adoption of the minutes.
Thank you.
[1:12] Any corrections, edits?
All those in favor? Opposed?
[1:20] Uh, director, not director, CEO.
>> Uh, yep. To the chair. Just want to
[1:24] introduce um Ivon Patterson. She's
online
[1:28] she wouldn't be following the field
somewhere. But as a result of Amy Wilson
[1:32] being appointed to the temporary
position in the different services,
[1:35] there was kind of a waterfall effect of
responsibility and then we hired Ivonne
[1:40] to kind of build what was left over in
that operations department on a
[1:44] temporary basis while Amy's in that uh
that GM role.
[1:49] » Thank you.
Now we'll go to our delegations. We do
[1:53] have Michael and Anna here from
[1:58] » Walrus. I was trying not to say walrus.
Ministry of waterland resource
[2:01] stewardship to talk about turpies and
population conservation. I see Michael.
[2:09] Will you be doing the presentation from
that end? And Camille actually. Hi
[2:13] Camille.
>> Good morning.
[2:16] » Good morning. Check your sound Michael
as well.
[2:17] » Yeah, good morning.
>> Welcome. So, do you have a presentation
[2:22] for us?
>> Yes, we do.
[2:25] » We're about uh 20 minutes for
delegation. So, uh you want about half
[2:29] that time for minutes. I'll give you a
little sign like this when you're close
[2:32] to 10 just to give you a heads up and
then we'll do the question end. So,
[2:36] thank you so much. Over to you.
>> Okay. Thanks.
[2:39] » Thanks. Um
hello everyone. Thanks. Thanks for your
[2:44] time uh listening to us today. My name
is Cam Ra. I'm a wildlife biologist with
[2:50] the BC Ministry of Waterland and
Resource Stewardship. Um, and I'm here
[2:54] today on behalf of Anna Mackandu, our
wildlife section head. And I'm joined by
[2:59] my co-presenter, Michael, who's a
biologist with the Alberta Conservation
[3:03] Association, and he is the lead on this
project. Um so today we're just going to
[3:08] share with you a brief overview of the
Turkey Transllocation Project which has
[3:12] been successfully operating in the
Coupney for the last four years and
[3:16] we've collaborated with six different
communities during that time. So I'll
[3:21] turn it over uh to Michael now. Thank
you.
[3:25] » Okay, I'll share my screen.
[3:36] Just a minute.
[3:40] Can everybody see that?
>> Yes.
[3:44] » Okay. So, good morning everybody. Thank
you for the opportunity for us to
[3:48] present on our wild turkey
transllocations that we've been doing
[3:52] now for four years.
Sorry.
[3:57] There we go.
Okay. So, in 2022, we submitted a
[4:04] ministerial request to trap and relocate
turkeys from BC into southwest u
[4:12] Alberta. And the residents there in BC
had been submitting complaints to the
[4:18] various governments and municipalities
about the growing wild turkey population
[4:24] in several of their towns. And there are
few predators in these communities. Um,
[4:30] a lot of fruit bearing trees, uh, bird
feeders in the yards and and residents
[4:35] are feeding them as well. And and these
town populations just aren't being
[4:40] harvested by hunters given their
location.
[4:45] So, here's an example of the the damage
or uh the problems that turkeys create
[4:50] when they're in the towns. The uh the
back door of this residence in radium is
[4:56] piled inches high with turkey droppings
just really unusable. And the photo of
[5:01] the on the right is a turkey roost tree
in the town of Invamir. Um they kill the
[5:07] trees over time if if enough of them uh
use the trees long enough and they just
[5:12] do a lot of damage overall in the towns.
They can fly through windows, damage
[5:16] vehicles and they could also become a
bit aggressive at certain times of the
[5:21] year.
And these are just images from the town
[5:25] of Kimberly where they take over the
sidewalks as they move through the
[5:30] neighborhoods.
So the way we're trapping the turkeys in
[5:35] these communities, we're using a box
trap that's uh constructed of 4-in steel
[5:39] mesh. It's 8 ft x 16 ft. It's uh easy to
handle, um simple to use. We pre-bait it
[5:48] and the turkeys enter the traps
themselves when there's enough snow
[5:52] cover on the ground through the funnel.
And uh otherwise we use a drop door uh
[5:57] to uh trap them inside. And it's just
it's simple, it's efficient, it's fairly
[6:02] dis uh discreet and well suited for that
urban environment.
[6:07] And then we go into each trap, we cover
it with a tarp to sort of prevent them
[6:12] from flushing up. We go in, we hook them
by the legs and box them individually
[6:18] into turkey crates.
And then um we bring them back to our
[6:25] pens where we disease test them for aven
influenza and a few other things. And we
[6:32] hold them in these pens while we're
awaiting the disease test results. We
[6:36] sub
[6:46] Did you breathe?
>> So they can roost at night,
[6:51] » water, and check on them daily. And we
also have cellular trail cams in there
[6:55] to monitor them as well. And then uh the
release locations in on the Alberta
[7:03] side, they're primarily situated in
Alberta's ranch country. So, these are
[7:07] large open spaces where land owners feed
livestock ideally through the winter
[7:12] months because the turkeys really do
depend on a winter food source when the
[7:16] winters get especially tough.
And the ranchers and their families uh
[7:22] get involved with the releases and
they're great at keeping us informed on
[7:26] how the turkeys are doing out there as
well.
[7:29] And to date, we've transllocated a
little over 600 turkeys from BC into
[7:34] southwest Alberta. And it's really a a
win-win for those BC res residents that
[7:40] uh want them gone from [clears throat]
their yards and their neighborhoods. And
[7:43] for Alberta, where we want to boost our
turkey populations.
[7:48] And then last year, we began fitting
some adult turkey hens with GPS style um
[7:54] transmitters. And this year and last
year, we fit tags on to 30 resident
[8:00] birds. So birds that have been in
Alberta at least a year or more. And
[8:03] then 30 newly transllocated birds that
were just brought in that winter. So we
[8:09] can contrast their survival, movement,
and nest success.
[8:14] And this is an just an example of an
email that was sent to us um the first
[8:19] winter we were working in the Castlegar
area. This is in area F just north of
[8:24] Nelson across the bridge uh along the
3A, but this resident uh had heard we
[8:30] had been in the Castlegar area and sent
us this email uh asking if we would come
[8:34] take 40 turkeys away um that that live
there year round. They poop everywhere
[8:40] where the kids are playing. Just very
obnoxious. Um
[8:45] and this is another example of an email
that we received this this past year.
[8:50] Similarly, he had heard we were in the
Castlegar area and he wanted to take
[8:54] part in the relocation program. He said
he has 20 to 30 birds that stay on his
[8:59] property throughout the year and this is
in the Pass Creek area and he says there
[9:03] are several other flocks um around. So,
um maybe there are areas at the south
[9:11] end of E that might have turkey
problems. We just don't know where all
[9:16] the problem birds are. So any
information would be really helpful. And
[9:22] um then this past week we also received
another email from um a few residents in
[9:28] the Slocan Valley and the Passmore area
that would like their problem birds
[9:34] taken away. They're causing a lot of
problems there. So um this year we're
[9:38] hoping this upcoming winter we're hoping
to focus our efforts um between
[9:43] Castlegar and Nelson and and we could do
that with your support.
[9:47] Yeah, thank you.
[9:51] » Yeah, I'll just uh quickly wrap up. So,
yeah, thanks for your time today. Um, so
[9:56] the continuation of this work requires a
wildlife act permit and the Alberta
[10:01] Conservation Association has submitted
their permit application to the province
[10:05] and our decision maker is expected to
review and make a decision within the
[10:09] next one to two months. Um so we're
respectfully asking the board to
[10:15] consider providing a letter of support
for the project. Uh we'd also like to
[10:19] acknowledge and sincerely thank the
directors who have already provided
[10:24] emails of support um to Anna Mackandu.
Um and offering for any directors who u
[10:31] might not have heard of the project if
you would like to support to also uh
[10:36] provide an email of support um to Anna
Mackando. These letters and emails
[10:41] really help to demonstrate uh local
government support and they're really
[10:44] valuable uh for a decision maker to
consider during the review process. Um
[10:49] so thanks for your time and for your
interest.
[10:54] » Yes, Michael, we do have a few
questions.
[10:57] » Sure.
>> Um we'll go over to them now. So
[10:59] Director Doom, go ahead.
>> Well, thanks for talking turkey with us.
[11:04] » I'm a retired conservation officer from
Preston. We were trapping turkeys in the
[11:09] crested area back in the 90s. We were
sending them through with Idaho fishing
[11:14] game down to California and our
biologists locally and provinially did
[11:18] not want them moved within the province
and um I think slide three tells you why
[11:24] it's be careful what you wish for. Um
the other thing that you're moving them
[11:28] to cattle country and one of the
problems we had was turkeys
[11:32] contaminating cattle feed. So when
cattle were in feed lots the turkeys
[11:36] were in there a lot. So, um I I guess
it's again be careful what you wish for.
[11:41] I don't know if you're having those
problems yet, but um if they become
[11:46] large in number, you may you may regret
doing this because um of the problems
[11:51] they've caused locally. So, it it's just
from my own experience, and I don't know
[11:56] if you've had any of those type of
problems yet, and if not, I I anticipate
[12:00] you probably will.
>> Yeah. I uh every well we turkeys were
[12:08] first introduced into Alberta in the
'60s and the numbers did get fairly high
[12:15] initially and most of these ranchers um
had turkeys in the past so they are
[12:21] aware of what they can do. Um we're
definitely not releasing them near feed
[12:26] lots. These are like winter feed grounds
where they're spreading green feed and
[12:30] and whatnot. and and we have placed some
automated feeders out there too when
[12:35] we're where we're just lacking that. And
we do understand that they could create
[12:39] problems. We all know that. Um and the
ranchers know that and they're okay with
[12:46] that and we're willing to also, you
know, mitigate any issues that do come
[12:51] up if they come up. Um so yeah, it's a
wait and see, but yeah, everyone's aware
[12:57] of what could happen.
[13:02] You good? Charger pop.
>> Yeah, thank you. Uh, this is not a
[13:05] question. This is just a comment and I'm
glad that you've received uh complaints
[13:09] from residents in the Slocan Valley. The
primary area that has received a lot of
[13:14] trouble from turkeys is Prestoa where we
have Lynen Lane Farms, one of the
[13:19] biggest farms in the area and the
turkeys are causing problems there. So,
[13:23] I just thought I'd put a plug in for
Prestoa. Thank you.
[13:29] » Thank you. And I think in terms of their
presentation, if you want to write a
[13:32] letter of support, you can do that.
>> I do.
[13:34] » Okay, great. Good.
>> Uh, weatherhead. Thank you. Through the
[13:39] chair. Um, besides um the for game
purposes as as to be what they were
[13:46] first introduced for in the 60s. Uh, is
there any other benefit to Alberta to
[13:51] have these non-native wild species?
That is ultimately the goal just to have
[13:59] more hunting opportunity. Like the
places where we are releasing them,
[14:03] we're asking, you know, that they don't
allow hunting for the first several
[14:08] years because we want the populations to
expand, but ultimately that is the goal.
[14:13] Um there is a very high demand for it in
Alberta and it's very limited. It's
[14:18] actually a draw system here where only
50 tags are are awarded each year and
[14:25] and those 50 tags aren't even being
filled each year. And uh it's a very
[14:31] different situation from what BC has.
You have a spring and a fall season and
[14:36] and three birds, you know, in the year
that you could harvest and it's a, you
[14:41] know, a tom bearded bird only season in
the month of May here. But ultimately,
[14:46] yeah, it is to, you know, increase
hunting opportunity, but it's going to
[14:51] take
a long time, I think, before we get
[14:57] to anything uh close to what you might
have.
[15:01] » Thank you. This supplemental to that
perhaps someone our colleagues know then
[15:06] is there any also any way of helping
some of these overpop populated turkey
[15:11] areas by allowing more tags per per
season through fish and wildlife.
[15:17] I think you'd have to ask the co and the
province that question
[15:22] that question as well as
>> through the chair director if you can
[15:27] just make sure everyone can hear you.
>> Go ahead. It's a safety issue. Um,
[15:33] turkeys occupy places where there barns,
houses, and so you have to be very
[15:38] careful where you hunt them. And I think
that's why they've increased the numbers
[15:42] to to cause a problem because where they
are is not the safest place to hunt.
[15:47] » Thank you. Thank you.
>> Yeah, it is those towns and communities
[15:52] where we're focusing our efforts. We're
not going and um transllocating turkeys
[15:57] from from the big open wild areas.
[16:03] » Thank you. That is all we have our
questions. I'll note I when I lived in
[16:07] Meadow Creek, I raised uh domestic
turkeys, but they looked exactly like
[16:11] the wild turkeys. And that was really
fun to watch them fence to fence. And uh
[16:17] they don't taste as good when they're
wild, but
[16:22] it was a fun project with my son.
Um in terms of a letter of support, oh,
[16:27] Paige, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Sorry, I maybe I missed it. Where's the
[16:30] funding for this coming from?
um various we've uh well we've received
[16:37] funding from um
several fish and game associations here
[16:42] in Alberta and then ACA
ourselves were funding a big part of it.
[16:49] Um but yeah, various funding a you know
um volunteer groups and uh fish and game
[16:56] associations and ACA
>> and I will note that the province of BC
[17:01] um doesn't have a budget for this
project other than uh staff time to help
[17:06] out and you know reviewing applications
and such. It's um yeah the funding is
[17:11] from Alberta
>> and like this wild turkey population is
[17:15] was originally a domestic population.
It's an invasive species, right?
[17:20] » Turkeys aren't native to BC.
>> That's correct.
[17:24] » Yeah, they're invasive.
[17:28] » Thank you.
>> Uh, in terms of process, when it comes
[17:33] to a letter of support, we don't uh take
action uh post a delegation, but if um
[17:37] any of our directors want to make that
motion for next month, we will debate it
[17:41] then. So, we'll wait to see if one of
our directors comes forward with a
[17:44] request for a letter of support.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[17:47] Thank you.
All right. Thank you so much. Have a
[17:51] great day and thanks for your work.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[17:57] » All right, directors. We are on 3.1.1.
Uh, welcome, director. Sorry, didn't
[18:03] take 3.1.1. Nelson and Dick District
Commission.
[18:10] » Okay. um that the RDCK board approved
renewing the municipal service agreement
[18:15] with the city of Nelson from the OBI
wheelchair services over here by
[18:18] Lakeside for an additional three years
starting on May 1st, 2026 with ending uh
[18:23] May April 30th, 2029 and further board
be authorized to execute the agreement.
[18:28] » Second.
>> Thank you. Discussion
[18:32] all those in favor.
>> Then 3.2 2. The board would authorize
[18:37] staff to work with the city of Nelson to
increase the maximum parking lot time
[18:40] limits at the Nelson and District
community complex for two from two hours
[18:43] to three hours.
>> Thank you. Second, Mrs. participants
[18:47] only waited discussion.
>> All those in favor?
[18:52] » Opposed? Carried. Uh, three, that the
board authorize staff to negotiate an
[18:56] enter into a long-term facility use
agreement with the Nelson Leafs Hockey
[18:59] Society for use of the Nelson District
Community Complex for three August 1st,
[19:04] 2026 to July 31st, 2029 and the option
to renew for two additional years and
[19:10] further the board chair and corporate
officer be authorized to sign the
[19:13] agreement upon successful negotiation.
>> Second.
[19:16] » Thank you. All vote waited discussion.
All those in favor? Opposed? He carried.
[19:23] » And finally, that the board approved the
RDCK enter into a one-year concession
[19:26] service agreement in the district
complex with GSL group commencing on
[19:30] September 1st, 2026 and ending August
31st, 2027 with the option to extend for
[19:36] two one-year periods and four chair
officer be authorized to execute the
[19:40] agreement. Chair,
>> can you second it and then discuss it?
[19:43] » No.
>> Would anyone second this? Okay.
[19:46] » Thank you. for discussion. Go ahead, N.
>> I have a couple of questions. Go ahead.
[19:51] » First of all, I voted in favor of this
motion, deciding vote,
[19:56] » if that may have any weight in what I'm
going to ask. Um my first question is um
[20:03] through to uh Stuart.
Can
[20:09] a commission board
uh award a contract
[20:15] uh that is um
in contradiction to uh staff
[20:22] recommendation from their process
through the chair as long as it remains
[20:27] within our purchasing policy process.
Yes.
[20:34] supplemental.
>> Uh, yeah, I've got a few. I just I'm
[20:37] going to have to process this. So, I
pause for a moment. It It's I don't have
[20:41] a spec I need some answers before I can
ask. Um,
[20:48] what would be the process at
this table
[20:55] for the commission to reconsider a
decision of the commission?
[21:05] In other words, if I want to change my
[21:10] my mind to the chair, if you want to
change your mind, then you would vote
[21:14] against this motion.
Okay.
[21:18] Um
as a sorry everyone uh this
[21:25] um
uh so against the motion.
[21:31] Okay. Um
Okay. We'll see if it's second.
[21:35] » It is. It's on the floor.
>> Okay.
[21:39] » Speak to motion.
>> Um, you have I'm going to go to Schmink
[21:42] and then I can come back to you. Go
ahead.
[21:47] » We refer this back to the commission for
consider reconsideration.
[21:50] » You can also do that. I do have Craig
that just popped on. I just want to
[21:54] check um what he might have to add to
the discussion, but yes, thank you. That
[21:57] is an option. You refer back to the
commission depending on timing. Uh Craig
[22:01] is was there anything you want to add to
this?
[22:03] » No, through the chair. I was just uh
listening to the conversation and if
[22:07] asked any specific questions I can
answer.
[22:10] » Okay. So yes, that is the other process
you could do.
[22:14] » Um
>> so hold on.
[22:16] » Okay. It's not my turn. [laughter]
>> I just want to ensure that everyone has
[22:20] a chance. I do understand what
>> I didn't get to ask my my
[22:25] » Go ahead.
>> Think, but it I don't want to. I was bad
[22:28] enough yesterday. I'll probably be
better today. [laughter]
[22:33] » Go ahead, Director Newell. And then
>> I'd like to move referral to the
[22:37] upcoming
um commission meeting. I think it's in
[22:41] uh August 26th, if I'm not mistaken, to
revisit, refer this to that meeting.
[22:47] » Okay. Now, we have a speaker list which
is likely not on referral. So,
[22:52] technically, are you seconding that
referral?
[22:54] » Uh, no. I have a question on referral.
>> Can you hold your referral? Let's go
[22:57] through the questions. Okay, thank you.
Uh, so I do have pop off before you,
[23:01] Paige.
>> Yeah,
[23:02] » pop off. Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Chair. That that was exactly
[23:05] my question. Can it be referred?
>> Yeah, you just clarified that. Um,
[23:10] Paige, over to you.
>> Okay. So, I guess this is a question to
[23:14] staff, though. I'm certainly curious
about Director New's concern on this
[23:19] topic since we don't have a majority of
commission at this table. Um, this has
[23:25] gone out through a process. We've
already voted on it. We have a September
[23:29] 1st start. How does this impact
potential starts that have been
[23:33] communicated through the bid process? Is
this
[23:36] put us in any kind of constraint or
problems? Is it okay to refer this off
[23:43] to August and come back in September
board or October board or November
[23:47] board?
>> Yeah, through the chair after the
[23:50] commission. Yeah, thanks. through the
chair. After the commission meeting, uh
[23:54] staff did reach out to the proponents to
let them know the result of the uh the
[23:58] discussion with commission and the the u
motion going in front of the board. Um
[24:03] so we have uh drafted an agreement for
the successful proponent in anticipation
[24:09] of the board discussion. What this
referral would do is delay at least
[24:15] until the next board meeting a decision
to award this. So it would be um as soon
[24:21] as possible after the the next board
meeting if possible. If if the decision
[24:26] was was reversed
uh then then we would certainly have to
[24:30] have that conversation with the the
second proponent and as whether they
[24:34] could start as soon as possible. But
right now it it we are anticipating the
[24:39] successful proponent uh be ready to go
on September 1st.
[24:44] thinking from a time perspective, if it
went back to the commission, you're
[24:48] looking at a September board approval.
If the proponent changed, then you're
[24:51] looking at at least October before they
would start. That's what I'm hearing,
[24:54] right?
>> Supplemental.
[24:56] » Yes. Go ahead.
>> Um, [clears throat]
[24:59] are we in any way able to change the
extension options? Like I think we heard
[25:05] a commission this will be coming back
before the next season regardless to see
[25:10] if we want to extend this another year.
It's not presumed on either side
[25:15] » you through the chair. That's not an
automatic renewal. That would have to
[25:18] come to commission and then board to
automatically or sorry renew that based
[25:22] on any direction staff were given about
the operation of the concession.
[25:26] Certainly evaluating the performance of
the of the uh the concession services
[25:32] and then making the recommendation to
the commission and then the board to
[25:36] renew. But in the meantime, commission
could always give staff uh uh direction
[25:41] to not renew.
>> Okay. So, I think I'm opposed to
[25:44] referral for those reasons that we can
get to the city here.
[25:48] » Thank you. Yeah, the motion states this
would go to it's a one-year contract.
[25:54] Uh, Lockwood,
>> I know this is not my it's just curious
[25:59] if they if if the proponents have
already been told that it's only the
[26:07] process of going through here, is there
any opportunity for those proponents to
[26:13] legally sue
[26:18] the board, the RD, whoever that they
didn't get
[26:23] just because it hasn't gone through this
process
[26:28] » for the [snorts] chair. If it gets
referred,
[26:30] » yeah,
>> if it gets referred, no,
[26:33] » there there would be no grounds for
anything on that. However, the current
[26:40] recommended proponent from the
commission's meeting, if that got
[26:43] changed to a different proponent and the
report has outlined that the proponent
[26:48] that Steph is suggesting has rated so
much higher and then be switched to a
[26:54] different proponent mentioned in the
report, that's
[26:59] got a proponent who knows that they
ranked higher and that it's been changed
[27:03] to a different proponent
versus someone
[27:10] Can you put me on the list, please?
>> Yeah, just a really quick question just
[27:15] because it sounds like you might have
the vote on referral. Um, if this gets
[27:19] extended, so now you don't have a start
date of September 1st, does that mean
[27:22] that the concession is without a
working concession for that extra month
[27:30] that is going to take?
[clears throat]
[27:33] » Yeah, through the chair that's that's
potential. We have filled in in the past
[27:36] with um temporary uh concession
operators, but it would be uh
[27:42] logistically challenging in this
situation if we were to try to get
[27:45] somebody for a month at a time.
>> Thank you.
[27:50] » And
thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it possible to
[27:55] uh defer this decision until later on in
the meeting so the three directors could
[27:59] actually have a quick conversation
>> there? Procedurally, you can table a
[28:05] motion. It's currently on the floor. You
can table it. I would just note your
[28:08] full commission is not here. So, it but
yes, you do procedurally you can't
[28:12] table. Right.
>> Okay. Through the chair, [clears throat]
[28:14] they could table, but the
director shank is not on the commission
[28:20] » and you have to be careful about whether
or not you're having a commission
[28:23] meeting,
>> right, during this meeting. So, through
[28:28] the chair, I would not recommend
tableabling it for the purposes of a
[28:31] side discussion.
[28:36] And I would suggested uh having a table
just for the purpose of clarification
[28:42] between the directors.
[28:46] » You are proposing tableabling it.
>> Yes.
[28:48] » So that would just move it to later in
the meeting.
[28:50] » Yes.
>> And you have been noted that that's
[28:54] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Um tableabling ranch. Can you
[28:57] remind me again? That's a second and a
motion.
[29:00] So it would be postponing postponing
postponing the item until um an item
[29:08] that you want to address or use the end
of the meeting to be postponed.
[29:14] » Okay. So there has been a motion to
postpone it. Is there a second? Is that
[29:18] a second page?
>> Okay. Uh can we discuss postponing?
[29:24] » No. No.
>> All those in favor?
[29:28] » Sure. opposed.
Okay. So, we will postpone until
[29:35] » before
[29:38] the morning break.
>> We'll put it at the end
[29:42] » just so that we stay on track with
everything else. There's other big
[29:45] conversations today.
>> Okay. So, that was postponed.
[29:51] Can you put that right before um in
camera, Angela?
[29:56] Okay.
Area A, economic development.
[30:01] » Yes. So there are two recommendations.
One is all waited because it's financial
[30:06] all. So I would like to move that the
board approve an amendment to the 2026
[30:11] financial plan for S107
as stated.
[30:17] » Second.
Thank you. Discussion.
[30:21] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
>> Second one. Simply all vote. Move the
[30:27] board approve grant allocation of
$10,000 to self cumulate services
[30:31] society for the 3D inversion of the
phase 6 data. We have second thank you
[30:38] discussion.
[30:41] » All those in favored
[30:46] pass district commission. I move that
board authorize staff to negotiate an
[30:52] enter into a facility use agreement with
the Castlegar Hockey Society for the use
[30:57] of the Castle Garden District Community
Complex from August 1st, 2026 to July
[31:04] 31st, 2027 with the option to renew for
two additional one-year terms and that
[31:10] the board chair and corporate officer be
authorized to sign each agreement upon
[31:17] successful negotiation.
Is there a second?
[31:22] » Oh, yes. [laughter] I'm like reading it
and then I can't reach you.
[31:27] » Discussion.
All those in favor? Opposed?
[31:36] » We're delivered. There was a package
that we never picked up.
[31:40] » Paris.
>> Thank you. Um, we do not need to read
[31:45] motions verbatim. If you want to
summarize, that's great. Thank you.
[31:48] [clears throat] Uh water services
committee
[31:52] » um nonverbatimly
we are thinking about trying to um
[31:58] support nonRDCK water systems and so we
have this motion that you've all read
[32:05] that uh I'd like to move second.
>> Thank you. I am and this is participants
[32:13] waited. I am just going to speak quickly
that through the nine community planning
[32:17] meetings we held for area D in the last
couple of weeks um area D only has one
[32:23] RDCK water system and about unknown
amount of non RD owned all community run
[32:29] they do great work but this and water
system support was one of the biggest
[32:33] issues communities are facing so I did
um I know too sorry village of castle
[32:39] delivers on the other one me on the
pipes in the ground So, one and a half
[32:44] I'll say. Um, thank you, Julie. Just
wanted to note that this actually is
[32:49] something I referred to quite a bit in
our community planning conversations and
[32:52] residents were grateful that we were
looking at how can we support through
[32:55] governance and guidance. So, thank you
for that weatherhead. Oh, thank you.
[33:00] chair does have a question on uh the I
didn't get this clarified forgot to in
[33:06] the water services meeting was uh which
account pays for the work being done on
[33:11] long is it water service account or is
it admin
[33:19] » um the work that is proposed here and
that you're directed to do is meant to
[33:26] be paid out of the rural administration
uh contribution to service uh A103
[33:37] which holds that uh administrative
portion of all assistance.
[33:42] » Thank you.
>> Good to know because those are the
[33:44] participants. Uh Schmid go ahead. Uh
thank you to the chair uh to staff just
[33:49] I hope that in development of this uh
framework that they also include
[33:56] a corral somehow to to limit how many
people are going to be applying at once
[34:01] because I don't want to get into
situation where we have 400 people
[34:04] applying for something. So I just just
in context that could be included that
[34:09] would be nice to see how that would be
included.
[34:13] » Go ahead. If I may through the chair, uh
we have as part of our acquisition
[34:18] strategy already laid out that we limit
the numbers of systems that we consider
[34:25] is always the the board's decision how
many we accept but we currently have
[34:31] limited ourselves in that strategy to
one to two systems per year. Thank you.
[34:39] » All right then. All those in favor
[34:46] Valley Services Committee
go ahead.
[34:49] » Okay, there's four motions here. Start
with um first one is that the board
[34:53] approve an amendment to the 2026 year of
the 20 26 to 2030 financial plan for
[34:59] service 108
require BNC to increase grants expense
[35:05] by 77,000 and decrease contracted
services by 77,000 to have funds
[35:11] available to support field forward work
in the Preston Valley.
[35:16] » Uh second
>> yes
[35:18] » and a question. has a question.
>> Go ahead.
[35:20] » So, the question actually pertains to
the next. Just giving a heads up.
[35:25] » I'm good on this first one. Okay.
>> Okay.
[35:30] » Thank you.
>> Uh any discussions on this motion?
[35:34] » All those in favor? Opposed?
Or we could we go ahead and have
[35:39] director Doom move the next one and then
I'll go to you for a question? Thank
[35:43] you, Doom. Go ahead. A second motion
then is that the board approve a grant
[35:47] payment of up to $77,000
field forward from service 108 economic
[35:53] development for the purposes of
supporting its capital and operational
[35:57] budget for 2026
>> seconded.
[36:03] Thank you Venber. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. I'd like to uh amend this
[36:07] motion uh for the amount up to 70,000.
Uh the reason for it is is that the
[36:13] contribution from area A um has been
made and it can't be reflected in the
[36:18] S108 transfer. Um so in order to to
accommodate that if we reduce the amount
[36:24] payable out to that that the amount that
I'm suggesting 70,000
[36:30] um that allows the influx of money from
area A without overpaying uh and then
[36:36] it's really
it's really then causing other issues.
[36:42] » Okay. So, let's just go to A. And that's
a friendly amendment. Or is that Do you
[36:47] want to Are you seconding that
amendment?
[36:51] » Yeah. Well, I will second the amendment
and I could give a little more
[36:55] clarification if you wanted as well.
>> If you're good with it, I think we're
[36:58] good with it.
>> If it's later in the meeting.
[37:02] » Okay. So, we're changing it to 70,000
from 77.
[37:07] That's an amendment at this time.
Further discussion on that?
[37:12] is I'm going to go to Ben.
>> Yeah, I guess this is a question to that
[37:16] motion. Um, it says up to 77,000. So,
that gives us a flexibility of anything.
[37:22] So, I don't know why we need to change
that motion. If it was a precise figure,
[37:26] I would agree with you, but it's not a
precise figure.
[37:29] » Let's just check with staff on that real
quick if we need to be precise with
[37:32] that.
>> Well, to the church, the board's desired
[37:34] whether you want to be precise with it.
It's okay.
[37:38] » So, sorry, Jacine. I'll go back to you
for explanation.
[37:40] » Yes. So, I do want to speak. Okay.
>> Our direction of finance very
[37:46] successfully has been following a board
meeting. They generally issue these
[37:49] grants within the remaining days of that
month. They can't issue an up to $77,000
[37:54] check. So Fields Forward will be without
money. They're going to run out of
[37:58] operating funds. Later you'll see is
recommending 10,000 community
[38:01] development because they have to
reconvene economic development test 107
[38:06] committee mission to do anything else.
You need a hard number if our finance
[38:10] can't act on it because I've taken
action. If the board approves community
[38:14] development, you don't need the full 77
based on what was requested. So, I
[38:19] strongly support you pick a firm number
so finance can issue a check. Otherwise,
[38:24] it'll come back in September, I'm sure,
and probably be then locked or stalled
[38:28] till November. And I'm fearful they'll
run out of operative funds because
[38:32] they're down to the work. So, I'm going
to go ahead and suggest that your
[38:35] amendment is removing up two and
changing it from 77 to 70. So, it's a
[38:41] payment of 70,000. Good. Good. Okay.
Further discussion
[38:47] on the amendment. All those in favor?
Anybody opposed?
[38:52] And on the amended motion now, all those
in favor? Opposed?
[39:02] Okay. Go ahead, Finn, on the next one.
>> Okay. The next one is that the board
[39:07] approve the RCK enter to a one-year
concession services agreement at the
[39:11] Quest Community Complex with Rick's iron
cattle restaurant commencing on
[39:15] September 1st and ending on October or
August 31st, 2027 with options to renew
[39:22] for two one-year periods with no
approval and that the board chair
[39:26] corporate officer be authorized to
execute the second.
[39:30] » Thank you. discussion.
Uh no,
[39:34] » a question through to someone. Uh is uh
Rick's Iron Kettle Restaurant a local
[39:42] company?
>> Yes, they are.
[39:45] » Thank you very much.
>> I only know that because Jacine was
[39:48] nodding.
>> I have my head down. I'm scared to ask
[39:52] questions.
>> Uh further discussion.
[39:57] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
and the report.
[40:02] » And number four is that the board
authorize staff to negotiate and enter
[40:05] into a facility use agreement with the
Crestston Valley Union Hockey Society
[40:10] the use of the Crestston district
community complex from August 1st, 2026
[40:14] to July 31st, 2027 with the option to
renew for two additional one-year terms
[40:20] that the board author
sign each agreement upon successful
[40:25] negotiations.
>> Thank you. I have a second from Tyranny
[40:28] discussion.
All those in favor opposed. [snorts]
[40:35] All right. 3.1.6
lake committee director view it.
[40:40] » All right. I'm going to move this for
discussion. Okay.
[40:42] » Um that the board approved the RDCK
entering the lease agreement with Castle
[40:46] Search and Rescue for shared use
firehouse common and lease of an office
[40:52] space for a period of of 5 years
years. Um and the chair and corporate
[40:59] officer be authorized to sign.
>> I'll second that. Do you want to discuss
[41:03] it? Go ahead.
>> Uh yes. If there is anyone from fire
[41:07] services on, I would like to uh we
discussed at our meeting on Monday
[41:13] whether uh search and rescue had an
opportunity to review the agreement and
[41:19] provide any feedback. and I hope that
that happens so we don't have to
[41:25] actually
delay this because I I really want their
[41:30] input.
>> Thank you to the chair. Uh it's my
[41:33] understanding they had a board meeting
last night. We have not heard feedback
[41:36] yet. Um however, if there are
substantive changes, we would bring it
[41:40] back to North Kudney Lake Services
Committee uh next month. Anybody can
[41:45] have a supplemental that doesn't uh
through to staff that doesn't uh impact
[41:52] anything that's going on right now with
the facility then. Correct.
[41:56] » Uh through the chair. Correct. Uh
they're they're already in place in the
[41:59] facility. The agreement is formalizing
the fact that they're using the space.
[42:03] And if I could have another sentimental,
does that should we change the wording
[42:09] of the motion to reflect
what was just said by Dan so that we're
[42:15] not agreeing to something that's going
to go forward and regardless of because
[42:19] it doesn't sound like there's an option
to consider any feedback from pay. So we
[42:26] asked that at the shared services
meeting and I was going to emotion.
[42:29] Stuart had indicated that that's our
standard practice. So we don't need it
[42:32] as
[42:36] anything else down. Okay. Thanks. Oh,
all those in favor. Any other
[42:42] discussion? Sorry.
Okay. All those in favor? Oppose.
[42:48] Joint reserve recovery director or pop
out.
[42:51] » Yeah. Thank you, chair. Uh
two recommendations there.
[42:56] » [clears throat]
>> The first one is uh direct staff to
[43:00] undertake a 2026
combo sales plan at the central and
[43:07] credit landfills facilities and to be
available for purchase by customers and
[43:13] the rates are included in the motion and
further revenue from the sales uh plan
[43:19] go to A119 organics program east sub
region and compost sold from the central
[43:27] area and west sub regions go to A120
organics program central and west sub
[43:32] regions
>> s thank you lwood discussion
[43:36] uh new and then boom
uh I'll be very brief but I just want to
[43:44] acknowledge the 12-year process uh our
resource recovery review this and that
[43:52] coming to fruition Um
it's it it it's a pretty major thing
[44:02] actually that we're selling compost and
all the stuff we have to go through and
[44:07] the grants and staff and meetings with
the public and commit. It was awesome.
[44:13] So anyway, we're here.
>> Good stuff. uh to the chair to staff if
[44:19] I may. Um do we have a proposed start
date for this that we can advertise to
[44:24] people because nothing onion or start
date.
[44:31] » So is the question if we will advertise
the sale of these materials through the
[44:38] jet
>> and what the start date would be on that
[44:40] » start date. The start date is not clear
yet because it depends on when we
[44:45] complete the screening of the material
so it's ready for sale. Um but we will
[44:51] communicate that back to the directors
when when we have materials for sale and
[44:56] we will advertise it. Yeah.
>> Great. I do recall when we originally
[45:03] did the organics conversation, speaking
of history, um that the ability to get
[45:08] to class A was at the time seen as very
prohibitive and that we would likely
[45:13] only be using it internally.
[clears throat] So, another kudos to the
[45:16] team to getting us to a class A level.
All those in favor? Opposed? Great.
[45:24] » A second one. Go ahead. And the second
recommendation is purchase of the
[45:27] rolloff hoist for a trio axle rolloff
truck for the central sub region and uh
[45:34] with a cost not to exceed $100,958.78
[45:39] and a cost to be paid from service one
S187
[45:44] » second. Thank you discussion.
All those in favor opposed
[45:50] [clears throat] carried
sustainability director Huitt as the
[45:55] chair. Go ahead.
>> Right. We have one resolution coming out
[45:58] of that meeting and it's that the board
direct staff to send a letter of support
[46:01] to Columbia Basin Trust for the College
of the Rockies campus applied
[46:06] agricultural research project.
>> Can I amend that before we continue? I
[46:12] just structurally it's not a letter from
the staff. It's that the board sent a
[46:16] letter of support. So, can we remove the
staff, please?
[46:20] Thank you. Now, I'll second it. All
right. Discussion.
[46:26] » Oh, David off. Yes, go ahead.
>> Yeah, it's not on the motion. It's on
[46:29] another another piece of business that
we discussed that I just wanted clarity
[46:34] on. So, it's not on this motion.
>> Is it on the like the SE slack minutes?
[46:39] Is that what you're referring to?
>> Yes.
[46:41] » Okay. Let's finish this motion and then
I'll take your question. Uh the board
[46:45] directs
>> what's in the letter.
[46:49] » Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Further
discussion on the letter of support.
[46:53] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
Director David off. Do you have a
[46:58] question on the minutes?
>> Yes. I I've received questions uh about
[47:04] the governance piece and we are not
making a governance motion here. There
[47:08] isn't one at the board table. We
discussed uh governance and transition
[47:15] uh of sea slack to to various forms but
staff is still working on that. Is that
[47:20] correct chair?
>> You have item 6.1.3
[47:24] where the board will discuss uh what the
standing committee community
[47:28] sustainability advisory committee might
look like and that is an item on the
[47:31] agenda if we go to action will depend on
the board but at this point we do have
[47:36] that item on the agenda later on.
>> Yeah. So in terms of pro process the
[47:40] question was about process it was about
cack making a recommendation
[47:46] » and the key thing sees slack did not
make a recommendation
[47:50] this is a board recommendation that's
coming up later in the agenda correct
[47:55] » correct
>> thank you chair
[47:57] » Amy I saw you come on do you want to add
anything to that or
[48:01] » no just uh being present for the
conversation thanks
[48:05] » thank there.
Okay.
[48:11] Good. Good. Memberships and
appointments. Uh I believe this is you
[48:15] director popup. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. The following individuals stated
[48:19] in the agenda to be appointed to the
Slocan Valley area south recreation
[48:25] parks community advisory committee for a
term December 31st, 2028.
[48:29] » Thank you. Do we have a second?
Thank you. Any discussion?
[48:36] All those in favor? Opposed?
Carrie. There's something in chat. Is
[48:41] that just one? Yeah.
[48:45] » Okay. Under correspondence, we have one
letter uh regarding revenue sharing. Any
[48:49] [clears throat]
questions? We didn't write the letter,
[48:52] but
good. It's received for information.
[48:58] Uh bylaws 5.1.
>> You can move these as a block. Good.
[49:04] » All right.
Uh, would anyone like to do that?
[49:08] » As for adoption, we can move them as a
block. Apparently,
[49:11] » I will move them as a block. I will be
so bold.
[49:16] » Brave. Uh, I'll take a second and then I
see David off. Thank you, Vandenberg.
[49:21] David up, are you willing to pull one of
those?
[49:24] » Yeah. Uh, unfortunately, about 15
minutes before the meeting, I received a
[49:28] bunch of
>> Just tell me which one you want to pull
[49:30] and then I'll put you on 167. The last
one. Sure.
[49:34] » Number five.
>> Yeah.
[49:36] » Okay. So, five is pulled from the block
and just hang on tight.
[49:42] Um pulled
on the rest of the block. Is there any
[49:46] that need to be pulled? Jackman,
>> sorry. Pulled on on the block. Just Oh,
[49:51] wait. Nothing else to pull. I just want
to speak to the block.
[49:54] » Okay. Anything else that wants to be
pulled?
[49:57] Go ahead, Jackman. just because I
haven't all I went back three OCP
[50:02] amendments 10 years this is pretty
comprehensive not everything is aligned
[50:08] I'm patient to wait for our joint OCP
reviews but I see everyone I looked at
[50:14] especially early a is aligned with what
we asked for
[50:19] pretty detailed correction I think of
what happened between 2024 and no but so
[50:26] many numbers I feel so bad for our
I really hope at some point they will
[50:31] come out and take an OCP review from
bottom because no way anybody can follow
[50:38] this unless you happen to have all the
files I have on my
[50:42] staff and you've been happy to follow it
all
[50:45] » staff can follow.
>> Thank you. So on the block all those in
[50:49] favor
opposed carried. Uh now Dr. David off
[50:54] I'll go to you for number five. Yes,
it's on adoption, so don't move it. Go
[50:59] ahead and ask your question.
>> Yeah, thank you, chair. So, basically 15
[51:03] minutes before the meeting started, I
received uh uh questions and a telephone
[51:07] call about
um what was happening in other areas in
[51:13] with this amendment, particularly
dealing with a zones and then why that
[51:19] wasn't in ours. And I really can't uh
vote on this until I speak to staff now.
[51:26] I said I'd get back to the to the
constituent tomorrow. Uh but I can't I
[51:33] can't move adoption of this without
clarity. So could I refer it to the
[51:39] September meeting?
>> Yes, I believe you can.
[51:42] » Yeah, go ahead. So, I just move to refer
that to the September meeting uh to
[51:48] allow for clarity. Uh as as director
Jackman mentioned, this is very
[51:53] confusing for our constituents.
>> Okay, thank you. So, it's been referred.
[51:57] Is there a second?
Thank you, Tony. Uh anything on referral
[52:05] » the September.
>> September board. Yes. Thanks, San. All
[52:09] those in favor? Opposed? Very good.
Thank you chair. Thank you.
[52:16] » Uh chair, directors, and alternate
directors remunation amendment. Before
[52:21] we go to third, uh because once we go to
third, we don't generally make changes.
[52:25] I'm going to open it up to the floor for
discussion.
[52:30] I got Len Weatherhead.
Go ahead, Director L.
[52:36] Sure. Um after we we had a long
conversation last board meeting
[52:42] surrounding the rural municipal director
split. Um and so I wanted to draw the
[52:48] board's attention to section.
[52:54] Dr. L. I'm just going to I'm just
noticing that it's hard to hear you a
[52:58] little bit just
>> Yeah. And I have
[53:00] » Oh, I'm agitation thing, but I'll I'll
speak I'll try to speak louder. I'm not
[53:05] sick. some mess. Um section 3.5 and it's
speaking to the allocation between uh
[53:11] municipal director and um
and rural director. And so the service
[53:18] split for this for rural directors is
calculated at 54% to general
[53:23] administration and 46%
to rural um administration.
[53:31] And um based on the conversation
uh the rationale for um higher
[53:38] compensation for world directors is for
the actual work that directors do. So
[53:43] I'm proposing an amendment. I'm sorry.
[53:50] Forward it to an I guess but just for
rural I'm proposing an amendment to the
[53:57] allocation between rural admin and
general admin. So um uh to for each
[54:05] rural director an amount equivalent to
the stipen paid to a municipal director
[54:11] will be allocated to general
administration
[54:14] and any amount exceeding the municipal
director stipend would be allocated to
[54:18] the rural administration.
>> Is there a way you can put that motion
[54:23] in chat and circulate it to us?
Generally [clears throat] we to discuss
[54:27] a motion beyond
>> to I could email it to or just send it
[54:32] to an and she can circulate it.
>> It's sustain.
[54:38] » Go ahead sir.
>> So do the chair of director want just to
[54:40] confirm what you're So right now 39%
of the rule stipen gets allocated to
[54:46] rule and then in 61 it was the general.
You're essentially proposing to flip
[54:49] that because the the municipal statement
is 39% of the rule statement.
[54:56] » So you're proposing to flip that
allocation.
[54:59] » Yeah. Well, in the bylaw, it has just a
random amount of 54.
[55:06] » Yeah. Or flip it just so that they um
the base rate is charged to general
[55:10] admin for the base worker of the board.
And then um anything over and above that
[55:15] base rate that's gi um al paid to rural
directors that um is allocated to the
[55:22] rural administration fund. Just
>> it's a principal thing.
[55:27] » It's just make sure you
>> Yeah. Do you understand what what is
[55:32] being proposed here? Yeah.
>> Thanks for the chair. So the
[55:35] » Yeah. Can you come up online?
>> Yeah. Um correct me if I'm wrong, but
[55:40] through the chair. So I think what
you're proposing is the the the
[55:47] municipal portion or or municipal
director's
[55:52] uh stipend as a percentage of the rural
directors gets charged to m to S100 and
[56:01] then the remainder goes to so it just
basically changes this formula
[56:05] » and then the remainder would get charged
to S101 but it there's no change to the
[56:12] stipens. It's just changing
the
[56:16] » It's just really hard for people to hear
online. So, if you just pause, let Dev
[56:19] finish.
>> So, we're just flipping the allocation,
[56:22] not the rates.
>> Yes.
[56:23] » Okay. So, we still need the motion. One
second.
[56:39] I have to send it by
[56:44] email it to me and I can put it in
[56:48] access.
>> I'm trying to get it in both because I
[56:52] can't go between the two.
[56:58] Yeah,
[57:14] » I'm just going to read it.
that the board approve that for
[57:19] attending to the affairs of the district
each municipal director will be paid
[57:24] twice per month. This is not the motion.
>> Oh,
[57:28] » and each role director will be paid
twice per month from general and rule.
[57:32] » Sorry. Yeah,
>> that is not the motion.
[57:35] » That was
so just afterwards the service split for
[57:40] the site for the rural directors. Sorry,
Director Len, I'm going to ask you to
[57:45] work on the motion and I'm going to go
to the rest of the conversation because
[57:48] we need a very clear motion on what
we're doing. [clears throat]
[57:59] » So, get you on the motion and I'm going
to go to the rest of the speakers. Okay.
[58:05] » Weatherhead.
>> Oh, thank you. Um, I'm getting through
[58:09] the chair. So, I'm going to throw this
out here and I may do this completely
[58:14] incorrectly. I've just sent it to an um
this is based on uh item 325
[58:24] which is uh 2126
in the remuneration wording. First six
[58:31] board workshops attended by a director
each year are part of the regular
[58:34] duties. do not draw additional stipend
related expenses
[58:39] um a as a as per board policy. What I'm
proposing is actually rescending that
[58:47] and replacing it with
board workshops attended by a director
[58:52] each year are part of regular duties
where attendance shall be counted to
[58:57] draw additional stipend and related
expenses as paid as per or policy. Um,
[59:04] and if anybody
I would need a second to be able to have
[59:09] motions written out in the sent us.
>> I sent it.
[59:12] » Okay. An do you have that?
>> An does not have it. We do not have it.
[59:16] » Sorry. Why is it not sending? Okay.
Sorry. I see why it's not.
[59:21] » This is why motions in advance are so
critical.
[59:23] » I did send it in advance
in advance.
[59:27] » I know. I saw it. An did not get it. So
that's
[59:29] » I sent it to an Yeah. couple days ago.
But that's okay cuz I expected to
[59:34] resend.
[59:43] » You do.
>> So we're flagging that L has a motion.
[59:47] We're waiting for an can you send the
motion Frank Director Weatherhead.
[1:00:19] Do we need to resend it then the
previous one?
[1:00:25] Angela, would we need to resend
or would we just move the new motion?
[1:00:34] um
to dissolve. Sorry, that be
[1:00:48] » because we haven't adopted the bylaw.
Can we not just move a new motion? And
[1:00:50] when we get to third, we're amending the
bylaw as per all the motions we get.
[1:00:54] Correct.
[1:00:57] » Oh, yeah. Okay. So, sorry. this
we would
[1:01:07] we would probably have to send that
>> but it's not a motion it's a section of
[1:01:11] a report
>> it says which is um 212-
[1:01:18] » oh it's the motion
so it is it is a it is a recommendation
[1:01:27] we do have to resend the original
motion.
[1:01:29] » Yeah,
>> let's just go ahead.
[1:01:33] » So, through the chair, the motion was
for staff to essentially amend the bylaw
[1:01:37] that's been acted on. You can't resend a
motion that's been acted on. You've got
[1:01:40] to now propose an amendment to bylaw
3088, which is a bylaw to amend 2710 to
[1:01:47] add a section in place of whatever
section is in there. And I'll need a
[1:01:53] second because I'm working on director
Lun's motion right now. But that's the
[1:01:57] way this has to go is that you're
proposing an amendment to bylaw 3088,
[1:02:01] which is a bylaw to amend bylaw 2710.
And you then you put in what your
[1:02:06] section is that you're adding and what
you're deleting. So for example,
[1:02:09] director L's motion will be that an
amendment be made to bylaw 3088 to amend
[1:02:13] bylaw 2710 section 3 subsection 5 from
and then I've inputed what it reads now
[1:02:19] to and then what it's going to read.
>> Okay. So that's what needs to be done
[1:02:23] for this the section that's on board
workshops. It needs to say that by 30 be
[1:02:28] amended to amend that section from
what's in there to whatever director
[1:02:35] Weatherhead is proposing.
>> That's the motion. So, I would like to
[1:02:39] propose given that I know that there is
this motion, that motion, there's two
[1:02:42] other motions coming forward and
[clears throat] while some of you sent
[1:02:45] them in advance, I would like to give
staff the time to make sure we've got
[1:02:49] the right motions when they get to the
floor. So, um I would suggest we move to
[1:02:55] another item at this time and come back
to this.
[1:03:01] Otherwise, I could withdraw and just
flag for staff staff for the next
[1:03:06] iteration.
It's okay. It's not that it's it's not
[1:03:09] that you can't do it. It's just getting
it right. And I just don't want us to
[1:03:12] rush through making sure we get it
right. So, it's not a problem that
[1:03:15] there's emotion. We just want to get it
right. And so, the question right now
[1:03:20] is, can we just give staff time to work
this out? I had Paige and then
[1:03:24] Cunningham.
[1:03:29] » There's a huge speakers list. None of
you are proposing motions, correct?
[1:03:33] » Not right now.
>> Okay. because I'm not going to take any
[1:03:36] other motions given I've just asked you
to hold on. Uh McLaren Co.
[1:03:41] » Um I
>> pop off. I know you have a motion. So
[1:03:45] » it's it's not a motion. It's a change to
the appendex that's attached where we
[1:03:50] put in.
[1:03:54] » We're not making any changes at this
moment. If you have a question, you can
[1:03:57] ask
>> an addition to the page. Just a simple
[1:03:59] addition. The 39% of
>> We're not doing that right now. if you
[1:04:04] can see staff are trying to work on two
other motions right now.
[1:04:06] » Fine.
>> Okay. Uh McFadden.
[1:04:10] » Uh
yeah, I just have thoughts on we have
[1:04:14] discussed this multiple times and even
some of the motions on the table. So we
[1:04:18] had a committee, we've said it before
and now we are actually already
[1:04:22] discussed the motion about whether or
not we should be paying for workshops
[1:04:26] very extensively. So, it seems
counterintuitive
[1:04:30] to have another discussion over
something we've already talked about
[1:04:34] twice. So, I'm wondering why we have
motions coming forward over things we've
[1:04:40] already discussed or things that we
probably should have flagged before the
[1:04:44] morning of because I feel like this is a
bit of waste of all of our time to
[1:04:49] continue to do something that we have
discussed and it seems a little like
[1:04:53] we're just trying to get our own points
across which is frustrating when we have
[1:04:58] subcommittees that we give this work to
and then we have full discussions and
[1:05:03] then we do it again and then we do it
again. So, I throw it out there before
[1:05:07] we jump on discussions and have the same
discussion for like the fifth time
[1:05:11] around this table. And I don't normally
say things like that, but it does seem
[1:05:15] like we are beating the same thing over
and over and over again. That's it.
[1:05:22] Nope. I'm going to go with the list
page.
[1:05:25] » Uh that's perfect tea up. So, thank you,
Mayor McFaten. Uh what occurs to me
[1:05:31] because we're you know further on uh
dissolving the committee is maybe where
[1:05:35] we've gone off the path is there's
clearly an intent to send things back to
[1:05:41] committee and maybe what we needed to do
a couple meetings back and maybe what we
[1:05:44] still need to do is take some of these
suggestions and have the committee have
[1:05:48] another meeting before September board
to hash this out a little bit more.
[1:05:52] Something that we can do. Um because I I
agree it is very difficult to have these
[1:05:59] discussions here. We've gone back and
forth on different pieces uh when people
[1:06:03] have been or not been around here and it
feels like we need to send all the
[1:06:06] suggestions back to the renumeration
committee to have another discussion or
[1:06:10] two before next and I know that's
frustrating. I just think maybe that's
[1:06:15] where we've gone off.
>> So we did actually discuss that last
[1:06:18] month as well and the determination at
the time was the committee made its
[1:06:22] recommendations and they discussed all
the items. So, you're going to end up in
[1:06:25] the same spot, but I do have panograph
on the list.
[1:06:30] » Uh, Cunningham,
>> thank you. At this point, we're talking
[1:06:34] about the original motion that has been
mentioned by
[1:06:37] » No, we're not. We're waiting for the
correct
[1:06:40] » Okay. Can we possibly table that to the
end of the meeting?
[1:06:42] » They're all tabled. [laughter] They're
all tabled. We're only because there's
[1:06:46] several motions that have coming in that
don't have the right wording. So, I've
[1:06:49] requested that we give staff time to
work on those. Right now, we're just
[1:06:53] entertaining what questions do you have
and that not further motions tabled or
[1:06:58] they're going to be tabled
>> through the I got the first two motions
[1:07:01] drafted. Uh respectfully, I'd like other
motions to be mentioned here as opposed
[1:07:07] to later so that we can work on them if
there was other suggested motions made
[1:07:12] » simply so we can get them in the proper
format.
[1:07:17] Um,
so I'm going to go to McLaren Co.
[1:07:23] » Okay.
>> Thank you, chair. Um, I I won't discuss
[1:07:26] it now. I have my own uh motion or
amendment to the draft billet to propose
[1:07:32] but given the discussion given the I
wasn't here but I watched the recording
[1:07:35] of the
meeting last month and um given what
[1:07:41] I've heard on that and what's being said
today I am going to suggest although not
[1:07:46] make the motion just yet that we refer
this to the October meeting because
[1:07:50] it'll be post election
that will be off the table it'll be for
[1:07:55] next term
It'll give obviously not committee
[1:07:59] because there's no desire for it to go
back to committee. The board wants the
[1:08:02] whole the entire board wants to have at
least two or three runs of this
[1:08:05] apparently. So we should talk about this
as a board and then the pressure's off
[1:08:09] in October. There's no it's it doesn't
need to be done until January. So that's
[1:08:14] my that would be my suggestion because I
have other things I want to talk about
[1:08:16] but there's this is way too complicated.
There are too many angles going into
[1:08:21] this and they're overlapping and there
there's not a
[1:08:25] a cohesive way to address this and
having
[1:08:29] had extensive conversation two months
ago, having watched the conversation
[1:08:33] last month and apparently turning into a
whole other conversation today. What
[1:08:36] what strikes me as the problem is we're
not working from the same playbook here.
[1:08:40] We're not all talking about the same
information. So if we can take what we
[1:08:44] need, refer it back to staff to prepare
something that we can all look at and
[1:08:49] review, then we can all make an informed
and decision based on the same
[1:08:53] information.
>> Can I just clarify what information is
[1:08:57] not the same that you're seeking?
>> So
[1:09:03] the staff has the bylaw, they have all
the recommendations, they have all the
[1:09:06] committee reports. So what information
is missing? Just so we're clear,
[1:09:09] » the sense that I'm getting is that
people are making arguments on the fly
[1:09:12] and there's things that are just coming
as like at a meeting without
[1:09:17] preparation. Most of our agenda items we
get to review at least a few days
[1:09:20] beforehand. I'm not talking about the
actual draft bylaw. I'm talking about
[1:09:23] the rationale behind the amendments to
the bylaw.
[1:09:26] » So I think those would come from
directors, not from staff.
[1:09:29] » Just clarify.
>> Right. But my point is that if it's what
[1:09:32] it's August now, October is three months
away. two months away.
[1:09:37] It'll give staff and directors the
chance to talk to each other back and
[1:09:42] forth to compile something in one
cohesive.
[1:09:47] With respect to the committee, I
appreciate the fresh I we talked to this
[1:09:50] that this executive that the process
could be a lot better for various
[1:09:57] reasons and and the main thing was the
lack of input from directors.
[1:10:02] » Yeah. So, I agree with what I agree with
all the challenges, but I'm trying to
[1:10:06] suggest is a better process that we can
have a more comprehensive review all in
[1:10:11] one go. That's all.
>> Stuart, go ahead.
[1:10:14] » For the chair, if you're thinking about
referring this and giving staff the
[1:10:18] information to prepare and draft motions
that then go on the agenda, I would
[1:10:20] suggest you do it September. Okay. And
the reason for that is the whole point
[1:10:24] of this process is that this board does
not know whether or not they're
[1:10:28] benefiting or not from the changes that
are being put in place for January 1st.
[1:10:32] If you do it after the election in
October, there will be people sitting
[1:10:35] around the table who know that they're
in office on January 1st and therefore
[1:10:40] it could be seen as benefiting from
that. So the whole point of doing this
[1:10:44] now and the reason the committee was
struck in February was so that this
[1:10:47] board is not determining its own
remiteration.
[1:10:54] » Okay. I had anagramraph and then
Lockwood.
[1:11:00] So
[1:11:03] I'm just going to speak to the workshop
aspect right now. The committee put
[1:11:09] forward that the first three meetings be
considered part of the duties through
[1:11:15] discussion at this board. It got amended
to six.
[1:11:21] Now we have and to my way of thinking
that change was ratified by this board.
[1:11:31] That should be the end of it. Now we
have another motion
[1:11:37] that we want to get rid of that and do
the exact opposite to what we ratify
[1:11:45] through discussion
at this table. At what point
[1:11:52] does this work become complete? We've
talked about it and we've talked about
[1:11:58] it and now we want to talk about it
again and bring something new. People
[1:12:03] had ample opportunity to give feedback.
A whole bunch of people chose not to do
[1:12:09] that, which would lead most people to
believe that they were okay with their
[1:12:16] remuneration.
How many times do you have to kick the
[1:12:21] can around before you finally say, "It's
kicked. It's over. It's done. Let's move
[1:12:28] on." If you didn't give input and you
regret that, you'll just have to deal
[1:12:33] with it next term if you're back at this
table.
[1:12:37] » Thank you, Vanessa.
My suggestion is that uh I think as
[1:12:41] Stuart said and it correct me if I'm
wrong here is that we refer this item
[1:12:45] and all the motions that are being
requested get sent to staff to be
[1:12:49] included in the agenda in advance of
next month. Is that what
[1:12:55] » Yes. To the chair I would say if that's
if that's the board's will that there's
[1:12:59] further amendments that are desired or
you wish to debate that we do it that
[1:13:02] way. And I'm going to look through
Robert's rules to see if the chair has
[1:13:06] the power not to allow any motions from
the floor on a given item because I
[1:13:10] think that might be appropriate for
September on this.
[1:13:13] » Yeah.
>> Would there also be provisions for not
[1:13:15] revisiting things we've already
determined twice or three?
[1:13:18] » Well, through the chair, I think I said
this at the executive where amending the
[1:13:22] bylaw the way that it's been done the
last couple of meetings is, pardon me, a
[1:13:26] cheeky way of going through
reconsideration without being allowed to
[1:13:30] reconsider things. So, you are allowed
to do it because you got a draft bylaw
[1:13:35] that can be amended. But I would I would
um respectfully
[1:13:41] say that you should consider the
decisions the board has made when you're
[1:13:46] thinking about your amendments
and it's already been there's already
[1:13:50] been one that's been reversed, right? So
there there's a consideration that the
[1:13:54] board made a decision and bringing it
back to amend it back to something
[1:13:59] previously. You know, like I said, it's
it's allowed. There's nothing that says
[1:14:02] you can't do it, but it is a form of
reconsideration that really is uh not
[1:14:07] reconsideration.
>> Yeah, I know. I've got Lockwood
[1:14:12] Weatherhead Pop
and Hannah Hannah to close out and then
[1:14:17] I think we need to if we're referring
this, let's just refer it and submit
[1:14:20] your
>> I don't want to close it. I just want to
[1:14:23] move the third recommendation.
>> No, don't do that.
[1:14:28] » Oh. Oh, yeah. Yes, I like my third
reading. I hope
[1:14:32] » um
I'm going to ask if we can if there
[1:14:36] would be a motion to refer this item
with the inclusion of submitted motion
[1:14:40] sent to Y Stewart and and myself in
preparation for next board in advance of
[1:14:47] publication.
So moved, seconded. Thank you, Paige.
[1:14:52] » So we don't get to discuss it now
because you offered
[1:14:56] » we've just been discussing.
>> No, no.
[1:14:59] I think that sorry I won't speak.
>> Do you want me to hold referral? Is that
[1:15:05] what you're asking? Do others want us to
hold referral?
[1:15:09] » Yes.
>> Withdrawal.
[1:15:12] » Okay, let's hold referral. We'll talk
about it now. We'll talk about it again
[1:15:14] next month and likely in October. on on
propriety of holding referral. Why don't
[1:15:19] we call a special board meeting of
directors
[1:15:23] stipen?
[1:15:28] » Lockwood. Go ahead.
>> I just I just want to comment um
[1:15:32] » one of the reasons I'm not running is
because of this exact reason is that we
[1:15:38] sit here and and waste time. Um, as this
as this got put forwards in February, we
[1:15:47] we got a group together. We asked them
to make recommendations. Um, I don't
[1:15:52] know what CEO Horn did to make everybody
respond to his policy thing that he's
[1:15:58] got such a diverse thing, but I think
that there's only three or four people
[1:16:02] that responded or six people out of 20.
And we have discussed this multiple
[1:16:09] times and I'm I'm really disappointed
with this board that we don't
[1:16:15] actually move forward with what the
committee has offered. If there's
[1:16:20] wording that that looks like it should
be switched or whatever, but doesn't
[1:16:26] actually change it, then I'm okay with
that. But I'm really disappointed that
[1:16:31] we are doing this that we're referring
it again. We waste time at this board.
[1:16:36] where we could be doing way more
production going forward. Thank you for
[1:16:41] re not doing referral.
>> Okay. Thanks. Um Dr. Len, I just want to
[1:16:45] note that your motion was not one ever
contemplated. So in no way did you
[1:16:50] initiate this discussion right now and I
appreciate what you're trying to do. We
[1:16:53] just needed the right wording. Stuart's
actually been working on it. So
[1:16:57] » um we will likely refer this but I just
wanted to note your motion was the one
[1:17:01] we haven't actually discussed and was
pretty logical. uh Vandenberg.
[1:17:05] » Uh I just wanted to bring up that I have
while we've been all talking looking
[1:17:08] into Robert's rules and there is
precedent other than what we have set
[1:17:13] for policy and we pride ourselves in
following Robert's rules but I think
[1:17:18] we're kind of getting off to the off the
weeds and um a refresher on Robert's
[1:17:23] rules uh is necessary for us to continue
with the logic order of our
[1:17:29] conversation.
>> [clears throat]
[1:17:31] » And you're right, um the uh the motion
that uh uh that director Land has put
[1:17:37] forward does not fit into the rescending
of a in terms of Robert's rules, but a
[1:17:42] lot of this other conversation does.
That's all I wanted to bring.
[1:17:48] » Okay. So, we are now just Do you need to
add anything new to the discussion?
[1:17:52] » So, sure.
>> Go ahead. Oh, sorry. There's a list. I'm
[1:17:54] sorry. There's a list. [laughter]
We are going to refer this Weatherhead.
[1:17:59] Do we need to say anything else?
>> I just had a question actually.
[1:18:02] » Oh, question. Yeah, please.
>> Yeah. um was that be well it actually
[1:18:08] because there was a director's two
director's motions or three that came
[1:18:12] out of last month's meetings that we did
not have time for a rationale to sit
[1:18:18] down and and you know figure out the
rationale on that in the number
[1:18:22] crunching that I did is is but I did
have a rationale for this motion um
[1:18:29] which stems from the motions that came
forward um unexpectedly last month. So
[1:18:36] my question is is would I just be able
to provide the rationale because
[1:18:42] » not right now? Nope. No.
>> Your motion and if it's a repeat, we're
[1:18:46] going to figure out if we can even do
that. So
[1:18:48] » yeah. Well, if we can figure out we can
do it. I it's I I may resend or I may
[1:18:53] pull it out. So thank you.
>> Okay. You don't need your rationale now,
[1:18:56] though.
>> Okay.
[1:18:59] » Um pop off. This is something new
>> or a question.
[1:19:04] » Just putting a percentage amount in
schedule A.
[1:19:07] » It's a question.
>> Yeah. Just putting in a percentage
[1:19:11] amount but then a dollar amount in
schedule 8 or future confusion.
[1:19:15] » So at the end
>> so if it's a proposed change just submit
[1:19:18] it.
>> It's not a change. You're just an
[1:19:20] addition of a percentage amount with the
amount that's already there. 39%.
[1:19:24] » We're not taking any amendments on the
bylaw. Right Patrick.
[1:19:26] » It's not the bylaw. It's a schedule A.
>> It's a part of the bylaw.
[1:19:31] submit it, please.
Um,
[1:19:35] Paige, you had a quick thing. Sorry. Go
ahead.
[1:19:38] » I've heard the conversation over
subsequent meetings and I just want to
[1:19:42] challenge us. This is happening because
obviously there is crossed wires and
[1:19:47] somewhere we're not reaching a
conclusion. So let's just temper some of
[1:19:52] our presumptions beyond clearly
something went on with the process where
[1:19:56] not enough input rightly or wrongly
didn't land where it needed to land. So
[1:20:01] the conversation continues to bubble. So
that is a reality and how we move
[1:20:06] through that reality. The other kind of
like a shared understanding that we land
[1:20:09] on is just going to be contingent on
accepting that and then resolving it. uh
[1:20:14] and we can't go back in history and get
the other 18 or 12 uh submissions.
[1:20:22] Something went wrong there. It's no
one's fault, but stop putting that
[1:20:26] forward and just let's get to the
conclusion of our shared understanding
[1:20:29] what we want to do forward.
>> Okay. So, I'm not going to take any more
[1:20:32] discussion on this item because I am
going to request that we refer the item.
[1:20:35] We just went through all the speakers of
referral referral and if you have a
[1:20:41] motion you'd like to submit number one
think deeply if you want to do something
[1:20:45] that has already been discussed at least
once or twice at this at this board and
[1:20:49] number two if it hasn't been please
submit it again Steuart Angela myself in
[1:20:55] advance of board deadline next month can
I please take referral on that
[1:21:01] » no cutting are you referring it
>> I'm not referring I have question
[1:21:05] » we just went through.
>> I heard I heard my question has nothing
[1:21:09] to do with what's being discussed. My
question was could we go for a coffee
[1:21:12] break early while the rest of the
paperwork gets done?
[1:21:15] » No, we are referring this item to next
month. As soon as we've done that, you
[1:21:20] can take your coffee break. Would
someone please refer this item?
[1:21:24] » An Angela.
>> Um so through the chair, should we put a
[1:21:28] date where we mustn't agree to the bylaw
deadline for September? Um the the
[1:21:35] agenda deadline of UBC
>> 14
[1:21:42] September 7th the week before
>> if you need it by it's when you need it
[1:21:47] to be able to give it to executive.
>> Yeah
[1:21:50] » September 7th
>> or September 11th it would be
[1:21:55] refer to September 11th with the
inclusion of motions coming in by that
[1:21:59] time.
>> Sorry.
[1:22:01] » Sorry. This item is referred to
September board with the inclusion of
[1:22:05] any motions being put forward to come
into staff by September 11th.
[1:22:11] Okay. Is there a second on that? Thank
you. On referral,
[1:22:16] everybody clear on the process? Are we
going to work together as a team? If you
[1:22:20] have motions you want to put forward and
you're really serious about, reach out
[1:22:23] to your colleague in that meantime.
Okay.
[1:22:26] All those in favor?
[1:22:30] Are you kind of in favor? Anybody
opposed?
[1:22:35] One, two, three, four.
[1:22:40] Okay, that passes.
>> I'd like to be recorded, please. You're
[1:22:46] opposed to referral.
Okay, Lockwood.
[1:22:51] » Okay,
[1:22:55] that deon, did you want to be reported
post?
[1:22:58] » I don't.
>> Yes. Uh, Lockwood and Doom. Yes, I
[1:23:04] doesn't matter.
[1:23:08] Um, refer to September.
Um, and that is motion one and two, but
[1:23:15] Derer Hograph, do you want to move
motion three?
[1:23:18] » I would love to motion.
>> Okay. Discussion.
[1:23:25] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
Thank you for your work committee. You
[1:23:32] are appreciated.
[1:23:35] » I know. I know.
>> Never again.
[1:23:38] » As the chair of the board, I am
acknowledging your work, your time, your
[1:23:42] efforts, and your perseverance through
every one of these conversations.
[1:23:45] » Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. Director
[1:23:47] Cunningham, would you like to take a
copyright?
[1:23:50] » Yes. [laughter]
>> Thank you. I was thinking about taking
[1:23:53] one about half an hour ago this
discussion started because some of us
[1:23:57] we're just sitting there waiting for
half a dozen people would like to talk
[1:24:20] and then was
[1:24:25] a little bit
[1:24:32] » older.
[1:24:51] I haven't seen
[1:24:54] related
[1:25:41] All right, we are back in session. We
back director of fight. I just want to
[1:25:47] check with you. You do and I know David
off will be back. Are you are you good
[1:25:50] on getting on chat? Did you move
through? We have a lot at the table
[1:25:54] there. So, make sure you feel like
you're having the space to make sure you
[1:25:57] get on speakers list. Yes. Okay, good.
Thank you. Good stuff.
[1:26:03] I know I don't forget you, but sometimes
I can't.
[1:26:05] » You may not want us on the speaker list.
[laughter]
[1:26:11] » Appreciate all of that.
>> Okay, so we are on Kitchener Society
[1:26:18] 5.3. This is for adoption. Is there a
question before the motion is moved?
[1:26:25] » You bet. Go ahead, director. that
electoral area B comprehensive land use
[1:26:29] amendment by line number 3079 20.6 being
file to amend electoral area
[1:26:35] comprehensive land use file 316 2013 is
hereby adopted and further that the
[1:26:41] chair and corporate officer be
authorized to sign and say do we have a
[1:26:44] second
>> thank you all those in favor opposed
[1:26:49] carried
okay 5.4 for uh with delegation
[1:26:53] authority. We did have a lot of
questions come in advance. Can you put
[1:26:56] pop off on the speakers list, please?
I'm going to ask was Mike, right? Yes,
[1:27:01] Mike has a quick summary based on a lot
of the feedback received um before we
[1:27:06] open up to questions.
>> Go ahead, Mike.
[1:27:10] » Thank you. Um so this bylaw uh responds
directly uh to the report from Samson
[1:27:17] the organizational assessment was
presented to the board earlier this year
[1:27:21] uh which flagged delegation thresholds
as a priority uh item action item coming
[1:27:25] from their work. Um this bylaw is
probably one of the more significant
[1:27:31] mechanisms that the board has at its
disposal to improve organizational
[1:27:36] effectiveness and um in essence this
bylaw is really about making the
[1:27:40] organization work better establishing an
effective delegation framework that
[1:27:44] balances multiple and some case leading
interests.
[1:27:47] » Sorry my you need to be louder.
>> Okay, sorry. Um so some of these
[1:27:52] interests are and some of the you know
the major factors that went into um
[1:27:57] determining the content of the bylaw was
uh one we have this objective to reduce
[1:28:02] the staff and board time spent on
approvals for routine business uh but
[1:28:07] wanting to ensure that board retains
decision-m authority over important
[1:28:10] matters. uh there was a desire to
relieve the CEO of some of the the
[1:28:15] workload uh relating to routine matters
and to allow greater f focus on
[1:28:19] strategic work but also to ensure that
the CEO uh is involved in the high
[1:28:24] consequence decisions. Um and but most
importantly the uh the bylaw is about uh
[1:28:30] establishing a framework of effective
internal controls and oversight that
[1:28:35] incorporates risk considerations and
which confirms senior manager oversight
[1:28:40] into the services. So while this is a
board bylaw, the impact of uh this bylaw
[1:28:46] is really about what happens after the
you know like after the work is is
[1:28:52] approved through the financial plan and
what gets done and this will have a
[1:28:55] cascading effect on uh internal
processes um and uh decision-m
[1:29:02] frameworks within the organization that
will allow much better business outcomes
[1:29:07] uh throughout the organization and
improved service to the public
[1:29:10] eventually.
Um so in best opinion the bylaw is
[1:29:16] presented here sort of represents the
best balance of all those competing
[1:29:19] interests. Uh we put a lot of thought
into building in asurances that
[1:29:24] significant and high consequence
decisions would still be made by the
[1:29:26] board. Uh the guard rails on staff
authority which are sort of baked into
[1:29:31] the bylaw many different places uh uh
will still enable uh significant
[1:29:37] efficiency gains. So we've we've tried
to keep it fairly limited uh in terms of
[1:29:42] um you know the staff authority and
built in a lot of uh assurances to the
[1:29:45] board that um the authorities delegated
only in very specific situations and for
[1:29:51] specific matters. So as far as what
happens from here um we recognize this
[1:29:56] is a very large very complicated bylaw.
There's a lot of information to digest
[1:30:02] both within the bylaw and the report and
there are uh large implications for the
[1:30:06] board in in adopting this bylaw. So what
is presented here is you know consider
[1:30:11] this a work in progress. We're
recommending first and second reading
[1:30:14] only to open up a comment period for
directors where we can incorporate
[1:30:18] feedback and um you know come back with
proposed changes. Uh it's still work in
[1:30:24] progress from the staff side as well.
We're, you know, as as more people look
[1:30:27] at this, there's other things that have
been suggested that we may want to tweak
[1:30:30] to. So, our intention is to bring back a
redline version that incorporates all of
[1:30:35] this feedback. Um, and uh, as far as
timing goes, you know, um, staff's
[1:30:43] preference that we're able to complete
this with current board rather than
[1:30:48] orient the the new directors to this.
It's, you know, significant amount of
[1:30:51] work has gone into understanding uh, the
requirement for this. Um but with that
[1:30:56] being said, this is owned by the board.
Uh we, you know, however long it takes
[1:31:02] and whatever process we need to go
through to ensure that this gets to a
[1:31:06] place where the board feels comfortable
adopting it, it that's entirely at the
[1:31:10] board's discretion. So this is sort of
the starting point to initiate the
[1:31:15] conversation and to get to a delegation
framework that everyone is comfortable
[1:31:20] with and still achieves the objectives
that we set out.
[1:31:24] So my one of the outstanding questions
is what is new in this bylaw?
[1:31:28] » Okay. So like in can you clarify please
like in in terms of
[1:31:33] » delegating
>> delegating. Okay. So well essentially
[1:31:38] complicated question but
>> everything in some respects is new in
[1:31:43] terms of delegation. So what we have
currently uh we have a CEO bylaw from
[1:31:48] 1967 that provides some direction to the
CEO and how the organization is to be
[1:31:54] managed but it also contains a lot of
things that haven't reflected how the
[1:31:58] RDSK has operated for probably 40 years.
So it's you know we identified that that
[1:32:03] bylaw is not really an effective
delegation of authority. We also have
[1:32:08] the officers establishment bylaw which
essentially just makes reference to the
[1:32:12] local government act which which gives
staff the officers very specific powers
[1:32:18] but in terms of the management of the
organization which is assigned to the
[1:32:22] CEO it basically says the CEO is uh
manages the organization is respon is
[1:32:29] responsible for implementing policy and
keeps the board informed on the work of
[1:32:33] the organization. So that like without a
delegation framework in place that's
[1:32:38] what we have to work with which is we've
identified as being entirely
[1:32:42] inappropriate. So in effect everything
that's listed in this bylaw is new in
[1:32:47] terms of a formal delegation. But as we
also identified there's a great many
[1:32:52] things that staff has assumed under this
sort of CAO powers to manage the
[1:32:56] organization that is in place. We have
policies that provide some direction
[1:33:01] purchasing policy and our minimum
required insurance for contracts policy
[1:33:06] which outlined who can make what
decisions but as we identified those
[1:33:11] authorities have to be delegated by
bylaw. So we've been acting in
[1:33:14] accordance with policy but those those
you know thresholds and powers that are
[1:33:21] identified in those policies need to be
incorporated into this bylaw and they
[1:33:24] have been. So um we do have um Okay, let
me bring this back here. So, so that
[1:33:32] even though we have been assuming that
those those authorities have been
[1:33:37] delegated or in place in many
circumstances,
[1:33:41] uh there has not been a formal
delegation by bylaw that is required
[1:33:45] under the local government act and
that's what this is about. So um in
[1:33:50] terms of new like in in terms of things
that haven't been acted upon by staff in
[1:33:56] terms of an assumed authority to to act
um you know we'd be looking at I think
[1:34:02] there's more than 60 items in schedule
eight different authorities that are
[1:34:06] delegated and you apply those across you
know thousands of business decisions
[1:34:11] every year. Um I can only really speak
in in generalities but I would say um in
[1:34:19] for most of the authorities listed here
uh most have been acted upon at some
[1:34:25] point in some circumstance with some you
know very real qualification around it.
[1:34:31] But a lot of these things actually have
you know in in daily practice in order
[1:34:34] to make the business work we we have
some assumptions about what's been in
[1:34:38] place and what hasn't. So um you know I
can provide an example from my own work
[1:34:45] um that that would sort of you know shed
some light on how staff would interpret
[1:34:49] that and you know um a good example
would be uh the authority proposed here
[1:34:55] for indemnificate to permit
indemnification of a third party um uh
[1:35:01] in by way of contract. Right? So there's
a specific delegated authority about
[1:35:05] that. it is you know it is a a a risk
situation [clears throat]
[1:35:09] that has to be managed by staff. So an
example would be so sometimes in the
[1:35:15] course of my work I have to um you know
determine if we you know if there's an
[1:35:21] agreement that we have to sign that
requires an indemnification of a third
[1:35:25] party and um we are um you know there's
no formal delegated authority to do
[1:35:32] that. I have to determine if it's if
it's suitable or not. So, uh,
[1:35:40] » yeah, just finish. And then we got quite
a few questions. I didn't mean to.
[1:35:43] » So, so context is important here. So, in
terms of providing assurances that the
[1:35:49] authority that we assume to have isn't
being misused. So, every every spring I
[1:35:54] sign off on renting rooms for a uh for
the ready grant community. About half of
[1:36:01] those agreements require us to indemnify
the society or the local government
[1:36:06] whose hall we're renting. We're not
bringing those to the board. We assume
[1:36:09] that yeah, it's okay to do this. It's a
fairly low risk situation, but it's
[1:36:13] still an indemnification of a third
party. So, at the other end of the
[1:36:17] extreme, we have, you know, uh,
engineering firms that are doing
[1:36:21] high-risisk for us, design work, things
like that that are asking to be
[1:36:24] indemnified for the work. I'm not
comfortable, you know, signing off on
[1:36:28] that. Those things get escalated toward.
So I just use that um as a way of
[1:36:33] illustrating how we as an organization
approach these things. And you know part
[1:36:37] of the inefficiency that comes from not
having a delegated authority bylaw is
[1:36:42] that we escalate things fairly routine
things but that still you know have some
[1:36:47] risk implications. things like
identification of third parties uh that
[1:36:52] that you know are probably better you
know in terms of like business outcomes
[1:36:58] better dealt with by staff than the
board and that's sort of what we're
[1:37:01] trying to achieve here.
>> Okay.
[1:37:05] So speakers list I've got pop off David
off Jack [clears throat]
[1:37:11] Poff go ahead. Thank you. If I if I may,
chair, I uh did have a good conversation
[1:37:17] with manager Morrison about this bylaw
and I believe it's long time in coming.
[1:37:23] It's about time we had a delegation of
authority bylaw. Although when I go
[1:37:28] through there and I'm going back when I
first got elected in 2008, I sat with
[1:37:33] the CF Jim Gustoson and basically we
defined he defined what the authority is
[1:37:39] of a director and how staff relates to
the director and [clears throat] I'm
[1:37:45] really really surprised of how much
delegation that we did in that
[1:37:49] delegation bylaw that how much how much
authority we delegated to staff. So, and
[1:37:55] I'm looking towards the future, not
necessarily this board, but we're having
[1:37:59] an election here in October. We're going
to have new board members. Some of us
[1:38:03] are retiring, some are not going to get
deelected, whatever happens. But I I
[1:38:09] would support given it first and second
reading. But I'd like to have an further
[1:38:13] clause that we have a workshop with a
subject matter expert that we attended
[1:38:19] myself and director Hu attended at FCM
George Cup and he has been around for
[1:38:24] quite a while and he does define the
separation between
[1:38:30] elected officials and staff and what
would be appropriate to delegate to
[1:38:35] staff for efficiency purposes and what
would be more or less the responsibility
[1:38:40] of directors.
So I I would be prepared to move the
[1:38:45] first part of first and second reading
and have this deferred after the
[1:38:49] election to have a workshop and by
George Cup to do the workshop for us. So
[1:38:55] the newly elected directors will have a
full understanding what their
[1:38:59] responsibilities are according to a
subject matter expert not necessarily
[1:39:04] our CEO no nor reflection. I think he's
done a fantastic job for us and very
[1:39:10] good or or the staff but the new
directors coming in should be aware what
[1:39:17] the separation of powers are between
staff and I know staff is doing good
[1:39:21] work for us and most of that stuff
that's there should be delegated for
[1:39:25] expediency purposes where it's just a
matter of u going through it and part of
[1:39:30] doing on an everyday basis. So that
would be and I do have a a resolution
[1:39:36] crafted but uh we'll hear the rest of
the speakers and if you can come to me
[1:39:40] and I'll basically introduce my
resolution I've got it and I can send it
[1:39:43] to Angela once we went through the whole
process here.
[1:39:47] » Thank you Stuart. Go ahead.
>> So you're the chair I think you should
[1:39:51] separate the two talking about the
bylaw. You can talk I think we can take
[1:39:54] direction to see if we can book George
come as part of our orientation sessions
[1:39:58] that we're putting on for the new board.
I don't think we really need a motion
[1:40:01] around that. I'm hearing seeing nods
around the table. So, it seems like it's
[1:40:04] something you'd like to entertain. Um,
so we can definitely do that, but I
[1:40:07] think you should then talk about the
bylaw on a separate conversation. Um,
[1:40:10] whether or not you want to deal with it
now or refer. The one thing I will say
[1:40:13] that um that Mike didn't mention is
going through the schedules in terms of
[1:40:18] the delegated authorities. Keep in mind
how many times it mentions subject to
[1:40:22] approved financial plan. That is your
big policy document every year that goes
[1:40:28] through a lot of discussion at the
table, admissions committees, public
[1:40:33] consultation. That is what guides a lot
of what we do and is a condition for a
[1:40:38] lot of these delegated authorities and
is a really important piece of this
[1:40:42] bylaw.
[1:40:45] » Benberg, come.
>> Thank you, the chair. Uh [clears throat]
[1:40:48] Mike has already answered my questions
and it was along the lines of the
[1:40:52] comment period and the red line version
that is expected. So I will be um
[1:40:57] thankful to take part of offering my my
thoughts as I've gone through this
[1:41:02] document.
[clears throat]
[1:41:04] » Thank you Dr. David.
>> Yeah, just just a couple of questions
[1:41:08] and uh on on just some pretty pretty
interesting delegations.
[1:41:16] Am I reading it right that we're
delegating or potentially delegating the
[1:41:23] authority for a CEO to eliminate a fire
department?
[1:41:29] Am I reading that correctly?
[1:41:34] » Mike,
>> the chair. No, I'm not sure how how that
[1:41:38] could be read into it. Could you
reference a specific section?
[1:41:45] Yeah,
[1:41:48] » generally a service how it was initiated
was how it has to be cancelled.
[1:41:52] » But David, do you have a section you
want to reference?
[1:41:55] » That would not be
>> I'm sorry, chair. I had the document up
[1:41:58] and I just
um
[1:42:04] » and to clarify, no, the CEO would not be
delegated that authority. Correct, Mike?
[1:42:09] » Uh correct. Yeah. I know I can as you
correctly noted that it's done in
[1:42:15] » okay I can follow up with staff later
but the key thing is that to me it was
[1:42:19] there was language in there and then I'm
I the reason I'm raising this because
[1:42:24] I'm I'm I'm thinking about kind of where
are we going with fire services and what
[1:42:29] are we looking at and you know or or is
it portions or how they're administered
[1:42:35] or is it you know having one fire chief
for five fire halls and you know like
[1:42:40] all all these different things. The
service may still the funding may still
[1:42:44] be there, but at the end of the day,
it's the organization of the whole fire
[1:42:49] service that I'm looking at. And there
have been comments made about
[1:42:54] reorganizing the fire service
and and basically and I'm looking at
[1:43:00] more and more centralization.
Uh, and is that something that we're
[1:43:05] looking at as a board or is that going
to be delegated to, you know, staff to
[1:43:11] to kind of work through? So, I'm I'm
just looking at sometimes things appear,
[1:43:18] you know, innocuous and but ultimately
it just what is the what is the ultimate
[1:43:27] goal? And to me, I've noticed a lot of
centralization or more and more efforts
[1:43:33] to centralize things to to have common
documents to do all these things. And I
[1:43:40] believe the conversation with the board
is critical and I'm sure it would happen
[1:43:44] and that's why I raised that one in
particular and maybe it's just a heads
[1:43:50] up and and we can and I'll follow up
more on this before if this goes to you
[1:43:57] know if we do first and second reading
today and approve that but but I'm just
[1:44:01] raising that one and I just have one
more chair and that's temporary. Can I
[1:44:07] just let Mike respond to
>> Yeah,
[1:44:09] » I think the question that was in there,
but what Mike did want to respond and
[1:44:12] then he didn't have a supplement. So,
>> yeah, the chair, I believe most of what
[1:44:18] director David Al has raised is really
kind and not um captured within the
[1:44:22] scope of this bylaw. Um I think there's
really only two areas in in the
[1:44:28] delegated authorities that speak
specifically to fire departments. One is
[1:44:32] the appointment of the chief and the
other would be uh setting or or the
[1:44:36] authority for the CEO to adjust the
service levels based on a fire
[1:44:41] department attaining new certifications
and being able to add to the services
[1:44:46] that they offer. Those are really the
only two things that are specific to
[1:44:49] fire. So I'm not sure if either of those
were well director David off was
[1:44:53] referring to
>> Yeah. And chair, thank thank you for uh
[1:44:57] for your indulgence. I I thought that it
was really narrow. It just it just it
[1:45:03] started going down a road that uh that
was interesting to me. Uh the other
[1:45:08] question I have is the TUP temporary use
permits is that I know that was a huge
[1:45:15] conversation for us at the board table
and basically when you have particularly
[1:45:19] we have industrial operations and and in
in the in the in the wording it refers
[1:45:25] to third-party use of property. it's not
even the property owner, you know, for a
[1:45:31] period, a short period of time and then
up to 12 months. And that to me kind of
[1:45:36] reopened the the questions about, you
know, who who deals with temporary use
[1:45:42] permits. And uh I know we were very
careful to make sure that if it was
[1:45:47] industrial use or commercial use, we
retained that when we're doing our OCB
[1:45:52] process. We wanted that uh that kind of
uh the community to be consulted uh
[1:45:59] impacted potential impacted property
owners to be consulted and the only way
[1:46:04] you could do that is through some
process but if you delegate the
[1:46:07] authority you don't have to have the the
public uh access. So I'm just raising
[1:46:13] those as heads up. Uh I will I will
submit more specific questions if this
[1:46:18] passes first and second reading. Thanks
chair. There is one clarification for
[1:46:23] you on that one.
>> What can start?
[1:46:25] » Yeah. So, uh, temporary use permits are
not not within the scope of the
[1:46:30] authorities were proposing to delegate
and I'm not sure they even could be
[1:46:34] delegated. U, this is the what what the
authority is specifically about here and
[1:46:39] it's on page 11 um, number seven there.
Uh, temporary use of RDCK property. So,
[1:46:45] this would be the authority to allow
others to use our property for emergency
[1:46:50] purposes. Um, you know, one of the
situations that this has come up uh in
[1:46:54] time at times for me is uh when we have
something happen in one of our parks,
[1:47:00] uh, you know, a vehicle's gone off the
road and we need to authorize a crew to
[1:47:03] go in and excavate the vehicle, things
like that.
[1:47:06] » Um, this is just confirming that we can
do that without
[1:47:10] » Sure.
>> So that Yeah, that section applies to
[1:47:13] our land.
>> Yeah.
[1:47:15] » Okay.
Director Jackman,
[1:47:19] » thanks. Um just trying to look ahead to
when we revisit this. This is a lot and
[1:47:25] sometimes staff will consider an
alternative approach. To me, this
[1:47:29] doesn't have to be one by line. Try to
look at it. If we get tied up, we can
[1:47:34] have three blocks potentially.
Financial procurement and HR have a
[1:47:41] commonality. And Stuart referred to our
powers or our ability through the
[1:47:46] financial plan to steer some of that say
in the HR that CEO can hire people but
[1:47:53] we put a line item how much is staff and
how much his contracts we have a degree
[1:47:57] of flexibility if he wins stewards daily
wick as to whether a position is termed
[1:48:03] or continuing or whatever is anticipated
and that's out of necessity usually just
[1:48:08] to attract the best candidate
but I see that as a block and I see what
[1:48:12] Larry Brown sat right here yesterday is
why our procurement is just crazy low
[1:48:18] low numbers $75,000 purchase when
something's in the budget it's necessary
[1:48:24] why didn't we talk about that yesterday
afternoon but I see that as a block with
[1:48:28] commonality that maybe we could get to
yes really quickly the later parts where
[1:48:33] you have your risk management very
interesting matrix the number C there
[1:48:38] emergency risk management um HB mines
that is another block where I think we
[1:48:44] would get to yes quickly but they could
be separate by list it could be the
[1:48:48] financial procurement and HR uh
delegation of authority bylaw that we're
[1:48:54] good on really fast and we may never go
back on for the next thing since 1967 to
[1:48:59] today for another 59 years um the middle
block land use legal litigation bylaw
[1:49:07] some of the ops language I flip back and
forth a little bit like we talked about
[1:49:11] under part three talks about facility
use agreements. Part five talks about uh
[1:49:17] the uh sorry part three does not talk
about facility use agreements. It talks
[1:49:22] about leases and licenses and fair
market value. So if we're going to tell
[1:49:26] staff, yeah, go ahead and let people use
our facilities. The fair market value,
[1:49:31] the social benefit, all of that stuff
has to be really clear in my mind. We
[1:49:35] let a junior hockey have a one or
threeear contract. And why are there
[1:49:38] differences? And everybody knows because
you all read the reports. There's a
[1:49:42] difference between Castor and Nelson and
Crestston today. Why perceived issue
[1:49:47] around social benefit future risk.
So those are board issues to discuss.
[1:49:51] And to me between parts three and five,
I'd like to delve into that a little
[1:49:55] more. If that was the middle block, land
use legal litigation bylaw ops and
[1:50:00] services. I have more thoughts on that.
on bylaw part four
[1:50:05] CEO would have the ability to initiate
legal bylaw enforcement proceedings to
[1:50:10] collect money by enforce bylaws enforce
agreements protect RCK interest that's
[1:50:16] actually undelegated in my mind to take
any ability of our bylaw officers
[1:50:22] because we'd have to see very clearly
that that's now delegating three or four
[1:50:26] more steps lower in order to issue a
ticket because this is CEO has these
[1:50:31] authority to enforce bylaws which are
ticketed for whatever is that's
[1:50:37] enforcing a bylaw ticketing process.
I think that needs more work. I would
[1:50:43] love to see the chain of command
following that more clearly. That middle
[1:50:47] block to me of these things has has more
controversy. I feel as a board we feel
[1:50:52] to have policy that there's some
potential for arbitrary issuing a ticket
[1:50:59] um providing a
inferring an action to our residents
[1:51:05] that may or may not come to fruition
standing on their property at their
[1:51:09] doorstep that may be less appropriate
than than taking other paths. So, I
[1:51:16] think there's some some discussion on
that bylaw, the legal, who starts
[1:51:22] illegal action.
A few questions. We talked about legal
[1:51:25] actions not in public, but I have no
idea if anything's gone any further in
[1:51:30] one or two items. And I kind of like to
know. I don't want to. So, three blocks
[1:51:34] of uh delegation of authority make more
sense to me. And I bet you twothirds of
[1:51:40] those will go really quick. And the
other one, maybe the new board will look
[1:51:44] at it because maybe there's new policy
needed around some of the actions we
[1:51:48] take in terms of land use and or
behavior of residents where we end up
[1:51:53] imposing fines, tickets, or other
penalties on that. So that third, that
[1:51:58] middle block that took till next year,
that'd be fine. But I don't want the
[1:52:02] rest to get head up. We need to be able
to buy a piece of equipment for$100
[1:52:07] $200,000 truck to get it on the road. So
just to consider an alternative approach
[1:52:13] we come back in September. Does this
need to be a single bottle?
[1:52:19] » Okay. Feedback received. Any comment?
Good.
[1:52:24] » Dire.
>> Uh thank you chair. Um this is I found
[1:52:29] one of the most interesting pieces to
read in today's agenda. I guess I only
[1:52:33] get one kick at this can as an
alternate. So, [laughter] so I'll throw
[1:52:37] a couple of ideas out or thoughts that I
had when I was reading it and uh one of
[1:52:42] them was our reporting structure and uh
how would that be included? Obviously,
[1:52:49] major things would be reported to the
board. You know, where where's the level
[1:52:53] of that reporting structure? Some would
require none at all. Uh but there is
[1:52:59] some kind of a step in there. So might
be an executive committee of of the
[1:53:03] organization that would review not
review but get reported to on some
[1:53:08] actions that were taking place over the
last month. Um yeah there is uh
[1:53:13] timelines as far as was uh it's not just
a financial issue it's the length of the
[1:53:19] issue. Uh so a a contract in the last 5
years, 10 years. Uh there used to be
[1:53:24] requirements and I'm not sure I'm not up
to date on them as far as regional
[1:53:28] district uh uh law requirements, but
there used to be a limit and so where
[1:53:34] does it fit within the limits and if the
limits expanded, then I think that uh
[1:53:39] the board would want to have more
information in that regard.
[1:53:43] Um and the third uh point that I and
final that I
[1:53:48] um Mr. Cup is really good on roles and
responsibilities but I think that the
[1:53:54] board would be better served with
someone uh with a consultant that has
[1:53:58] more risk management uh reporting uh
experience.
[1:54:05] » Go ahead.
>> Okay. Uh with regards to reporting, um
[1:54:09] we have not got that far along in terms
of like the format that that would take,
[1:54:13] but our initial thoughts are that uh
there would be a report on the consent
[1:54:18] agenda. Uh each month to that would
catalog all of the authorities that have
[1:54:24] been exercised in accordance with the
bylaw that the ones that require
[1:54:28] reporting uh to the board. Uh most most
of the reporting is, you know, reported
[1:54:33] at the next month. So we would probably
provide some compilation on those those
[1:54:37] things rather than send them off through
the committees. They would just appear
[1:54:40] on the board agenda and then could be
discussed if if the directors so wished.
[1:54:44] So that's our initial thoughts but as we
get you know welcome comments on that's
[1:54:49] something maybe the directors want to
consider as they provide comments back
[1:54:52] on on the content of the bylaw that we
could take a look at and make some
[1:54:56] proposals for that when we bring this
back. Um, with regards to the contract
[1:55:00] length, the you know the regulation
actually has changed. Um, so unless
[1:55:06] there is a liability of a capital
nature, that 5-year um requirement uh
[1:55:12] does not apply anymore. But uh the
guidance that we use internally for our
[1:55:16] business is is really you know we don't
unless it's an exceptional situation. We
[1:55:22] generally don't want to enter into
contracts
[1:55:25] service contracts longer than 5 years
because actually you know the business
[1:55:28] changes over time and we want to make
sure the contracts are up to date and
[1:55:31] reflecting today's needs and also you
know you there's some risks with costs
[1:55:36] if you you know uh procure a service for
a longer period of time. there's more
[1:55:41] sort of cost escalation built into that.
So, it's I think it's generally good for
[1:55:45] business to keep to keep our um uh
service agreements within a five-year
[1:55:50] period unless there's a compelling
reason to do so otherwise. Um but that
[1:55:54] is that's really just sort of a an
internal um sort of guidance that we
[1:55:59] give in these situations if not
[1:56:04] » just
I just saw that as something that was
[1:56:08] missing and it
Just the only other comment would be
[1:56:13] some reporting would not be required.
There's stuff that I don't think the
[1:56:17] board wants to see if it's on the lower
level period.
[1:56:23] » I made one more point there. The
rewarding that we put together could
[1:56:26] include include the contract length and
some basic information about the
[1:56:29] contract to inflation director.
[1:56:34] And if I can indulge one additional
point here,
[1:56:38] » um, a lot of the reporting requirements,
the the reporting requirements have been
[1:56:42] built in as a transparency measure and
to provide asurances that uh, the board
[1:56:46] is going to see things, but keeping in
mind a lot of these things, these
[1:56:50] authorities that we're already
exercising are not reported to the board
[1:56:55] from their exercise. So currently under
our um say a purchasing policy, anything
[1:57:00] under that $75,000 that that doesn't
require board approval, we're not
[1:57:05] providing a report at this time that
says here's all the contracts that we've
[1:57:09] entered into. So the reporting is a new
measure that's uh intended to provide
[1:57:14] board some assurance that uh uh the
authorities that are delegated aren't
[1:57:18] being exercised improperly.
[1:57:24] » Thank you. I'm just noting I had
questions but I forgot. So I'm just
[1:57:27] going to Is there other I do have pop
off but I want to see if there's other
[1:57:31] discussion questions at this time.
>> Page go ahead.
[1:57:36] » Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate
the points. I will not be very much in
[1:57:41] support of creating reporting out items
that the whole point of doing the
[1:57:46] delegation. If it rises above it
thresholds I 100% want to know about it.
[1:57:50] If it's we've tr entrusted our staff
with these authorities to execute. So
[1:57:54] they can't because they have the
situational awareness in front of that
[1:57:57] business to make the best call. I don't
I don't want to burden them with
[1:58:00] additional work [clears throat]
reporting just for our own assurance. I
[1:58:03] think that's too much. But I trust staff
in the conversation that will come to
[1:58:08] land us in the right spot, but I just
wanted to state that.
[1:58:12] » Thank you. Good. I'm going to ask my Oh,
go ahead. Um, I just wanted to point out
[1:58:19] page five under scope uh section six
subsection five that nothing in this
[1:58:27] bylaw prevents a delegate from referring
a matter to the board for decision even
[1:58:32] if the delegate has authority to act
under the bylaw. So we the uh the
[1:58:37] delegate
has the option of weighing the issue and
[1:58:43] um knowing the sensitivity of it
bringing it to the board so they can you
[1:58:48] know if they think there's going to be
an issue with it then the board makes
[1:58:51] the decision there they might not always
act on their authority and I agree with
[1:58:56] what uh director Paige said because if
you think of all the the small purchases
[1:59:02] that are made under the policy if we had
to have every every one of them come to
[1:59:07] us through through the staff report.
That's just way too much.
[1:59:13] » Mike, go ahead.
>> If I may. Um, that's an important point
[1:59:17] and that's one of the safeguards that's
built in the bylaw and certainly how you
[1:59:22] know we operate and part of this
delegation framework is really about
[1:59:26] ensuring that uh senior staff have have
visibility into what might be happening
[1:59:32] in all parts [clears throat] of the
organization. So a surface you know if
[1:59:35] potentially controversial or high-risk
or or sensitive items are uh you know
[1:59:41] being proposed that it reaches senior
staff and then you know it's it's I
[1:59:46] think in in practical terms the
escalation of things to the board where
[1:59:50] we you know um would understand the
board would be interested in this is is
[1:59:56] already h has always happened here and u
this just really confirms that that that
[2:00:01] you know that that can be exercised and
there's Another important safe safeguard
[2:00:05] in here too in that um the board may
exercise any authority that's delegated
[2:00:12] here. So say for instance in in terms of
something the board's aware is coming
[2:00:16] down the pipeline and that we're going
to be entering into an agreement for the
[2:00:20] board can actually direct that that come
back to the board rather than the the
[2:00:24] delegated authority being exercised by
staff. So there's again a lot of
[2:00:29] important safeguards around moratory
that we've tried to build into this.
[2:00:35] » I'm going to go ahead with mine now. Um
in terms of reporting out it's good
[2:00:39] leeway. One thing I did note that I
think would be and again I would leave
[2:00:43] it to staff to figure out where this
lands but in how I read it in one of the
[2:00:47] reporting out mechanism it was regarding
staffing issues or any kind of HR aspect
[2:00:52] and I would just think that that's a
line in terms of as elected officials
[2:00:56] and politicians we are not involved in
that kind of stuff and not that we would
[2:01:01] ever be involved from an authority
perspective but even reporting out to us
[2:01:04] I think could be risky. Um, and I I
don't have the specific sections, Mike,
[2:01:09] so I can just send you my notes after.
And then I have four questions. Um,
[2:01:14] we note about the ability to sign NDAs,
non-disclosure agreements. Um, where
[2:01:20] would it land when elected officials who
are involved in, let's say, provincial
[2:01:24] conversations get requested to sign an
NDA? I think that's also a clear line to
[2:01:30] to identify where does that land because
oftentimes like within the provincial
[2:01:35] work I was doing, we had to keep
clarifying I am not the RDCK signing
[2:01:39] this NDA. I'm an elected official and so
while this delegation bylaw doesn't
[2:01:43] refer to what elected officials have as
authorities, I think that needs to be
[2:01:48] flagged somewhere. So I'll just stop
there for a second and see if you have
[2:01:52] any feedback or just take it.
Um that is a yeah I mean NDAs are sort
[2:01:58] of complicated area and really very sort
of situation dependent. Um, you know,
[2:02:03] again, elected officials aren't aren't
covered in this specific biot. Um, but,
[2:02:10] um, you know, what we've tried to do
with the proposal that presumably, you
[2:02:15] know, like if if there's limitations on
non-disclosure agreements that were
[2:02:21] applied to staff, it would follow that.
So, there would be something similar
[2:02:25] guidance for for elected officials. What
we've tried to do with that section
[2:02:29] authorizing non-disclosure agreements is
limit it to very specific situations.
[2:02:35] uh and those are where it's required
because uh someone has shared
[2:02:39] proprietary third party information with
us and if we are in negotiations uh with
[2:02:46] the another form of government um and
those are the ones where we would you
[2:02:50] know see these things serviced from time
to time and that is in terms of CEO
[2:02:55] authority to enter in into these it's
only those situations and anything else
[2:02:59] beyond that or a different situation
would would require board approval.
[2:03:03] » Thank you. I think it just flags for me
that we do need to note somewhere in
[2:03:06] policy or guidance when it comes to a
new board what are the provisions for
[2:03:10] you to do this and being clear it's not
the RDCK that's signing that um I'll
[2:03:14] just name these other ones as input um
how we define RDCK interests that might
[2:03:19] be challenged if we don't have a good
definition of interest is that assets is
[2:03:22] that just just a suggestion uh for site
license agreements we limited max number
[2:03:28] of participants but I would assume that
the fire code and the physical
[2:03:32] limitations and human resource capacity
would be what would determine those.
[2:03:37] » Uh yes. So with the site license
agreements that is I believe the section
[2:03:44] you're referring to is really in to um
discussing special events and and
[2:03:50] thresholds by which staff could approve
a special event and and threshold by
[2:03:54] which something would need to come to
the board. So um one of this is an area
[2:04:00] that's come up in the past working with
community services which does host
[2:04:03] events. We've tried we we you know we've
had sort of a I guess kind of like an
[2:04:09] informal
framework around when uh we staff should
[2:04:16] take something to the board for a
decision on whether or not we're going
[2:04:18] to allow use of property because we have
you know use of our parks in
[2:04:22] specifically by lots of different groups
for lots of different reasons. So in in
[2:04:26] many respects that threshold uh that we
propose there in terms of what staff can
[2:04:31] approve reflects uh what is in the area
age special permit bylaw. And as a
[2:04:37] collectively as as a board at the time
that was where they sort of a agreed
[2:04:42] that um a a permit would be required for
certain events over a certain size. So
[2:04:50] um it is an arbitrary number but we and
this was mostly on the basis of uh
[2:04:56] recommendation from the previous GM and
P services but like under 300 with the
[2:05:01] appropriate controls in place uh is
generally you know with should be within
[2:05:08] staff's realm and anything over 300 or
you know with other certifices being
[2:05:13] present would require board approval for
for that event to occur.
[2:05:17] » Okay. Okay. I'm just suggesting you have
a subject to that includes capacity. Um,
[2:05:21] and then the last two I'll just throw
into one. The there is an emergency
[2:05:25] section where it includes who has
authority for what, but we don't know
[2:05:28] the state of local emergency authority
which can be delegated. So, I think that
[2:05:32] that needs to be included in that is
currently the head of the local
[2:05:35] government, but um given the provisions
of the process, it can be delegated to
[2:05:39] the CAO. So, I think that just needs to
be reviewed.
[2:05:43] Uh to that point specifically, um we so
the designation matrix that is included
[2:05:53] in board policy is complying with the
requirements of the emergency and
[2:05:58] disaster management act and we were very
careful and this was part of the legal
[2:06:02] review as well to not duplicate or
overlap anything with that designation
[2:06:06] matrix.
>> Okay. So, so
[2:06:09] » feel fairly comfortable with the
language that's in here around the the
[2:06:13] emergency section that that it's keeping
things silent like they should be.
[2:06:18] » You might just want to reference there's
another matrix for that section. Okay.
[2:06:24] » Okay. Pop off.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Sher. I uh
[2:06:31] haven't listened to everybody good
comments etc. But I also uh feel that uh
[2:06:37] possibly
adoption of this bylaw should be
[2:06:40] deferred till we have a new board
elected sometimes in January. And I've
[2:06:45] talked to manager Morrison deferring it
for a certain amount of time and he can
[2:06:49] probably respond now that it would not
really seriously affect the operations
[2:06:53] of the regional district. So, I'd like
to propose a a motion here that the
[2:06:58] regional district of central Quinney
delegation of authority bylaw number
[2:07:02] 3091 2026 be read a first and second
time by content and further that George
[2:07:09] Cuff, a subject matter expert on
governance for local governments, be
[2:07:12] invited to do a workshop on governance
to define the responsibilities of
[2:07:17] directors and staff before we consider
adopting the bylaw. If I get a second,
[2:07:21] I'll speak to that.
>> Is there a second? I'll stack it up for
[2:07:26] like separation of that.
>> You can be added to the list.
[2:07:31] » It's actually two choice two.
>> Yes, we know that. But procedurally, if
[2:07:35] you're seconding it, it's on the floor.
We'll add you to the list for discussion
[2:07:38] and you can do that.
>> Okay. If I if I can open on that is I
[2:07:45] think it's a good thing to have the
delegation bylaw there so we as all
[2:07:49] directors understand our roles and
responsibilities and how staff is
[2:07:54] supporting us in our roles and
responsibilities.
[2:07:58] Now, if we go to adoption of this bylaw
before the new board is in place, it
[2:08:04] would benefit everybody, especially the
newly elected directors or the directors
[2:08:09] that are coming back again to know our
how staff is supporting it in our
[2:08:15] governance structure. And I've attended
George Cuff's presentation in FCM and it
[2:08:22] was a very good presentation. I attended
his presentation back in 2012 at UBCM.
[2:08:28] So he does he's a subject matter expert
and it's somebody that's a little bit
[2:08:33] removed that deals with municipalities
and regional districts and provides us a
[2:08:38] guideline on that and it'd be good to
have a workshop on that so everybody's
[2:08:44] aware what including our staff general
managers be a portion of it part of it I
[2:08:50] should say that would benefit from all
of that and then we can deal with
[2:08:55] delegation bylaw a lot of good points
there a lot of good and efficiency on
[2:08:59] there. Then we'll have a policy in place
or bylaws in place whatever is required.
[2:09:05] » Thanks Cunningham.
>> Thank you. Yes, the timing I think of
[2:09:09] the institution of the things is is
important because when we have a new
[2:09:14] board and I remember a number of new
people when they were on this board and
[2:09:19] they know nothing about anything and
they would look at this and start want
[2:09:23] to make changes because they don't
understand it and I think there would be
[2:09:26] a let this thing should be in place
before so the the working staff and
[2:09:32] everybody else is familiar with it and
then when as the new people come on they
[2:09:35] can of course take that as part of the
regular ch training. I wouldn't want
[2:09:39] them to start making changes in this
kind of thing, especially if they don't
[2:09:43] know and they won't know anything
because I know some of the believe me
[2:09:48] over the years. Okay, we all know and
[laughter]
[2:09:52] do
>> you have a question, director
[2:09:53] Cunningham, or is there a motion you're
going to change?
[2:09:56] » Yeah. Yes, sir. I'd like I'd like to
move.
[2:10:00] » You're moving division?
>> Yes.
[2:10:02] » Okay, thanks. Second on division.
>> No second.
[2:10:05] » It's not required. It's just divided.
>> It's two motions now.
[2:10:08] » It's two motions now. Okay.
>> First and second reading.
[2:10:11] » So, let's focus on first and second
reading. The second one is divided.
[2:10:15] » Oh, all those in favor of division.
Anybody opposed?
[2:10:24] Division passes.
>> Call the question
[2:10:32] first and second readings. So, two vote.
chair. No, I'll take it back.
[2:10:38] » What are you guys talking about?
>> We are on the motion first and second
[2:10:43] reading
>> as it's in our report.
[2:10:46] » Okay. Sorry.
>> Like the one that's in our report.
[2:10:49] » Yes.
>> There's a lot of words there.
[2:10:50] » Yes. Sorry. I'll read the motion that
the regional district of Central
[2:10:53] delegation of authority bylaw 3991 be
read bred first and second by content.
[2:10:58] That is the motion on the floor right
now. Okay. So on that,
[2:11:03] are we good? and okay thank you
>> just the chair you don't vote on
[2:11:07] division
>> okay so
[2:11:10] » can you add to the list please
>> uh Hannah
[2:11:14] » no I wanted division so
>> okay lockwood
[2:11:17] » uh question is that it's it was put
forward as information but I do believe
[2:11:24] um that director Jackman had a good
point of of how do we divide this if
[2:11:30] we're putting first and second first so
The process is still the same in terms
[2:11:35] of first and second means we get to take
sorry staff will take input and when it
[2:11:39] comes back to us in September it'll
include whatever input has been received
[2:11:44] and until you do third reading you can
still receive that input and make
[2:11:47] changes at third you don't make changes
>> if I may. So then we can still make
[2:11:54] three different bylaws at that point.
Okay, I'm good with that. I didn't
[2:11:57] realize we do it that way. So staff had
indicated they will come back in
[2:12:01] September if this motion was what passed
with here's the red line of what was
[2:12:04] proposed and then then we're debating
all of the input we received.
[2:12:08] » Thank you.
>> Okay.
[2:12:12] All those in favor
opposed carry. There is still another
[2:12:17] motion that is that we uh invite George
Cuff as part of our orientation.
[2:12:23] Quite a clarification. The other motion
also included
[2:12:28] not to adopt until
is that what's in the second motion?
[2:12:34] » Motions have a second motion. That's in
>> I think technically those are the words
[2:12:40] used. I don't know that we can tie a
bylaw to an orientation set.
[2:12:44] » Agree.
>> So that's what I would like
[2:12:46] clarification please. What
>> would you like to amend the motion
[2:12:49] currently? No, I'd like to hear is the
motion that we not adopt till after
[2:12:54] which is what I heard or is the motion
that we just have a workshop.
[2:12:57] » You're correct. It is that we not adopt
until after
[2:13:00] » which I will oppose.
>> Okay.
[2:13:04] » Angela has that motion and even
>> I think we know what the motion is.
[2:13:10] » Is anyone not clear at this moment?
>> Okay. Further on uh the George Prep
[2:13:17] orientation which includes not
Is that an is that a question?
[2:13:22] » Question on the George Cuff
organization. Yes.
[2:13:25] » Yes.
>> Why does it have to be George Cuff?
[2:13:27] There are other subject matter experts.
George Cuff's schedule may not be
[2:13:31] amenable to this. I think it should just
be named as a subject matter expert. Let
[2:13:36] staff decide and if it happens to be
George Cuff, I'm happy with that. But uh
[2:13:41] it may or may not have to be George Cup.
Can I just ask staff how they generally
[2:13:45] do orientation which will include a
request to current directors around how
[2:13:49] do we want to do orientation which could
include who do you recommend? I think
[2:13:53] you've spoken about.
>> Yeah. Now, but
[2:13:58] » okay then.
>> Yeah. Through the chair. Historically,
[2:14:00] we have not brought an external
consultant in for orientation. We have
[2:14:04] done that because it's it's orienting
new directors to the business of the RD
[2:14:08] process to the table, departments,
budgets, responsibilities, things like
[2:14:12] that. So if you would like to have a
motion that direct staff to
[2:14:17] bring in external consultant to support
orientation work, we could look at a
[2:14:22] number of different options and not just
Mr. City
[2:14:27] » McFaten. I just want clarity on motions.
So I thought division was division of
[2:14:32] actually what director Quoff was putting
on the floor which was one deferring
[2:14:36] adoption till after the new board and
second portion was bringing someone in
[2:14:40] for Okay. So it's all that and that's
what we're debating is both sides
[2:14:43] together.
>> Yeah. So the whole motion what was
[2:14:45] divided was the bylaw first and second
from the orientation
[2:14:49] » from this whole motion.
>> Yes.
[2:14:51] » Want to make sure I know what I'm
debating. Okay. Thanks.
[2:14:54] » Good. Uh head.
>> Oh thank you. Just um for clarity um to
[2:14:58] the chair when we talk about orientation
we're talking about the new board.
[2:15:03] » Yes. Thank you
>> Paige.
[2:15:07] probably from a clarity standpoint, if I
wanted this to pass, we should divide
[2:15:12] again because they're distinctly
different pieces, the adoption and the
[2:15:16] the orientation. But given what has
already been said, I'm inclined to just
[2:15:20] say no to both because of the naming of
a specific and the bringing in of an
[2:15:24] external and and to Hans's great point
earlier, which I share getting this
[2:15:30] certainty laid out before the next crew
comes in and has to learn a bunch of
[2:15:34] stuff. They'll want to change things in
the future, but let's lay down as much
[2:15:37] certainty as we can potentially in three
different buckets. So, I'll vote
[2:15:42] against.
>> Thank you, Dr. L.
[2:15:45] » Yeah, I would vote against with it all
together like it is. So, I was going to
[2:15:50] propose an amendment
>> to remove the postponing
[2:15:56] language at the beginning of the motion,
[2:16:01] » but with not having it written,
>> I think.
[2:16:06] » Okay. And then the other quick
supplemental is that there the LGA um or
[2:16:11] leadership um that typically does
clearly articulate the roles and
[2:16:16] responsibilities. So that could be an
encouragement for any new members to
[2:16:20] attend that as well. Okay.
All those in favor
[2:16:28] those opposed
motion
[2:16:31] » fails.
[2:16:35] » All right. 6.1.1
amendment. This is the FCM green
[2:16:40] municipal fund assignment ready plans.
You have a motion and there is a board
[2:16:45] report. Staff are here. Are there
questions and or be ready for the
[2:16:48] motion?
[2:16:54] » I will move the motion. I have a second.
>> Thank you. Discussion. Outline of the
[2:17:00] scope is in the second attachment. That
was a question the other day.
[2:17:04] Seeing no discussion. All those in
favor?
[2:17:07] Opposed? Carried.
6.1.2 financial plan amendment. This is
[2:17:14] for uh engagement with our producers
with the goat river wershed producer
[2:17:19] work. Do we have questions or are we
ready for a motion?
[2:17:25] » Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank
you. Discussion.
[2:17:31] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
[2:17:38] Okay, this one might take some time.
How do I plan for timing on this one?
[2:17:47] » I think we can uh get into this one and
just note that if we get into moving the
[2:17:51] motion that means we're either going to
continue on past public time or not. So,
[2:17:55] I'll just watch the discussion as we go.
>> We
[2:18:01] » Yes, Paige.
>> Could we table the staff to lunch and
[2:18:05] just move on to the next ones?
>> We do have staff present. I don't know.
[2:18:09] Are you able to
>> Okay. I just think we're going to have a
[2:18:13] bifurcated conversation.
>> Okay.
[2:18:15] » Does anyone have opposed to that? We've
now tabled two items until or postponed
[2:18:19] two items.
>> It's good.
[2:18:24] » Okay. We're also postponing 6.1.3.
[2:18:30] » Sorry.
>> It's okay. Probably Wednesday 4:30.
[2:18:36] Wait. Did I
Did I just hear that? We're postponing
[2:18:40] 6.1.3 or 6. I thought I heard 6.1.2.
>> No, we passed two or post.
[2:18:47] » It was three. I thought I heard it two
again. I was getting deathies.
[2:18:51] » Okay. 6.1.4. Word of contract for the
hydraulic connectivity in the G River.
[2:18:56] Are we ready for a motion?
>> I'll move the recommendation.
[2:19:00] » Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank
you. Discussion, Dann. Um just a
[2:19:06] question around clarity of the scope. Uh
why is it not including we have
[2:19:13] » go ahead? Yes. Thank you. Um so for the
priority streams those were identified
[2:19:20] through the original project scope that
was a project that did come from the
[2:19:25] high geology department at the province.
So there is I mean definitely room for
[2:19:31] additional sampling sites. That's
something that we've already looked at
[2:19:36] as a project team and um there could be
flexibility within the other like tasks
[2:19:43] which are the model development that
could accommodate potentially more
[2:19:46] sampling sites. If we wanted to expand
it further, it would be a change in
[2:19:51] scope and potentially additional budget
would be needed. But
[2:19:56] » supplemental by
>> Yes, go ahead.
[2:19:58] » Thank you. So, we didn't as a group have
a lot of time. We didn't never really
[2:20:02] talk about this. Director Vandenberg, I
know you're speaking to Camille.
[2:20:05] » I'm trying to be polite.
>> I know. I know. And she knows you won't
[2:20:08] be rude. He just They can't hear online
if he's not here.
[2:20:11] » We not we did not as a group have an
opportunity to really get into uh the
[2:20:16] the benefits of this RFP, but we have
talked about the importance of Duck
[2:20:21] Creek. Um and uh I I think that we
should consider that because it's a main
[2:20:27] tributary uh in the Gold River wershed.
Um and it's significant uh probably one
[2:20:34] of the more probably more so than the
Arrow Creek one um um in my estimation.
[2:20:39] So um that's the reason for my
questioning and uh perhaps at that level
[2:20:45] at that our next working group we can
explore that further. I'm not sure but
[2:20:50] then if that's the case does that um
does that inhibit it as an opportunity
[2:20:56] in this motion? So
back
[2:21:04] » I think that there are further explore
with this motion doing what is the kind
[2:21:11] of the the main area. There's no
limitation to look at expanding
[2:21:15] especially as you get into tools and
other aspects. So it can still be
[2:21:18] discussed and reviewed I think is what I
heard from
[2:21:21] » Camil. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. There's definitely um
[2:21:25] interest in potentially expanding it.
Although the the streams that were
[2:21:29] identified are definitely priority areas
just because of the water allocations
[2:21:34] there as well. But definitely something
that we can look at.
[2:21:38] » Good.
>> So supplemental. I'm hearing that we can
[2:21:42] look at it.
>> Yes.
[2:21:43] » We can have further discussion on it.
What I'm hearing?
[2:21:46] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[2:21:48] » Okay. Dr. Huitt. Uh through the chair.
But I'm hearing the the discussion
[2:21:55] happening there about adding additional
scope
[2:22:00] potentially adding additional scope.
This is it's grant funded 100% at this
[2:22:06] point if additional scope is added. It's
going through uh S 105
[2:22:15] would that just automatically be assumed
that it would come out be funded out of
[2:22:20] what? I just want to make sure that
whatever is being requested for
[2:22:24] additional consideration
under this project that there is there
[2:22:30] is funding also attached to it that
doesn't have to go through to budget
[2:22:35] discussions. The request for additional
discussion does not tie this grant to
[2:22:41] that potential outcome of the
discussion. It's just that you can still
[2:22:44] talk about how could we also evaluate
that. So that's what we're clarifying is
[2:22:49] um and I will speak more to the overall
project and timelines and other
[2:22:53] opportunities
um when we do the chairs report but at
[2:22:56] this point it's not tying this grant to
also increasing to include that is that
[2:23:01] the discussions that are ongoing in the
workshops can still consider other
[2:23:05] aspects
[2:23:09] Amy I'm sorry I didn't see you
>> thank you um through the chair if I may.
[2:23:15] So the the work we're doing on this
watershed is is really tied to the
[2:23:21] watershed itself. The scope of work was
developed in partnership with our
[2:23:26] provincial counterparts. And so what we
can do is go to our professionals and
[2:23:32] ask them to assess all the contributing
waterways for this watershed. And so
[2:23:38] that's what our our intention here is.
If that for whatever reason doesn't
[2:23:42] include some of these items that are uh
being noted, we can come back to the
[2:23:47] committee and see if we want and get an
estimate and come back to the committee
[2:23:50] and see if we want to expand that scope
or if there's some way to adjust the
[2:23:54] rest of the scope so that uh it can be
fit in.
[2:24:02] » Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? Very
good.
[2:24:11] I'm sorry, Amy. Sorry, I did see you put
your name in chat and I just
[2:24:16] » Sorry,
>> my chat doesn't work on this screen. I'm
[2:24:19] sorry.
Um, so we do have a few minutes. The
[2:24:22] financial plan amendments for fire
services. Can those be done as a block?
[2:24:26] No.
[2:24:31] Move to block, but they move.
>> All right. Move is blocked. We have a
[2:24:34] second. Thank you. Any p for discussion?
[2:24:39] Seeing none. All those in favor?
Opposed? Carries. Right on.
[2:24:45] Okay. Uh 6.3.1. Director Paw, do you
want to move this with the removal of
[2:24:50] your item? It's going to move to
development.
[2:24:52] » Yes. I'd like I'd like to remove the
discretionary grant with the remove area
[2:24:56] discretionary grant application. Then
I'll retreat center in the amount of
[2:25:01] $5,000.
And it should be a community development
[2:25:04] grant. The applicant filled out the
wrong form. So I will be then make
[2:25:08] amendment to the other one.
>> Yes.
[2:25:10] » Second.
>> Thank you. So the motion is moved with
[2:25:12] the removal of that one. I will believe
when we get to the next one to add it.
[2:25:19] » Yes.
>> Okay. Uh further discussion on
[2:25:22] discretionary grants.
Everything's correct. This is last month
[2:25:27] to make corrections. We'll see them.
Okay. All those in favor? Opposed?
[2:25:32] Carried. Now pop off. Actually I have an
amendment on development. So, I'm going
[2:25:35] to do I'm going to move it with my
change and then I'll go with mentioned.
[2:25:39] » Yeah. And then with with that uh
>> No, hold on. I'm going to come to you in
[2:25:43] a second.
>> Okay.
[2:25:44] » I'm moving community development with an
increase um for area D the S187 transfer
[2:25:52] from 5,000 to 7,000.
But I'm moving it with that increase.
[2:25:58] And I can explain after I get a second
and then I'm going to go to pop off
[2:26:02] first amendment. A second.
>> Thank you.
[2:26:05] » And
Bob is going to add his
[2:26:12] » from discretionary to development
[2:26:16] » to development of order. We're on 632.
>> Yes. Then I need to declare um that I
[2:26:26] wish to declare at this time that I'm
not entitled to participate in the
[2:26:29] discussions of our vote on the next item
of business on the meeting agenda.
[2:26:33] Nighting being 6.3.2
by reasons of me being a member of one
[2:26:39] of the organizations that's being uh may
receive funds and as a result I'll be
[2:26:44] leaving the meeting.
>> Thank you. We'll just pause discussion
[2:26:47] and movement until you leave.
We got that an
[2:26:54] Okay,
popup is adding us community development
[2:26:58] area H
>> and that is add area discretionary grant
[2:27:04] application Benile Retreat Center as a
community development grant application
[2:27:08] in the amount of $5,000.
>> Thank you.
[2:27:13] » Further discussion
[2:27:19] we second that. Sure, I'll say it.
>> Oh, yes. Sorry, I blank
[2:27:24] » since you're asking.
>> Yeah, I'm sorry,
[2:27:28] » Paige. Go ahead.
>> Yeah, if just because we don't see it as
[2:27:33] large as the biohysical
piece, do we have any limits on some of
[2:27:39] the sizes of these grants? And and what
is the process to
[2:27:45] validate some of this? It's like that's
a that's a huge
[2:27:47] » reference which area and which grant
>> area H uh biohysical assessment on the
[2:27:51] park and I just Christopher Regional
Park. Such a big grant feels out of
[2:27:56] place within here. I I feel I want more
information. Oh,
[2:27:59] » okay. So, you're asking about that?
>> Yeah, I would like to
[2:28:02] » Okay. have a little bit more of an
overview. You just have the one pager
[2:28:05] and it's such a big grant.
>> Do we have park staff that can speak to
[2:28:08] that? Um,
[2:28:13] » uh, I'm no
[2:28:17] » Is there within this program? Is there
any like is there any upper limit where
[2:28:22] additional scrutiny has to occur or this
has been passed off by staff
[2:28:26] » for the chair? Anything above $5,000
requires reporting reporting back to the
[2:28:29] regional district on how the funds are
spent?
[2:28:31] » I'd say,
>> yeah,
[2:28:32] » and this is also going to regional
district asset.
[2:28:36] Yeah, I I I would maybe flag it for
future consideration around this program
[2:28:40] that maybe there's some other buckets
that need to be contemplated um above
[2:28:45] 5,000 maybe above 50 additional
requirements, additional review
[2:28:51] » to the chair regarding application
standards.
[2:28:53] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:28:54] » I it's a big grant for one. Yeah.
>> Okay. Further discussion.
[2:29:04] You see these kind of around some
committee works which are publicly
[2:29:07] detailed. Point taken. All those in
favor opposed.
[2:29:15] » Yes. Go ahead.
>> Uh chair if I could suggest that the
[2:29:18] board reconsider item 6.1
[2:29:26] because indeed
[2:29:30] » Oh yeah. Thank you. Sorry.
[2:29:42] back. [laughter]
>> We're not quite back there. Hold on. I
[2:29:46] think we'll just do public time and
lunch and when we come back, there's
[2:29:49] going to be one we're going to have to
amend.
[2:29:51] » Sorry to the chair not amend. So, in the
category of everybody's paying attention
[2:29:54] today,
>> um 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 on your agenda with
[2:29:58] the exact same motion.
So the motion for 6.1.1 should have come
[2:30:02] from the board report which was attached
which was a different motion than the
[2:30:06] one that ended up in the agenda cover.
So there'll be there'll be a need to
[2:30:09] reconsider that motion
um reconsider 6.11 because you pass the
[2:30:15] same motion at
>> I know that the board report was
[2:30:18] missing.
>> So Ulie was the only one paying
[2:30:19] attention.
>> Thanks
[2:30:22] you rock.
That's a note for lunch or after time of
[2:30:27] » It was in my board notes.
>> Okay, let's take I think we're at public
[2:30:33] time now.
>> All right, public time 11:45.
[2:30:37] Um I do have someone with their hand up
on. I'm going to go online mic and then
[2:30:40] I'll come to you guys. Okay. So, those
who would like to ask us a question from
[2:30:43] the public or media, you are welcome to
unmute and ask us your question.
[2:30:52] Um, this is Deborah Randall from area J.
I have my hand up. I don't know if
[2:30:56] there's anyone else, but I'll go.
[clears throat] Go ahead, Deb. Um,
[2:31:00] » my question is about succession planning
of the board and the and the policies
[2:31:06] around that. Um, you know, in November
there's going to be some new faces
[2:31:11] whether by design or by the will of the
voters. And um so I think succession
[2:31:18] planning a discussion about that is
really important at this stage. Uh I
[2:31:23] think we can all agree that robust
succession planning is an important part
[2:31:27] of any successful organization. Well
anyone I've ever worked at anyway. Um my
[2:31:33] first question there's a couple of
questions but they all relate to the
[2:31:35] same thing. Uh is about the induction
process. Um I I saw the PowerPoint that
[2:31:42] was given in 2022
and I'd like to know more about the
[2:31:46] entire process. Um is it the same
PowerPoint? How many sessions are
[2:31:52] provided? Like how many hours do they
get uh in the induction? What documents
[2:31:56] are they provided with? And is there a
mentoring program? I think uh I think I
[2:32:04] think everyone benefits from a mentoring
program when they're stepping into a new
[2:32:08] role. Um the second question is about
the obligations about the incumbent
[2:32:14] directors to provide what we would have
called in business world uh handover
[2:32:20] notes. um so that they are not you know
they're not thrown in the deep end
[2:32:25] without without nothing and um so that
they can get more importantly so that
[2:32:31] they can get up and running immediately.
Uh they know what's in front of them and
[2:32:36] and just as an illustration I'm going to
talk about area H and director pop off
[2:32:42] uh nothing personal
>> reference a specific director. Oh, it's
[2:32:46] not about him personally. It's about
area H as an example.
[2:32:50] » Area H.
>> Yeah, because it's a really complex uh
[2:32:54] electoral area. It has three
municipalities of the nine. It's
[2:32:59] massively huge in geography and it's got
a lot of people and there's been a lot
[2:33:04] go on in area H uh in the last four
years. Well, the last three years
[2:33:08] anyway. There's Campbell Field, there's
the schoolhouse, those are ongoing.
[2:33:13] There's the bike locker project there
that was just given some money and
[2:33:18] historically there's the failed dog
referendum and the failed garbage
[2:33:23] referendum and a new director say a new
there's a new person in that in that
[2:33:27] seat they should know all those things.
So my question is, is there an
[2:33:31] obligation of the incumbent directors to
provide handover notes on these on these
[2:33:38] uh key, current, and past um issues?
Um so
[2:33:47] » you have about four questions so far.
Are there more? Well, there I think
[2:33:50] there's just one more and and it is
about it's it's sort of along the same
[2:33:56] veins is does a new director have access
to the emails of the previous director
[2:34:01] so that they can school themselves. So
it's about email access and the last
[2:34:06] question is about how it may it may
circle back to the induction but how are
[2:34:13] they given again schooling on the really
big issues that are in front of the
[2:34:19] regional d uh regional board like um
flood management like uh asset
[2:34:26] management uh the prioritiz
prioritization matrix those really huge
[2:34:33] huge um projects that are going on. How
do they get brought up to speed on that?
[2:34:39] » Okay, thanks Dev. That's that's quite a
few questions. So, I'll just stop you
[2:34:42] there and we'll answer what we've got
from you so far.
[2:34:45] » That was it.
>> Sure, for the chair. Uh Deb, I'll try to
[2:34:50] hit the floor. I think I got them. Uh
succession planning really there's no
[2:34:54] obligation to do succession planning.
And I know that generally speaking, uh,
[2:34:59] directors are always looking for support
from alternate directors and there's a
[2:35:04] number of directors I've seen in the
past where they've worked with their
[2:35:07] alternate director as a potential
succession plan when it comes there.
[2:35:11] Obviously, in a political environment,
um, there might be disagreements which
[2:35:15] prevent that in terms of uh, someone's
alternate stepping into uh, the seat at
[2:35:20] the table, but I think that that would
be the best way that I could speak to
[2:35:23] succession planning. um orientation.
Last year, we're actually going through
[2:35:28] this now in terms of scheduling the new
one. Last year, there was about 22 hours
[2:35:32] worth of sessions. Sorry, not last year,
last election. So, in 2022, there's
[2:35:36] about 22 hours worth of sessions. Uh
some of those were online recorded
[2:35:41] sessions, but really what we try to do
is cover as much as we can in the
[2:35:46] beginning that relate to what a director
needs to know to start to get into the
[2:35:50] role, what they need to know about
getting through a meeting. And then we
[2:35:53] have sessions devoted to each department
that were a couple of hours within those
[2:35:58] and I'll knock off another question here
with that within those departmental
[2:36:02] sessions we do go through the large
projects that are in front of the board.
[2:36:07] So for example in the development
services session we would talk about the
[2:36:12] uh subdivision bylaw project that's
going on. We talk about the flood plane
[2:36:15] bylaw. We talk about those big meaty
issues that are in front of the board so
[2:36:19] that when the director sees the next
report, they know that it's there. They
[2:36:23] can go back to previous agendas and
minutes and take a look at what's
[2:36:26] happened in the past. Uh, email access
is an interesting one. I'd have to check
[2:36:30] the privacy legislation around whether
or not that's something that's possible.
[2:36:34] And in terms of an obligation on
handover notes, there's no obligation
[2:36:38] and there's no current board policy
around requiring a director to do
[2:36:42] anything. So, I think, you know, from
the perspective of a of a new director
[2:36:46] coming in, if they know a director's
leaving, then maybe there's some
[2:36:49] discussion there on on what that
director does. And perhaps if a new
[2:36:54] director gets the seat, perhaps again,
there's a discussion on uh there's a a
[2:36:59] reach out to that former director to see
if they want to sit down and talk about
[2:37:02] the the last four years. But really,
from staff's perspective, we leave that
[2:37:06] at the elected level. I do know a couple
of directors around the table who do
[2:37:10] talked to directors who used to be in in
their seat previously.
[2:37:14] » Thank you.
>> Uh Mike or is there anyone else online
[2:37:19] with a question and or media?
[2:37:25] Hi Storm and uh Rachel.
[2:37:31] Not seeing any. Mike, by all means, do
you have a question? I just assumed you
[2:37:34] did. I don't I don't have a question
today except I want to know if the
[2:37:37] meeting is still open after lunch.
>> We still have some open business. Yes.
[2:37:41] Okay.
>> Okay then.
[2:37:46] We will
>> his point to follow up.
[2:37:49] » But we don't actually have directors
engage in public time.
[2:37:51] » Very good.
>> Thank you. Um thank you. We will take a
[2:37:55] break for lunch. We'll see you at 1
o'clock.
[2:38:01] Thanks.
[2:38:31] Um,
Director Gordon, can you hear us? Okay.
[2:38:37] » Yep, I can hear you.
>> Thank you. Hello, Director David.
[2:38:41] » Can you hear me? Chair?
>> Yes, I can. Thank you very much.
[2:38:46] And do we have Director Fight?
[2:38:52] I don't see him.
[2:38:57] We didn't No one had a note from that he
wasn't returning. Oh, look. Yes, he's
[2:39:01] not returning for the afternoon. He is
helping. So, he's not
[2:39:06] » Okay, that's fine. Thank you. All right.
So, directors, we're back in session. We
[2:39:11] do have to go back to an item. So, I'm
going to ask uh Vice Chair McLaren Poe
[2:39:14] to read and move the motion agend
[2:39:22] » Yes, I believe she did.
[2:39:27] » Okay.
All right. I will move that the forego
[2:39:32] Oh god. that the foregoing motion being
that the board approve an amendment to
[2:39:35] the 2026 to 2030 financial plan for the
community sustainability service S105 to
[2:39:41] increase the grant specified revenue
account by 100,000 increase the
[2:39:45] advertising account by 20,000 increase
account by 70,000 increase the travel
[2:39:50] account by 5,000 and increase the
postage and administration account by
[2:39:53] 5,000 to recognize grant funding
received from the investment agriculture
[2:39:57] foundation of British Columbia
agriculture water infrastructure program
[2:40:01] stream three for direct producer
engagement in the Gold River watered may
[2:40:04] be reconsidered by replacing the
recommendation with the following. that
[2:40:08] the board approve an amendment to the
2026 year of the 202630 financial plan
[2:40:14] for development services
A108 to increase external contributions
[2:40:18] and contracts specified by 94,350
and to increase professional fees by
[2:40:25] $45,000 education and training by
$34,350
[2:40:29] travel by 5,000 advertising and
communication by 5,000 and
[2:40:32] administration by 5,000.
>> Seconded. Thank you. So that is the
[2:40:38] motion that is in the report. We just
had the wrong motion. It's all in your
[2:40:42] inboxes right now.
>> Good motion.
[2:40:49] » Oh, sure.
>> We just we doubled up on a motion and
[2:40:52] had the wrong one.
>> Okay.
[2:40:55] » Lockwood. Yes.
>> So did we through the chair to staff did
[2:41:00] we just resend the old motion within
that?
[2:41:05] » Yeah. It's been reconsidered and
replaced. Okay. Thank you.
[2:41:08] » If it if it's
>> on the floor right now
[2:41:12] » on the floor.
>> Second.
[2:41:13] » It's already on the floor.
>> Thank you.
[2:41:16] » Discussion.
>> You say that it's in our
[2:41:27] » I've got it in the group directors.
Everybody good? No.
[2:41:48] Oh,
>> that it's the motion that was in the
[2:41:51] report just wasn't copied to East
correctly.
[2:41:54] » It just seemed like you read a whole
bunch more.
[2:41:57] » We had to reconsider the previous
motion. So, yeah. Okay.
[2:42:02] All good.
[2:42:06] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
All right. Now we are back to
[2:42:17] » Oh, yes. Okay.
[2:42:23] So, I will start but quickly hand it
over. So the the two reports that you
[2:42:29] see in there are um as most of you know
we had the minister of Baltimore land
[2:42:34] waterland natural resources walrus uh
from the region and I think a lot of
[2:42:39] municipalities met with her. We also met
with her. We had two different meetings.
[2:42:43] Um one I was unable to attend. I was at
community planning meeting. So Vice
[2:42:46] Chair McLaren co-et with her as well as
well as the rest in the meeting minutes.
[2:42:50] Is there anything you want to recap on
that one?
[2:42:53] Um
just a quick overview. Um let me just go
[2:42:58] back notes.
>> Oh, it's still missing.
[2:43:03] » I have my
um
[2:43:08] we had a meeting uh here in Nelson with
Minister Neil and Minister Faith
[2:43:13] Anderson um and a few of their senior
staff. The main topics were we discussed
[2:43:19] orphan dikes um and director Jack was in
attendance as well. Um orphan dikes
[2:43:25] streamlining of access to crown land and
some challenges with water light and I
[2:43:29] think uh staff and if there's anything I
missed
[2:43:34] here please let me know. Um I I want to
say that staff did a great job a very
[2:43:39] professional and thorough job explaining
the challenges to the uh province. Um,
[2:43:46] Emma has some detailed notes if we want
to if people want to dig into them more
[2:43:50] uh, wholesomely. Um, and I'll just say
that I have dealt with Minister Neil on
[2:43:55] a few items over the past couple years
and I quite appreciate her approach and
[2:44:00] her staff's approach and seeming genuine
concern for the the issues we raise
[2:44:04] because it's not always the case when we
deal with the province. So that's
[2:44:07] thanks.
>> Um, in terms of the notes, they're under
[2:44:10] 9.1.7. It was just a miscommunication
from me. supportive consent agenda
[2:44:15] you're looking for.
[2:44:20] Good on those ones.
So then the other one um the one I was
[2:44:25] able to attend which is a chat attached
to the chair section is um a goat river
[2:44:32] meeting at the goat that we held and you
can see in there who all attended. Um,
[2:44:39] it was a really it was actually quite
heartfelt standing beside the the river.
[2:44:46] We're in a canyon and so you couldn't
physically touch the water. We had a jar
[2:44:50] of water from the goat in the middle.
Thank you, Paris, for that suggestion.
[2:44:54] It was a great way to kind of focus us
on what we were there for. Um, it was
[2:45:00] really interesting to hear the not only
the history of the goat um from Robin,
[2:45:06] Louie, and Curtis, but also the
hydraology from Isaac Decker, who's done
[2:45:10] his PhD in hydrarology and works with
Yaganuki. It really helped me grasp the
[2:45:15] geography of what is occurring in that
area and what could be potentially
[2:45:19] explored.
Um,
[2:45:22] welcome to ask me any questions about
it. The one note I wanted to make that's
[2:45:26] not in here is um the go river go river
watershed process that has been
[2:45:31] occurring so far has been um
predominantly workshops with the
[2:45:35] directors from that area down at CVS
meeting but also separate workshops um
[2:45:40] for ABC and the town of Preston. Um
given that the the next step which will
[2:45:45] be moving into in October receiving a
board report that'll have
[2:45:49] recommendations
um we will be looking at bringing the
[2:45:52] board into where we're at all the
information at a workshop on September
[2:45:57] 22nd. Just giving you a heads up that
that'll come through um so that the
[2:46:01] board can catch up on the level of
detail that has been presented to the
[2:46:06] CBSC director so far. Um there'll be an
information report also received in
[2:46:11] September so that you can also get all
that background but the workshop is
[2:46:14] really to start ensuring you have all
the info as much as the CBSC directors
[2:46:19] have had it. So just flag that date for
yourself.
[2:46:23] Um
yeah, our wersheds are under great
[2:46:27] distress and the fact that we can all
come together and talk about that as
[2:46:31] everybody involved in it is I think
incredible and also a little hard on the
[2:46:37] heart sometimes
um in terms any questions for me on that
[2:46:42] meeting.
[2:46:45] Okay, I feel like there's a ton of other
stuff as chair this past month. We had
[2:46:50] two alerts that didn't go to orders. you
all saw those through the emails. Kay
[2:46:54] and I both had alerts. We're good.
Fingers crossed the season is is done.
[2:47:01] Um I do know we have a email group with
all the chairs across the province and
[2:47:05] there's been quite a bit of conversation
on those emails uh regarding response
[2:47:10] prevention. I've talked a bit about all
the different ways because I've just
[2:47:13] come from the wershed and met with
Minister Neil talking about watershed
[2:47:17] management as part of that conversation
in terms of fire and emergencies. really
[2:47:21] healthy conversations, nothing
actionorientated, but it looks like
[2:47:25] we'll the chairs will be gathering at
UBCM uh with the CEOs and looking at
[2:47:30] kind of how do we formalize our ability
to [clears throat] work as a team. No
[2:47:34] actions at this time. If there is,
they've come to the board, but just an
[2:47:37] FYI for you.
Yeah, it's been busy. When this guy goes
[2:47:44] away, there's a lot more that I was so
gladly you got away.
[2:47:49] I think that's it for me.
Feel like forgetting something. Sorry,
[2:47:56] CA.
>> Uh to the chair, just to start on the on
[2:47:59] the fire side of things, just to let the
board know, we did have four separate
[2:48:02] deployments uh to support BC Wildfire.
So Terry's Northshore, Passmore, Buddha
[2:48:08] Shenya, Beasley,
um I'm going to forget someone, Balfur,
[2:48:12] Windlaw, all at one point deployed staff
to support BC Wildfire either with um
[2:48:18] fire apparatus or an SPU unit. Um so
they on 14-day deployments. Um and then
[2:48:24] the last one is uh got home yesterday.
So we don't have anyone to currently
[2:48:29] note. Um but just to let you know that
we have been supported fire that way. uh
[2:48:35] UBCM meetings. I don't know if this was
ever communicated, meetings with with UB
[2:48:39] uh with ministry staff are the week
before UBCM and they're online. So, just
[2:48:45] be aware that if you're attending any
meetings, you're going to get a calendar
[2:48:49] invite that's going to be u probably a
Zoom or a Teams meeting that week of
[2:48:53] September 7th. Uh we haven't heard back
from we've only heard back from one of
[2:48:57] our minister requests and it was to tell
us that the ferry conversation has been
[2:49:01] bumped to staff. So, we won't be getting
a minister meeting for the inlet fairy
[2:49:06] conversation, but other than that, we
are waiting to hear on pretty much every
[2:49:10] single day. We don't have one yet. None
of them are yet scheduled. And then the
[2:49:14] final thing I want to mention is we're
going to be sending out a survey uh to
[2:49:18] the the point that came up during public
time regarding director orientation. And
[2:49:22] we're looking for feedback from all of
you regarding what went well, what
[2:49:26] didn't, what would you like to see more
of, what would you like to see less of.
[2:49:29] So, we put together some questions on
the orientation time frame, content,
[2:49:34] when we do things, and we'll be looking
for your feedback there. And then
[2:49:37] there's an open-ended question at the
end that you can just throw in whatever
[2:49:40] you'd like if we haven't covered it. So,
look for that to come uh come into your
[2:49:44] email boxes, and then we'll plan the
orientation sessions around some of that
[2:49:48] feedback. But that's all I had.
uh new and fenburg.
[2:49:53] » Is it possible to send out the uh
process that was gone through last time
[2:50:00] because I didn't attend it so we have
something to know what you did to
[2:50:06] » Sure. Um Andrew, can you attach that to
that you have that schedule? Yeah, that
[2:50:10] that'd be helpful just to trigger my
thought proc
[2:50:15] [laughter]
>> that was my question to see if that
[2:50:19] context could be attached to the survey
because
[2:50:23] » I can't even remember yesterday.
>> We got to
[2:50:27] » weather.
>> Do we still have it in our east perhaps?
[2:50:31] » It is under workshops. It's one of the
very bottom ones where all
[2:50:36] » it goes back four years. Okay.
>> You can I I mean the the two pager on
[2:50:41] what occurred is is a good summary. You
can see the previous materials work.
[2:50:50] » Any other questions for CEO at this
time?
[2:50:55] Um the chair, this isn't necessarily an
RG meeting, but I haven't heard anything
[2:51:00] on the hospital moving. Is that also on
hold
[2:51:04] » through the chair? Yeah, it's been um
[clears throat and cough]
[2:51:08] it's been actually we did hear on that
one because they've only accepted one
[2:51:12] topic to discuss. They rejected the
meeting and and selected one topic that
[2:51:17] they've passed on to uh Ministry of
Health, I believe staff. So, I don't
[2:51:21] think that everything was accepted. I've
never seen that before where a ministry
[2:51:25] request has said we don't want to talk
about CD and E, but we're fine with A
[2:51:29] and B. Like, I've never seen that
before, but that's apparently what
[2:51:32] happened. So, but we're still waiting to
hear who we're speaking to.
[2:51:35] » At
>> when? Yeah. Yeah.
[2:51:37] » Thank you.
>> Um, Angela, can you remind me we
[2:51:40] postponed 6.1.3,
which is the standing committee
[2:51:44] conversation on SEO. Did we postpone
that to the end of the agenda or to the
[2:51:48] line?
>> Just for
[2:51:53] Okay. Sorry, Camila and Paris can stick
around.
[2:51:58] » Huh?
>> We'll be quick.
[2:52:00] » Yeah, we'll get to you. Sorry. No
problem. [clears throat]
[2:52:03] » Uh okay. Rule affairs committee director
Jackman.
[2:52:07] » So as usual to remind the board that
they've delegated authority to the new
[2:52:13] affairs to receive delegations for land
use applications
[2:52:17] andor recommendations from staff
reference issues. So yesterday we had 22
[2:52:25] 23 items. There's only 22
recommendations though. One was
[2:52:29] referred. We had neither in person or
online delegations on item 73
[2:52:36] 7.4 Kango on behalf of Hosen. Item 7.6
commer on behalf of Crestston. Item 77
[2:52:44] Pan Callaway and Laura Shay
Shay on behalf of the uh West Crest
[2:52:54] societ. So we have 22 recommendations I
will try to do in five parts.
[2:53:02] So first one on your agenda is arising
from item 7.2. It's the building bylaw
[2:53:07] contravention smog the area of B. So
this is all vote. I'm going to move cor
[2:53:13] officer be directed to file notice on
title on the land as described.
[2:53:18] » A second. Thank you. Discussion.
All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
[2:53:25] Next one I think is best stand alone
arising from item 7.3 development
[2:53:29] variance permit application Magnoli area
A. I move the board approve the issuance
[2:53:34] of the development variance permit the
2612A as described.
[2:53:41] » Second. Thank you. Discussion
all those in favor.
[2:53:46] » Third one again seems best to stand on
its own. This is arising from item 74
[2:53:52] land use bylaw amendment hango on behalf
of the land owners move the regional
[2:53:56] district to San zoning amendment bylaw
number 30 87 2026
[2:54:04] an amendment as described is given for
second third reading by content and
[2:54:09] consideration of adoption be withheld
pending the uh mod
[2:54:14] uh review and access of the controlled
access permit
[2:54:17] » second discussion
[2:54:21] All those in favor opposed carried.
>> Like to move the next three items four,
[2:54:27] five and six is a block. They are all
agricultural land reserve applications
[2:54:32] to go to the agricultural land
commission. They're either uh
[2:54:37] applications for non-farm use for
inclusion in the agricultural reserve or
[2:54:43] uh the uh again of non-farm use. So the
three there I won't read them all out
[2:54:50] but they are for uh uh crest banking
district area C there for is the crest
[2:54:57] represented by home uh property located
in area B and for the application and
[2:55:05] from area C I move those trees of block
as per agenda.
[2:55:09] » Do we have a second? Thank you.
Discussion do you want to pull one of
[2:55:13] them?
>> Uh I don't know that I need to. I just
[2:55:16] would like to ask staff if they could
comment on the um the supplemental
[2:55:21] document that will go along with the ALC
application for COMAR
[2:55:27] » back.
[2:55:31] » Uh yeah, through the chair um the intent
is to prepare the letter that
[2:55:35] essentially summarizes the conversation
from yesterday's rack meeting. I can go
[2:55:38] into a bit more detail if that's
necessary. Um, but it was basically just
[2:55:42] to capture the various discussion points
from different elected officials.
[2:55:47] » Thank you, Zach. Good.
>> Thank you. Yeah.
[2:55:51] » All those in favor? Opposed?
>> Then maybe I should ask the uh Oh,
[2:55:58] sorry. Oh, one more stand alone
arising from item 7.8. This is a land
[2:56:04] use amendment bylaw environmental
development permit area enforcement by
[2:56:09] prog.
So the u uh land use amendment bylaw
[2:56:15] 30252026
as described
[2:56:19] um is considered consistent with the
RDCK 26 financial plan and the RDCK
[2:56:26] resource recovery plan pursuant to
section 4773A
[2:56:31] of the local government act.
>> Second. Thank you. discussion
[2:56:37] » if any
>> first time we ever done this and I hope
[2:56:40] it's the last time. It's got to be a
procedural way around this newly noted
[2:56:45] requirement under the LGA.
>> Thank you.
[2:56:50] » Are you do you have a are you putting
your hand up? Yes.
[2:56:53] » Yes. Thank you, chair. Uh it is the
first first time and it's sort of
[2:56:57] interesting because really there's no
action taken. It just says, "Well, we're
[2:57:00] consistent. Happy to be a relief."
Thank you. Just that mot.
[2:57:09] » All those in favor? Opposed? Very.
>> So, unless everybody wants division, I
[2:57:15] would propose we move the items 8
through 22 is a block. They are all
[2:57:20] committee works on as occasions that all
spelled out the amounts of motivations.
[2:57:25] So, as per the agenda, I move items 8
through 22 as a law.
[2:57:31] » Is there a second?
>> Thank you. Do any need to be pulled?
[2:57:37] » Okay. Are you pulling one?
>> Yes. 14, please.
[2:57:41] » 14th.
[2:57:46] » So, it has your amendment.
Is that why you're pulling it? You you
[2:57:50] did amend it and it's it's correct in
this agenda.
[2:57:52] » Uh, yeah. Well, yes, chair. Actually the
>> if you're pulling it that's okay. We'll
[2:57:59] finish the block and then I'll go back.
>> Yes.
[2:58:01] » Okay. So 14 it's exclusion of the
community works application parallel
[2:58:07] structural upgrade additional funds are
each. So the remainder is a block.
[2:58:11] » Okay.
>> Further discussion on the block.
[2:58:16] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
And now your item. Director Cunningham.
[2:58:22] » Yes. I I just like to point out that
indeed I'm in favor of the of the
[2:58:26] motion, but it's different than the one
to be passed in the rural affairs
[2:58:29] committee meeting which was two motions.
>> Well, there are 10.
[2:58:35] » So both 13 and 14 are together.
>> In the Royal Affairs Committee meeting,
[2:58:40] it was uh be resolved return recommended
to the board. The first was the fund
[2:58:47] application and it and that was the one
that said 100,000 to start but was moved
[2:58:52] to two and the second one was approve an
amendment that under the act again don't
[2:58:58] go to 100,000 to two but that was two
recommendations here in the the one in
[2:59:03] today's agenda says uh board an
amendment to the financial plan for
[2:59:08] service da da to increase from transfer
>> 13 and 14 are both in here
[2:59:12] » right before where
>> right before 14 13. That makes sense.
[2:59:21] » Oh, okay. Thank you. My apologies. I
didn't I was reading 14. I thought it
[2:59:25] was
>> Would you like to move those? So that
[2:59:28] » Oh, yes. 13 was moved.
>> 13 moved in the block. Move 14.
[2:59:31] » Yes.
>> Do we have a second?
[2:59:34] » Thank you. Further discussion.
>> Christine keeps me on track. Yes, she
[2:59:38] can. So,
[2:59:41] » all those [clears throat] in favor?
Opposed? Harry.
[2:59:48] Okay. Director's motions 8.1. Director
Lwood
[2:59:52] that the board to authorize the release
of funding of the following financial
[2:59:56] grant services for S113 and S192 for
economic development and the museum for
[3:00:02] the Sla
Museum Society and the Wymer Arts Museum
[3:00:07] Society in the numbers in the motion.
>> Second.
[3:00:12] Yep. Go ahead.
Do you have a question? Comment? No.
[3:00:17] Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? Very.
Okay. Now we have the consent agenda. Is
[3:00:25] there anything um
anybody would like to pull before 9
[3:00:30] minutes is 9.1?
Anything need to be pulled?
[3:00:37] Okay.
9.2 for communications.
[3:00:44] The
I'll just note uh Director Vandenberg,
[3:00:50] you may not have seen it. 9.2.7. I did
let them know yesterday that letter was
[3:00:54] ready and it was emailed to them. This
is probably the first time you're seeing
[3:00:56] it, but there's the letter of support
for West Preston.
[3:01:01] Uh any other communications need to be
pulled.
[3:01:08] All right.
[3:01:12] Council Pable is any Was that a hand?
>> Uh, council payable, any questions?
[3:01:20] All right.
Uh, director's report. So, we've been
[3:01:24] doing half and half this side of the
room. I believe this this month.
[3:01:38] Um
[3:01:41] yeah, the Riker's water system um
supported them with a number of grants,
[3:01:49] community development grants to install
meters on their water system. Um
[3:01:58] they uh the way they did it was quite
innovative. They spilled 30 uh
[3:02:02] connections on on the on the system and
the community got out with it's a
[3:02:08] farming community so they have equipment
they have a number of volunteers they
[3:02:12] got out and installed them all
themselves. So um and they found right
[3:02:19] away like in the first week they were in
um where the issues were that they were
[3:02:23] concerned about.
>> Mhm.
[3:02:25] » And um uh so they're extremely happy. Um
and had a discussion with uh the
[3:02:34] community liaison officer for CBT. Um
they are looking at uh supporting
[3:02:40] smallcale systems
>> uh with metering programs. And so I
[3:02:44] connected them with the share of the
breaker system and uh they plan on using
[3:02:50] that system as an example to try to
encourage uh small water systems to uh
[3:02:56] move in that direction of metering and
uh it was support from student
[3:03:02] success story.
>> Good morning.
[3:03:04] » Definitely.
>> Well, thank you Dr.
[3:03:08] uh thank you through the chair. Um, I'll
just report on uh Gazo's 133rd birthday,
[3:03:15] which was a August 14th. Um, we had had
cake and lemonade and had lots of help
[3:03:22] getting set up. Um, it was great. We had
It's not emergency so social services,
[3:03:28] but is the E and ESS? It used to be
emergency,
[3:03:31] » but it's still emergency.
>> It is emergency. Okay. and Fires Smart
[3:03:34] and Wild Sage, which was was fantastic,
um spoke to them and they got more um
[3:03:41] detailed engagement with residents there
than they do at the Saturday market,
[3:03:45] which was good to hear. Um and then we
awarded our 2026 citizen of the year to
[3:03:53] Don Scarlet who was a long longtime uh
volunteer with the uh
[3:04:00] Infernet Society. So he was he was late.
He was attending something else. He
[3:04:06] didn't realize he had won the award
until he ran into somebody at the at the
[3:04:11] library who said congratulations. And so
he and his wife at it came and I was
[3:04:16] able to get some photos with him and he
was just he's so humbled that um yeah he
[3:04:23] was he was shocked that he had won. and
he also uh was on the chasm district
[3:04:29] community forest society board for a
period of at least 10 years and that's
[3:04:34] just part of his community involvement.
So very happy that that he was nominated
[3:04:40] and ready to award that to him
>> yay dump that
[3:04:45] » I just said yay dump
>> Dr. Then
[3:04:49] » as you referred to Chair Watson, the
gathering on the Hilt River for our
[3:04:52] water sustainability plan was quite
meaningful to have um our MLA and and SL
[3:04:58] minister and minister there and um I I
think that um they're well ahead of the
[3:05:05] pack in the problem on water
sustainability on the side and I think
[3:05:11] it will have some meaningful results and
maybe we'll end up with an alternate
[3:05:16] water supply but we're not
But at any rate, it was well worth the
[3:05:20] time and appreciate the staff doing
that. And from personal observation
[3:05:25] though, this summer I have seen
lightning strike fires started that the
[3:05:32] fire suppression crews got on very
quickly and put out. And I think um if
[3:05:37] that's true elsewhere, I think they're
doing a commendable job on getting on
[3:05:41] those fires quickly and putting them
out.
[3:05:43] And we always used to say, well, why
don't they just get them when lightning
[3:05:47] strikes and they have on these ones and
and it made a difference and I think it
[3:05:52] probably prevented some large fires. So,
I appreciate the work that they've done.
[3:05:56] I assume that they're effective that way
in many areas with light strikes and and
[3:06:01] and personally, I think it's it's
wonderful to see that.
[3:06:05] » Thank you, Dr. No. Yeah, I'd like to
report that uh the Sproul Creek bridge
[3:06:11] update has begun. This has been
something in the planning stages I've
[3:06:16] mentioned a few times. Uh three of the
bridges are scheduled for replacement
[3:06:22] and we found a way to do it.
Notwithstanding not being able to use
[3:06:25] community works funds, which was the
original plan. We [clears throat] have
[3:06:29] to go to plan B, but it worked out. If
one were to check the area EF newsletter
[3:06:36] this uh week that's coming out tomorrow,
you will see an action photo and a brief
[3:06:43] comment plus um acknowledgement of those
uh sponsors that have have had this
[3:06:50] bridge replacement project uh happen. So
pretty exciting. It's wellused trail,
[3:06:56] perfect, accessible, easy and uh well
used.
[3:07:02] And it's not an RD trail. It's uh uh
managed by uh friends of pulpit rock
[3:07:07] Society who have an agreement with RA
parks trips.
[3:07:11] » Thank you,
>> Director Weatherhead.
[3:07:12] » Uh okay. Well, uh it's always a lot
going on, but hard to talk about some of
[3:07:18] the things. Um the uh first of all, the
hybrid at home um as it rolls out in
[3:07:24] area K. Um, CBT has just been so
gracious in now including our community
[3:07:29] halls and our fire halls, which is a
real bonus. We need that. Our fire halls
[3:07:34] are also our emergency centers. Um,
Bokers had an interesting postal code
[3:07:39] change which gave them an Edgewood
postal code and um, I can tell you that
[3:07:45] that has not been um, at all a helpful
to the community.
[3:07:50] It has created so many issues. It's just
a big issue and even to the point where
[3:07:56] I I now have to um ask Waterbridge
Fairies to give priority boarding to the
[3:08:02] for the mail delivery person who had to
wait 3 hours in a ferry lineup just to
[3:08:07] deliver mail. So now we're kind of like
dealing with that and uh among other
[3:08:12] things even Amazon orders are all
getting sent back to Amazon because
[3:08:16] Amazon won't deliver it or things like
that. I it's just one thing after
[3:08:20] another. Um and then uh and then you
know the civic address changes in at the
[3:08:25] same time and Houston we have a problem.
So anyways, um Edgewood's land donations
[3:08:31] um we have a a lovely gentleman donating
land to Edgewood which has encouraed uh
[3:08:38] myself to step in to lies with the
community club between the community
[3:08:42] club and himself to negotiate the exact
parameters of that land to serve both
[3:08:48] the community club for a senior's
housing proposed project and for the
[3:08:53] land owner. So that has just taken up um
huge amount of time but very well worth
[3:08:58] it and um we're we're getting to the
11th hour. I think we're finally at at
[3:09:04] the signature stage. So
>> thank you Dr.
[3:09:10] » Dr. Jackman.
>> Sure. I don't know if last month I was
[3:09:13] sitting over there if I was on that side
or not. I think not.
[3:09:17] » Um it seems quiet the last week or more.
There's still lineups at the ferry and
[3:09:23] cars left behind in the 9:00 a.m. on our
side and then later afternoon, but
[3:09:28] usually it's only the last week of
August. It gets really quiet. It's quiet
[3:09:32] now. Um the uh community forest is
reaching out to the minister about
[3:09:40] expanding either having a expansion or
satellite site at various sites. Now
[3:09:46] they're looking more broadly than what I
was suggesting. We're very optimistic
[3:09:50] there will be something released from
the DC Timberell lands Crawford Bay or
[3:09:55] Crawford Bay North because I think
there's great potential for small patch
[3:09:58] logging select species. So fingers
crossed on that. Um Starbelly
[3:10:05] was a decent turnout again this year. I
don't have the exact figures.
[3:10:09] Interesting thing there's gone to
Starbelly Jam but generally we've
[3:10:12] switched from the Friday night vocals to
the Sunday family. They avoid Saturday.
[3:10:18] Um they're at the point now where they
have a fairly reliable turnout. They're
[3:10:22] looking maybe to purchase land and so
they can do more of a permit setup and
[3:10:28] amenities and things that will build
them out. It won't be a shamoff
[3:10:33] but they may mature in the in the next
year or so which should be kind of nice
[3:10:37] to see.
Uh the expectations and and questions
[3:10:42] for the Ministry of Transportation on
the ferry are still floating around.
[3:10:47] biggest concern we have is we're going
to have the middlesiz chip which will
[3:10:51] give the osprey a relief. Kane
being rightsized
[3:10:56] if they use that most of the year we
will have huge lineups because we have
[3:11:01] huge lineups from the Osprey and and the
Balpa right now. So we are still
[3:11:06] searching for answers from the ministry.
How are they planning this? We've not
[3:11:10] flip-flop between Osprey being the
primary winter and hope back forth back
[3:11:15] and forth. We need this laid out now.
Staffing is such an issue. It's a little
[3:11:20] disappointing if we're not going to get
this in talk to the minister about this
[3:11:23] because we need some more plan. That is
probably the single biggest confetti who
[3:11:28] are grows involved is uncertainty around
the fair. That was two and a half
[3:11:33] minutes.
>> Two and a half.
[3:11:37] » Um we do have director Gordon and David
off who would be on that side of the
[3:11:41] room if they were present. Um, and what
I recall last time when we started this
[3:11:45] is I went to McLaren Co when I did this
slide. So, I'm going to do McLaren Co
[3:11:49] and then I'll go to those online. Sorry,
Director Gordon, you will be next.
[3:11:53] » Oh, can you do I'm not ready.
>> Oh, never mind. McLaren Co is not ready.
[3:11:57] Go ahead, Director Gordon. And then
Director David.
[3:12:00] » Thank you. Uh, it's summertime in
Silverton. Our campgrounds are extremely
[3:12:04] busy right now and our shops are nice
and full. Um, our village office staff
[3:12:09] have been busy uh finalizing and are
completing our OCP. Our council council
[3:12:15] adopted it last night, so that's off the
books now. Uh, our village office has
[3:12:20] been repainted. The outside looks great
and our HVAC system has now been
[3:12:24] installed. Um, and if you have a chance
to look at our memorial hall when you
[3:12:29] drive through town, we've got our Hardy
board siding all complete and we're just
[3:12:32] waiting on our generator. And other than
that, that building is totally complete.
[3:12:38] We're good.
>> Thanks, S. Thanks, Sergeant Gordon. Uh,
[3:12:42] I'll go to Director David off next.
>> Thank you, Chair. So, I'll start with
[3:12:48] the the Glade community had a really
successful annual fishing derby, which
[3:12:53] is a very big event for Glade. Uh we
also had a structure fire that really
[3:13:00] uh brought to light, pun intended, the
need for neighborhood emergency
[3:13:07] planning.
And basically now we have a huge uh
[3:13:11] group of people that really want to work
on that. And there was a grant that I
[3:13:15] gave that that the board approved uh to
the Glade community to start that work.
[3:13:23] Uh the ferry as director Jackman pointed
out is a concern still because we keep
[3:13:30] we've been working really hard with the
coalition to get a meeting with the
[3:13:35] minister. Uh and I'm really
disappointing that the meeting with with
[3:13:41] the minister uh at UBCM is is not
proceeding. Um, I'm finding it harder
[3:13:48] and harder to get any MOT staff to come
out to anything.
[3:13:54] Uh, we've got speeding issues in
Brilliant. Can't get staff to come out.
[3:14:00] We've got issues in Sherikers with the
degradation of our active transportation
[3:14:06] network. MOTT staff don't want to come
out. So, they used to come out all the
[3:14:12] time. it it's as if they're just I
understand the pressures on them
[3:14:16] financially and maybe that's part of the
reason uh but it's it's really sad to
[3:14:22] see that we can't get you know can't get
to talk to anybody with the neighbor
[3:14:28] with the community. Uh really proud of
our initiatives to get two wildland
[3:14:34] vehicles and apparatus for our two fire
halls. uh the uh the Pass Creek uh fire
[3:14:43] hall. We are ready to go with uh with
the funding and ready to order uh that
[3:14:49] that equipment and we're working on
planning for the Pass Creek or excuse me
[3:14:54] for the Taris Fireh Hall uh to
accommodate a wildland vehicle and
[3:14:59] possibly have that wildland vehicle in
Glade across the river um for during the
[3:15:06] wildfire season. Uh that's something
that we uh need to do a lot more
[3:15:11] discussion on. So other than that, uh
hopefully the smoke clears a little bit
[3:15:16] more. You'll notice my throat is
horsearse and really affected by the
[3:15:20] smoke. It's it's really awful. And uh
let's hope we get a little bit of rain
[3:15:26] to get be able to do some work outside.
>> Thank you, Chair.
[3:15:34] » You ready? was ready as I could be.
>> There you go.
[3:15:38] » Okay, timer on. Um, thank you, chair.
Just it's a bit of a grab egg because
[3:15:44] it's been a couple months since I've had
a report, but um yeah, it is summertime.
[3:15:48] Uh, we've had some the revival of some
interesting some fun activities in the
[3:15:53] community. Um,
build bail and sail being one of them.
[3:15:57] If you know anything about building
boats on a beach, it was thought of
[3:16:00] that. Um
[3:16:04] we haven't had fires uh very close to to
the house but the impact of the wildfire
[3:16:11] the wildfires um has been felt I think
in town anecdotally I think um things
[3:16:16] aren't as busy as they have been in say
last year when actually very summer um
[3:16:21] so it's not it's it's not just the
direct impact the wildfires it's the the
[3:16:25] ripple effects throughout the province
um that are being felt um I was invited
[3:16:30] to a sunrise ceremony um back at the
beginning of July or or late June. So
[3:16:36] like the ear like literally the earliest
day of class of the year. It was an
[3:16:42] early morning uh for a international
caribou summit which um brought together
[3:16:48] a lot of stakeholders including a lot of
first nations which was um really
[3:16:52] interesting because it had the sonics
from uh coville confederating tribes as
[3:16:56] well as Canadian first nations and um
hopefully that is the start of some kind
[3:17:02] of internal reconciliation amongst the
those groups there because there has
[3:17:07] been friction in the past. Um, UBCM is
coming up, the convention. Uh, so it'll
[3:17:12] be my first full year being on the
executive. So I'm looking forward to uh
[3:17:17] running the small talk forum there among
other things. And another thing that has
[3:17:21] come up over the past couple months is
it's sort of in sort of not in central
[3:17:26] Kney uh but there has been some concern
about forest uh service roads and access
[3:17:31] to the public uh and in common valley um
and uh Ratty Creek Road. Uh, so there's,
[3:17:38] if you haven't heard about it, there's a
lot of lobbying about shutting down
[3:17:41] access to the back country. So that's my
two minutes. Thanks.
[3:17:49] » Okay. So we have two items to go back
to. Uh, the first one is 3.1.1
[3:17:56] the third motion
which is from uh Nelson District
[3:18:00] Commission.
>> Yes. which is not to pass a motion
[3:18:05] reconsidering
>> per motion
[3:18:09] » at the same time.
>> So, we're moving a motion to reconsider
[3:18:14] um
[3:18:23] » Okay. So, we have a motion to lift them
from the table items. Moved seconded
[3:18:30] discussion.
[3:18:34] then. No, hold on.
>> We're lifting. We're in the middle of a
[3:18:37] motion. So, if it's not on the motion,
hold on.
[3:18:41] Further discussion on lifting those
items.
[3:18:45] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
There's currently no motion on the
[3:18:49] floor. What's your entirely different
question?
[3:18:51] » Oh, my question was item 945
[clears throat] was about an interview I
[3:18:57] did at FCM and the Lincoln. It's just a
question to staff if they could post the
[3:19:03] link uh directly through um goodness
gracious u through messenger so that you
[3:19:11] can just click on it because otherwise
you'll be able to get it.
[3:19:15] » It is an escribe and you just click on
it.
[3:19:17] » Yeah. So I I didn't see it incribe.
Thank you.
[3:19:21] » So uh the first one being Nelson that
motion
[3:19:28] » with recommendation for
seconded
[3:19:32] » as what's in the agenda.
>> Okay. So, let's just so move and second
[3:19:36] it on the floor. This is 3.1.1.
Motion 4 is on the floor. Discussion.
[3:19:44] » Well, well. [laughter]
All those in favor? Oppose? Carried. for
[3:19:53] [laughter]
[3:19:56] » you just want to thank your your
colleagues for working things out with
[3:19:59] you
>> without
[3:20:02] uh okay now next item um is 6.1.3
we are going to we do have staff but
[3:20:10] what I would do you want to speak first
I was also ask for that committee to
[3:20:15] give an overview on the discussion so do
you want to do a quick overview or start
[3:20:20] so as the chair at SElack. Would you
like to please give an overview on this
[3:20:23] discussion from SElack?
>> Well, through the chair, we limited our
[3:20:28] discussion at SElack because this
discussion really needed to happen at
[3:20:33] this table because it involved all
directors
[3:20:36] » and um I'm going to leave it at that and
let as took plenty of notes and she can
[3:20:43] address uh what we what we discussed in
more detail and where we might go
[3:20:49] forward.
The only note I'll add to that is we did
[3:20:53] clarify in that conversation that there
is no rush to move to a motion today and
[3:20:58] I think that's important for the board
to hear um that this is kind of the
[3:21:02] initial board discussion around
governance on this service. So no rush
[3:21:07] to get to a motion but I will also pay
attention to time in terms of how far we
[3:21:11] go down discussion.
>> Paris over to you.
[3:21:14] » Thank you for the chair. Yes, and that's
where I start as well is that the ideas
[3:21:17] are presented for consideration for
discussion. Um, and they're presented at
[3:21:21] this time as concepts. And so a lot of
the details that may be requested in
[3:21:25] terms of exact um costs um are details
that we can provide at a later date. Um
[3:21:31] and so the but it was a proposal that
was requested from the board on the
[3:21:37] future of this this function um of the
regional district. And so there's two
[3:21:42] points that are are made within the
report that the values have been
[3:21:48] established that it that the value of
this service has been shown and
[3:21:52] demonstrated and now we've distinguished
between the function of it as a regional
[3:21:58] providing a regional service and then
also project specific which is often
[3:22:02] area based or subregional based and so
as such we've we've divided the funding
[3:22:08] into two parts. How does it serve the
region at a whole? And so all all
[3:22:14] participants, all directors paying or
all um all members of the board paying
[3:22:20] and then looking at how do we pay for
that um second portion which is the
[3:22:24] project specific. We've made a
recommendation of um number two which is
[3:22:29] a split between rule. I do have some
more detail um because that wasn't one
[3:22:33] of the questions that emerged at um at
the table at cease block of cease. is
[3:22:38] that concern around liberal paying
twice. And again, if we think about it
[3:22:42] as serving two functions, paying for a
regional function and then paying also
[3:22:46] for a project based function, then it's
not necessarily the same if it's being
[3:22:51] paid for two services um or two
functions within one one service. But I
[3:22:56] do have um responses to the questions
that were raised at SEAL and I'd be
[3:23:00] happy to go through them at the
discussion of the chair or wait until
[3:23:03] other questions.
I think it would be helpful to to go
[3:23:06] through the questions and then we know
what has been asked and answered so far.
[3:23:10] » Great.
>> Thank you through the chair. So some one
[3:23:13] of the questions was as I was mentioning
that um that concern with the post um
[3:23:19] model 2 where base um 50% and again
these numbers can be worked through
[3:23:24] whether it's 50% or another percent
is paid by general admin and then the
[3:23:30] remaining remaining 50% is paid by rural
um what service 101. And again, it's
[3:23:37] that point that it's not the same dollar
twice, so to speak. Um, that it
[3:23:40] separates between the benefits that are
achieved at a regional level, which
[3:23:44] everyone benefits for, and then there's
project specific, area specific or
[3:23:48] subregional specific benefits, and those
um cross over also to example number or
[3:23:54] model number four.
>> Paris, one second. If we can turn off
[3:23:57] the ringing, it does make it hard for
directors to hear.
[3:24:06] That's so diverse.
>> All good.
[3:24:07] » Thank you. Go ahead.
>> So distinguishing um that there's
[3:24:10] another um function that happens within
within this work. And so whether or not
[3:24:15] it's paid exclusively by rural affairs
as as is um proposed in model number two
[3:24:21] or if it's paid for but through um um
what's proposed through model number
[3:24:27] sorry model number two model number four
which is more of a fee fee for service
[3:24:31] model which is something we see with
GIS. So again just trying to distinguish
[3:24:36] that um we haven't necessarily tried to
um penalize rule and then again in my
[3:24:41] quick calculations and this would be
have to be verified by finance but in
[3:24:45] the quick calculations um even with the
model even with the the payment as is
[3:24:50] proposed in model number two uh rural
all the rural communities all the
[3:24:55] current members of SEAL are still paying
less than they do pay currently. So it
[3:25:00] is it is a reduction of cost on that
level. um because it shared out more
[3:25:05] more generally. There was also a
question of is there value um and so
[3:25:12] what are we trying to achieve and what
are we trying to do with this work and
[3:25:15] we're really trying to find a permanent
home um for this work so that we stop
[3:25:20] being within a container that is eroded
because people are pulling out. And so
[3:25:25] trying to find a permanent home so that
this work can continue um and and um and
[3:25:32] bring value to to the region as a whole.
Um who participates? There's a question
[3:25:38] about who participates and what happens
to existing project projects. So the
[3:25:42] participation potentially gets broader.
Currently it's um the nine rural areas
[3:25:47] or the 11 rural areas rather and two
municipalities not 11 members in total.
[3:25:54] And um and so that would get broader. It
would be appointments by the board. So
[3:25:58] determining and those kinds of questions
of exactly how many people sit around
[3:26:02] the table are questions that we would
have to determine and and um namely the
[3:26:07] board would have to determine how many
people. Um composition would get settled
[3:26:11] in the terms of reference and existing
projects keep running under their
[3:26:15] current agreements and grants and we've
staged it as a multi-year windown. So,
[3:26:20] we're we're bringing it to you now so
that potentially it from getting forfeit
[3:26:23] is into the budget discussions for 2027,
but we ultimately see this concluding in
[3:26:28] 2028 um with the bylaw we're sending as
well. There was questions about using
[3:26:34] this as a catch-all um and and bringing
in service administration and I may not
[3:26:39] have understand understood that um
adequately but it's yeah it does provide
[3:26:45] a good opportunity to be a community of
a whole type function or type um catch
[3:26:51] all the function of what cack has done
is scoped ideas to and allow them to be
[3:26:58] explored and piloted for the benefit of
the region as a hope and so that we
[3:27:04] wouldn't want to lose that that function
necessarily. We still want to be able to
[3:27:08] explore ideas, understand their values,
pilot them potentially with that $25,000
[3:27:13] grant and then explore whether or not
they're a program or a project and see
[3:27:18] how much resonance and how much value
they can provide um for the broader
[3:27:21] community.
Do you want me to keep going? No. Well,
[3:27:26] why don't we pause there and then we'll
take uh discussion now and Okay. Uh Jack
[3:27:33] » yeah thanks so through the chair and
thanks for referring to everybody the
[3:27:37] whole d I looked at where the value is
where the cost is where the work is most
[3:27:43] of the work is through S100 you're
accessing rents and the like through 100
[3:27:48] flows through we have a pretty efficient
allocation system where money goes to
[3:27:53] whatever department it needs to go to
you don't have to necessarily have a
[3:27:57] compartmentalized lens or group of
people that everything goes through it
[3:28:01] It's good to have a few people who are
well versed have the overview of the
[3:28:05] sort of things we've been doing
historically to to see as the workflow
[3:28:10] help CEO and senior management maybe in
a part
[3:28:14] but we don't the majority of what we do
now does not have to be done under a
[3:28:22] service such as S105 whatsoever. I think
that's where we've landed. So now
[3:28:27] attached to this process of scoping out
ideas, looking at stuff, we still have a
[3:28:31] committee $18,000 a year. It's just not
a huge amount of our budget work. If you
[3:28:37] do that 20 times, it is a huge amount.
So every time we can look at are we best
[3:28:41] using our time, our money, our staff's
involvement is not 18,000 to sit down.
[3:28:45] It's a hard cost of us 18,000, but it's
always more. So this is where I said,
[3:28:50] well, maybe we should be thinking adding
to the mix. Is this best destined to
[3:28:56] become a committee to the whole? In my
mind, that is the place to have a
[3:29:00] conversation about ideas without the
board process where it's a motion. Hey,
[3:29:06] let's do this. And without enough
discussion, understanding, we either
[3:29:09] say, yeah, let's do this. And then later
say, holy smokes, why did we do this? Or
[3:29:14] we refer it and we refer we refer
instead of the committee the whole
[3:29:17] conversation, which is a pretty common
tool in local government to have
[3:29:22] conversations.
My take on it as I said at Clack was Jim
[3:29:26] Gustoson was struggling to pigeon hole
our requests into a service. So he said,
[3:29:33] "Well, let's try this. Let's do a
service where we mostly contribute, we
[3:29:37] flush out ideas." Some of our partners
at the board said, "Well, they already
[3:29:41] do that. They'll do it on their own."
But really what it's boiled down to is
[3:29:48] if it's an ideas thing, a conversation,
no firm commitment, no let's do this.
[3:29:52] vote on it. Is that not what a committee
of the whole is? I sat in on a few, you
[3:29:58] know, municipal committees as a whole.
So, I think our efforts should include
[3:30:02] would we get better value out of the
committee of the whole structure for
[3:30:06] conversation if there's an opportunity
to access money, the staff wherever
[3:30:10] they're housed, the planning side staff
would maybe still be housed in planning,
[3:30:14] it would help us out. We want to reach
for that and go that direction. I do not
[3:30:18] think there's very much value now trying
to retain something that's called
[3:30:24] sustainability
because that in itself limits the
[3:30:28] ability to have a conversation about
good ideas.
[3:30:34] » Uh so we've got off and Gordon
got him on there. Go ahead Dr. P. Thank
[3:30:40] you chair through the chair is I I'm
looking at the projects that we have
[3:30:45] already on the go and the question is I
fully don't understand what director
[3:30:51] Jackman mentioned the committee as a
whole but what would happen to all those
[3:30:57] projects that are there if we don't
approve the standing committee of the
[3:31:03] board
[3:31:06] » thank you through the chair so um part
of our hope is that if part of our
[3:31:12] intent of bringing it forward now is
that we could make the changes for the
[3:31:15] 2027 budget time because we know
>> sorry Paris you need to speak louder.
[3:31:20] » Part of the concern at this time is that
based on the current membership of SELA
[3:31:26] it's um we're seeing an increase of
membership costs for 2027.
[3:31:31] where we're really seeing the
implication of costs is in the the 2028
[3:31:36] um because current members won't be
actually leaving leaving until
[3:31:42] um the end of 2027. But our concern is
that we don't we want to make the
[3:31:47] changes now so that we have a new
funding structure and so that the
[3:31:52] current members of SESAC don't have an
unreasonable um cost to running the
[3:31:57] committee. So just to clarify, current
projects don't get altered. They
[3:32:01] continue as
>> projects don't get altered. Yes.
[3:32:03] » Thank you. Yes. So my question is this
could remain if we don't make a decision
[3:32:08] today and then keep going with the
function because we have we wouldn't
[3:32:11] resend the bylaw.
>> Correct. But just noting what currently
[3:32:14] is occurring is occurring and has good
it's good to go. How we govern in the
[3:32:19] future is the question at hand.
>> Go ahead. Supplemental.
[3:32:22] » That's supplemental. So I'll give you an
example. the Slocan Lake and River
[3:32:26] partnership. It's a current project and
you know the idea is to have it
[3:32:30] grandfunded but where will the
decision-m process be? Will it still be
[3:32:35] in that partnership and where
financially will the money be stored?
[3:32:42] What service does it have to be a
service or that the question?
[3:32:49] Everything needs a service.
>> Yes. And it's just whether it's C slack
[3:32:56] or whether it's A108 that gets funded by
general admin.
[3:33:00] That's the decision that the board needs
to make.
[3:33:04] » And I think there's two different
aspects here. There's funding and
[3:33:07] there's how we discuss what we're doing
and make decisions. Funding perspective,
[3:33:10] it has currently a warehouse of S105. We
wouldn't be we're currently not in this
[3:33:16] moment changing that. If that changes,
we'd have to figure out where that money
[3:33:19] comes from. governance-wise the
discussions in terms of your decision at
[3:33:23] that partnership it's an external
partnership our staff involvement
[3:33:27] they're just it's it's currently housed
in next 105 but your decisions remain at
[3:33:32] the partnership table that doesn't
change in terms of how we might change
[3:33:37] your discussions it's partnership at the
slow same KP we're not changing their
[3:33:42] governance structure we're changing
possibly what we're doing
[3:33:47] » Harris correct Yes, I I did just going
to say what you said. Thank you. Okay,
[3:33:53] weatherhead on the list, do you have
another question or can we keep going?
[3:33:56] » Yeah. Yeah, keep going, but I don't
fully understand, but keep going. I
[3:34:00] won't
>> Okay.
[3:34:02] Uh, director David.
>> Yes. Thank you, chair. So, I I made a
[3:34:07] comment at the SElack meeting about uh I
understand how we started. I I came on
[3:34:14] very shortly after uh after selack after
the initial sea slack discussion took
[3:34:22] place as a director and what's really
interesting is I asked I made a comment
[3:34:28] and asked a question about like how we
got to get our act together as a board
[3:34:35] to figure out what benefits all of us
and how we should pay for that and how
[3:34:44] it should be operationalized.
What was really interesting uh Angela
[3:34:49] sent out the director's schedule of the
orientation meetings from 2022.
[3:34:54] There are 12 workshops that were held
uh in November and December of 2022.
[3:35:02] Five of them were
development and community
[3:35:07] sustainability,
[3:35:10] dealing with
uh community sustain sustainable living
[3:35:17] advisory committee initiatives dealing
with wildfire flood mitigation, dealing
[3:35:22] with watershed governance, dealing with
climate action.
[3:35:27] um and that department. Um
then we had a separate workshop just
[3:35:34] devoted to the committee work for the
committee members. We elected a chair in
[3:35:39] 2022.
So the key thing is that we have a whole
[3:35:43] department that is named development and
community sustainability
[3:35:50] and the key thing is that's what we have
and the orientation was dealing with all
[3:35:56] of these things and the topics that we
talked about impacted all of us in the
[3:36:02] RD.
So we've kind of and and then we had
[3:36:07] people pulling out of the sea slack
and we'll get to a solution. I know
[3:36:14] we'll get to the correct solution for
our board. But the key thing is that
[3:36:20] what work are we doing that we really
value that benefits all of us and how do
[3:36:26] we get all of us on side that the work
we're doing does benefit all of us. I
[3:36:33] mean
waterheds
[3:36:39] um municipalities
many municipalities are getting their
[3:36:44] water it's surface water so the
watershed is really important but how do
[3:36:51] we how do we deal deal with this so for
for me it was trying to understand and
[3:36:59] and I guess trying to get us all inside
of a of a of some values that we have
[3:37:06] that we could all support. we'll figure
out the logistics of you know the grants
[3:37:12] that we get and everything else like I'm
I'm sure we'll come to the right the
[3:37:15] right right decision but I think the
bigger picture is if we have a whole
[3:37:20] department called development and
community sustainability
[3:37:24] it should that be renamed to just say
development
[3:37:28] and just eliminate community
sustainability from the name of that
[3:37:32] department and then I've had
constituents ask me saying well look at
[3:37:36] all the money we're spending
I think the number was 14.1 staff
[3:37:42] dealing with sustainabil community
sustainability
[3:37:47] initiatives
and apparently that is one of the
[3:37:51] biggest FTEEs for staff in the province.
And so there's a whole bunch of either
[3:37:59] misconceptions, misunderstandings.
Yeah, we're going to move to a simpler
[3:38:04] kind of way of operationalizing how we
spend money that we receive by way of
[3:38:08] grants. But if LGCAP funding continues,
things like that happen, we I think we
[3:38:15] need to do a better job
amongst ourselves, but also for our
[3:38:22] constituents so that they understand
what it is that we're working on. So I
[3:38:27] just want to make those observations and
it really really came home to roost here
[3:38:33] when that orient orientation meeting
schedule came out. Uh that was really
[3:38:38] interesting uh just to to revisit. Thank
you chair.
[3:38:43] » Thank you.
>> We're not renaming a department. We're
[3:38:47] just talking about one service.
>> Mark can speak to that if you want more.
[3:38:50] » Yeah, please do.
>> So through the chair community
[3:38:52] sustainability at the time of the 20
2022 orientation also included emergency
[3:38:57] management reported into that service as
well. So we wanted something that
[3:39:01] encompassed all of that mitigation um
sustainability emergency management
[3:39:06] work. So that's a title that's left over
from that. Emergency management is now
[3:39:10] moved back out and is with fire
emergency services together. So yeah,
[3:39:14] could there be remaining? Possibly.
>> Director Gordon, and you're still in the
[3:39:20] service, correct? I just wanted to check
on that.
[3:39:22] » Yes.
>> Yeah.
[3:39:24] » Okay.
>> Thank you. And through the chair, uh,
[3:39:26] back in 2024, the village of Silverton
actually passed a motion to opt out of
[3:39:30] the sea slack service. Um, we're two
years later and we're still in the
[3:39:35] service and our taxpayers are paying
more and more every year. Like they
[3:39:38] mentioned, our our direct tax
requisitions keep going up every year
[3:39:43] and the more people that are pulling
out, the the bigger increase that goes
[3:39:46] on to the Silverton taxpayers.
Um, I struggle with how long it takes to
[3:39:52] get out of a service. Um, that's
something I'm dealing with internally.
[3:39:56] Um, I do struggle with this service
itself. I haven't been part of this
[3:40:01] table long, but I see a lot of overlap
in this service and other services we
[3:40:05] already have. An example of this is the
fact that we talked about transit for
[3:40:10] half an hour at the sea slack meeting on
Tuesday. Um, we have a whole other
[3:40:15] service for transit. I don't see why we
spent another half an hour talking about
[3:40:19] transit in that in that meeting. Um,
saying that, I'm actually not in support
[3:40:24] of any of the options put forward by a
staff. Um, Director Jackman mentioned
[3:40:29] holding committee the whole meetings to
discuss those one-off projects and I
[3:40:33] think that that might be the best way to
approach dealing with some of those
[3:40:36] items instead of making it another core
service.
[3:40:41] » Thank you, Director Gordon. I'm just
going to flag with you if you can follow
[3:40:43] up with staff that that motion was never
done at the board table. So, it it
[3:40:48] didn't get to us and so there's a
process for you to do that which is why
[3:40:52] you haven't been removed from service.
>> Thank you. I I'll follow up with staff.
[3:40:56] It was brought to the C slack table.
>> Thank you.
[3:41:01] » Uh McFaten.
>> Uh great. Yes, I echo some of what my
[3:41:07] colleagues have said. Uh but I struggle
with this. I don't want to be a part of
[3:41:12] this as a city. And so I think this this
appears to be forcing more taxes onto
[3:41:18] those of us who aren't a part of a
service already. And I don't think
[3:41:21] that's appropriate. I think that there
was a service created. people chose to
[3:41:24] take on that work and to now expect the
rest of the table to pick up work that
[3:41:28] they didn't actually approve to take on
in the first place. Uh I think we were
[3:41:32] created for a certain purpose and this
is a lot of this work is outside the
[3:41:37] scope and in a time where taxes are
already challenging and we got enough
[3:41:41] offloading onto us. I'm not sure why
we're picking up work that actually
[3:41:44] wasn't what we're we were created to do
in the first place but just core
[3:41:49] services. And so I am completely against
this. I do not want the city um to be
[3:41:55] paying into this. I don't have a problem
with certain certain parts of it that
[3:41:59] may come to the table. I I agree with
the community for a whole. It's very
[3:42:02] effective to have a space where you can
have more open dialogue of does this fit
[3:42:07] into our strategic plan because if it's
not in your strategic plan and then it
[3:42:11] should not show up anywhere else in the
work that we do as a board. So whatever
[3:42:15] shows up in your strategic plan and
orientation shows up in the work that
[3:42:18] you do for the next four years. anything
outside of that shouldn't show up unless
[3:42:21] we're forced to do it by other levels of
government. Uh so anyways, those are
[3:42:25] just my thoughts. I don't I don't think
that moving it to um if the committee
[3:42:30] itself is deciding that it does not want
to continue then I'll pull out and close
[3:42:34] down the committee. But I think moving
that to everyone having to be a part of
[3:42:39] it is not the move here.
[3:42:44] » Dr. page.
[3:42:48] » I think there's some really interesting
ideas around the table. Um I I think
[3:42:53] what's been laid forward in terms of the
coordinating piece and the governance
[3:42:58] piece and the place to have the
conversation makes sense. I think it
[3:43:02] makes sense to have a bucket where we
are having those particular discussions
[3:43:06] and I think that's true because the
ground underneath us is shifting
[3:43:11] actively. We are definitely moving in.
We've definitely [clears throat] moved
[3:43:15] into a 1.5 degree of warming world and
we're moving towards a twoderee
[3:43:21] reality and potentially further which
means the way business as usual has
[3:43:26] operated over the last 200 years is not
the way it's going to operate over the
[3:43:31] next 50. And that is a drastically
different space when we're trying to
[3:43:36] anticipate how to deliver core services
over the course of the next and upcoming
[3:43:41] [snorts] years. There there does need to
be a place where we particularly are
[3:43:44] having conversations
uh to help our organization and the
[3:43:48] services we deliver and how we pro
protect community in that environment.
[3:43:53] it it is obviously a broader problem
beyond but if we're not creating enough
[3:43:58] space for that reality to have those
conversations we will be on poor footing
[3:44:03] uh looking at historic data trying to
anticipate where we need to position
[3:44:07] those services and so I for creating
that space I I don't mind model 2 that's
[3:44:12] been presented uh where the shared cost
is just the facilitation of those
[3:44:16] conversations and governance and and
actual delivery of projects happens at a
[3:44:20] localized level I think that's a modest
amount kind of risk. I think where we
[3:44:24] see a big challenge and it was just
highlighted is how do we incorporate the
[3:44:30] conversations from the municipalities
that have their own plans and those
[3:44:34] plans are good and fine within the
container that they live in but they are
[3:44:39] also incredibly limited in how they can
be effective when they just live in
[3:44:42] their own container. And so it's like
how does Asagar and Nelson and Caslo and
[3:44:47] Cresten uh integrate uh to a larger plan
or at least knowing where the uh where
[3:44:54] one ends and the other begins and that's
there's differences of opinion there and
[3:44:57] I think it's a conversation for the
future. I would be okay right now moving
[3:45:01] this board into a drafting phase. I will
not get into like the branding of what
[3:45:07] it could or could not be called. Uh but
when I look at the tactics and the
[3:45:12] projects that are being taken on like we
do deliver core transit and if if the
[3:45:17] reality of how we deliver transit in the
area was going to stay the same for the
[3:45:20] next 50 [clears throat] years that could
just stay at the West Kney transit
[3:45:24] committee but if it drastically needs to
change because uh we need to do more
[3:45:29] emission we need to deal with uh the
emissions from transportation and we
[3:45:33] have to make further investments and
pilot things and try things uh to make
[3:45:37] it more effective. because that reality
is shifting. We need to have somewhere
[3:45:41] we're having that specific conversation.
And if we were dealing with another
[3:45:46] existential crisis, we may require a
different kind of committee. But the one
[3:45:50] the existential crisis we're dealing
with is that the foundation of how our
[3:45:54] world works is changing immediately now
and we're already behind in the actions
[3:46:00] we're taking. and whether the rest of
the world is able to figure that out,
[3:46:04] our area will be dealing with the
repercussions regardless. So, how we
[3:46:09] position ourselves and our communities
to deal with that is is probably some of
[3:46:13] the most important work we're going to
do for the rest of our lives.
[3:46:20] » Okay, ahead. Um, thank you. There's just
a I
[3:46:26] flagging a couple of these things when I
was reading through this. One of the
[3:46:30] questions I had um was about when we get
into cost sharing questions. I think
[3:46:36] that's a really big question because
you're going to have some projects that
[3:46:39] could benefit um an area that um doesn't
really have much to share with in terms
[3:46:45] of you know geographical locations and
and
[3:46:50] yet could benefit that area. that
there's not really a there's not really
[3:46:54] a good um funding container in any kind
of sub regional way that way for um like
[3:47:00] a a service that's already set up. The
other one was water services. Um I I
[3:47:05] understand that natural asset management
already CKO and water systems an asset
[3:47:12] management function like when they were
talking about about this but then
[3:47:18] including as like including watershed
into a water service when you're when
[3:47:25] the only people that are paying into
that are those that are on that water
[3:47:28] service. um that could get extremely
costly to those those little tiny
[3:47:34] systems. So that that was just something
that I had red flag there.
[3:47:42] Okay, I'll take the chance to say some
notes. Um
[3:47:47] so for me, I did separate this between
governance and funding because I think
[3:47:50] those are two different mechanisms even
though they need to connect at one time.
[3:47:54] Um,
and starting with the reality that
[3:47:58] director Paige um, I would definitely
I was sharing with vice chair at lunch
[3:48:03] that um, it's been really heartbreaking
this summer to hear my son talking with
[3:48:08] his friends about the smoke and can they
do anything and should they know about
[3:48:12] the fires and while I'm like great for
you for being educated, I was really
[3:48:16] reflecting on how I didn't think about
any of those things. I never thought
[3:48:19] about those things. we were doing all
sorts of things that were likely unsafe,
[3:48:23] but we were never considering big
emergencies like we do or when I first
[3:48:27] started here and we didn't have a
separate emergency department in a
[3:48:31] different building because of the amount
of resourcing we needed to do that. So
[3:48:35] for me I it's it's not a question of is
it real? It's a question of everything
[3:48:40] that has been indicated what occur is
occurring and it is increasingly
[3:48:44] occurring. Um the other context for me
is being on call 247 is been a reality
[3:48:50] for a year short of when I delegate and
and that's really interesting to go
[3:48:55] through that process and have the
ability to have to watch things to know
[3:48:57] what might be occurring where that is
new ways of operating in local
[3:49:02] government.
Um, so I don't debate if this is
[3:49:05] happening. It is happening. What our
powers are within that realm is
[3:49:09] definitely we are not going to change it
solely at this table nor do we have much
[3:49:14] of the authority to do so. However, I
myself am not a passive
[3:49:20] person in that process. Do you have a
truck? Yes, I have a truck. Um but when
[3:49:25] it comes down to where can we make most
effective changes when I look at what we
[3:49:31] have done through that service it's food
systems. I do have a background in food
[3:49:36] systems. I was a farmer so for sure
biased but I also love to eat and I like
[3:49:40] good food and I don't like the fact that
good food means you have to be making a
[3:49:43] good income to get so or access. So to
me that has always been an issue that
[3:49:49] locally we can support so many
organizations. We never in-house that
[3:49:52] work. we supported all those out there
doing it and I thought that was also a
[3:49:55] great comment.
>> Uh the other one in terms of
[3:50:00] um transit, yes, we did have a really
long conversation on transit the other
[3:50:03] day, but it was not the classic transit.
It was active transportation.
[3:50:08] Um which one of the options in that
discussion was do we amend our transit
[3:50:12] bylaws to recognize transit is not just
the classic form anymore. now involves
[3:50:17] where you can, which is actually mostly
around municipalities and congested
[3:50:21] areas where you have trails that you can
use to get to different areas and not
[3:50:24] use a vehicle. We could do that. Um,
everything I did actually double check
[3:50:31] everything that we currently do have in
that uh service as a project is tied to
[3:50:35] our strategic plan. I did want to go
back and check that we're not outside of
[3:50:38] strategic plan in any of those projects.
Um, so for all of those aspects, this is
[3:50:45] an important piece of work to me. I am
in no way interested in taking on more
[3:50:52] authority than is reasonable or at our
capacity or feasible. In fact, I'm one
[3:50:57] of the first to tell the province you
need to chill in terms of what you're
[3:51:00] asking us to do. When I look at how much
we are doing that has come to our table
[3:51:05] without the option we are significantly
involved in climate change mitigation
[3:51:09] and risk assessment before we're even
asking ourselves do we want to be via
[3:51:15] emergency management act fire services
water services that need asset
[3:51:19] management plans we want to know that's
part of that 14 are all of the people
[3:51:23] doing that the organism program didn't
have to do that but we know it directly
[3:51:27] will support us financially when we
reduce what's in our landfill so it was
[3:51:30] an economic decision as much as it was
an environmental decision. So when we
[3:51:34] come to governance and funding for me
governance, whatever you want to call
[3:51:37] it, committee of the whole, for me, what
I'm most interested in is what are the
[3:51:40] municipalities doing that can be
integrated into what we're doing. We
[3:51:44] operate in silos still. And the reason
why people pulled out a sea slat didn't
[3:51:49] have as much to do with issues with the
problems. I don't think anybody was
[3:51:52] going to say, I really hate that you're
talking about waterersheds right now. It
[3:51:56] was more about actually this is a
financial thing I can take off my
[3:51:59] budget, so I'm going to just withdraw.
So it wasn't about the value in terms of
[3:52:04] ethics of what we were doing. It was a
lot more and this was based on the
[3:52:07] surveys based on the financial ability
to reduce your budgets. By all means
[3:52:13] that was your choice. So that is the
dysfunction of the service that didn't
[3:52:17] relate to the value of doing what we
were doing. And again that was based on
[3:52:20] surveys. So when it comes to governance
the ability for us to have the time to
[3:52:24] sit in a conversation by all means I'm
your chair that keeps you going so fast
[3:52:27] and I I got to keep myself going here.
we don't have discussion space for these
[3:52:31] bigger topics. And I would love to know
what the city of Cassador is working on.
[3:52:34] I would love to know how Nelson's
working with their compost issues. And
[3:52:38] so a committee of the whole whatever
that is where we come to the table and
[3:52:41] say like I I did share with Mayor Huitt
they have a transit an active transit
[3:52:45] plan. I only got on referral. I would
have loved to have been engaged in that.
[3:52:48] I was I told her I wasn't picking on
her. I was just saying that
[3:52:52] municipalities are a part of us. We're
not a part of the municipality. So for
[3:52:55] me, my interest in governance is
bringing what is everybody else doing
[3:52:59] and how do we work as a team on those
things because if anything, the world is
[3:53:02] on fire and we need to be a team. My
number one goal right now for my own
[3:53:08] ability to look at how the world is
going is watershed supports. If the
[3:53:12] water's in the ground and the trees are
healthy, you can fight a fire or have
[3:53:16] less fires. That's just my common sense.
I'm vetting it with experts. So I would
[3:53:21] love to see some kind of committee that
brings all that to the table where we
[3:53:24] can work as a team. When it comes to
funding, I really appreciate that
[3:53:28] actually most of these projects short of
staff time are already in either S100,
[3:53:33] S101 or the appropriate services where
they land. That model I really
[3:53:39] appreciate in a regional district
because you can be like, "Oh, this is
[3:53:41] area J. It goes to area J. There's
service for it. We're not all paying for
[3:53:45] everything that's happening here." So
that's been working really well. um S105
[3:53:50] is not working because there was a way
to save money and people did that and
[3:53:53] now a bunch of us are going to pick up
the slack and if you can all leave I'm
[3:53:56] all leaving too because D's not paying
for everything that's for sure. So when
[3:54:00] it comes to funding I like the model
options that have proposed there's still
[3:54:04] more work to do on how that lands rule
being a participant in general and rule
[3:54:10] for me was a double payment but thank
you for answering that question. Um, and
[3:54:14] then the last note I'll just make is a
lot of the ARAD projects that are really
[3:54:17] focused on because they were they were
really about the farmers and or the grid
[3:54:21] issues up there. Um, I predominantly
find it with community development which
[3:54:24] I have and municipalities don't. So I
can do that and then seek staff support
[3:54:29] where it was appropriate. So I really
have appreciated the ability to be as
[3:54:33] localized as possible in the community
needs while also saying world's on fire.
[3:54:38] What are we doing and how can we be
effective at it? the climate change
[3:54:41] plan. As much as I know where staff was
trying to go with that and we did so
[3:54:45] much in the years, being productive and
tangible in our actions is probably my
[3:54:50] number one interest.
Okay, that was enough for me. What I
[3:54:55] would recommend process-wise is that we
refer this motion back to staff with
[3:55:00] everything you've heard and then you
come back with that [snorts] would be my
[3:55:04] suggestion. Amy Wilson, you're on the
list.
[3:55:09] » I'm so sorry. Go ahead.
>> It's okay. Thank you. It's actually uh
[3:55:12] easy to follow you because you actually
addressed a majority of the things that
[3:55:16] I wanted to bring up. Um I I'm new to
this department and so I don't have a
[3:55:20] lot of the history. Uh but what I what
triggered me putting my name on the list
[3:55:25] was the reference to the strategic plan.
And when you go and look at our
[3:55:28] strategic plan, there's a lot of it that
is related to this kind of work. and it
[3:55:33] if it doesn't have somewhere to be
addressed, I I'm concerned about how
[3:55:38] we're going to action that work. And I
think a lot of this work does affect
[3:55:42] regionwide municipal and rural areas.
And a lot of the work when we get down
[3:55:47] into the actual from an item through to
a project phase, a lot of that is grant
[3:55:52] funded, whether it's from other levels
of government or from the actual
[3:55:56] specific area or municipality. And that
is more and more including all of our
[3:56:00] staff time too. So just a few things and
majority of the other items I wanted to
[3:56:04] point out you've already covered chair.
Thank you.
[3:56:08] » Thanks Amy.
Okay
[3:56:12] Paige
>> you want I'm questioning you said you
[3:56:16] wanted to refer. looking at the
preparation of draft bylaws or draft
[3:56:20] terms of reference. And I didn't hear
anyone really put up too much guff about
[3:56:25] model 2 versus the other models. And I'm
just I'm just wondering if we're just
[3:56:31] inducing another cycle and giving people
more time to think with referral or if
[3:56:35] like we have direction we can get the
draft that just keeps us moving along.
[3:56:40] My suggestion is to refer it back to
staff based on everything they've heard
[3:56:44] and then come back to us with
>> another report and not a draft because I
[3:56:49] I feel if we move this we theyard
direction.
[3:56:53] » It's essentially just asking staff
you've heard everything we've said. I
[3:56:56] was asking about referral because I
didn't want to lose sight of it and our
[3:56:59] tracking and what Stuart recommended was
we refer to staff to come back based on
[3:57:04] everything we've heard with new options.
That was my suggestion. We can do
[3:57:08] something different. Does that clarify,
director Paige?
[3:57:11] » Yeah, it clarifies. I'm I'm ready to
move the motion at least.
[3:57:14] » Okay, so I've got uh
>> Vandenberg Jackman Huitt. Are Did you
[3:57:21] just move a motion, Director Page?
>> I would if it's seconded. I'd move the
[3:57:24] recommendation.
>> The recommendation as is.
[3:57:27] » Mhm.
>> Second that. [clears throat]
[3:57:29] » Okay. The motion as is on the floor.
Um
[3:57:35] same speakers list. Okay. Vandenberg, go
ahead.
[3:57:39] Um, I'm sorry. I was uh leaning towards
the referral and to have come back to us
[3:57:45] what we've heard because there's been
some interesting ideas. Um, I think that
[3:57:51] I don't know that I necessarily agree
agree with the model too, but I didn't
[3:57:54] know that I had to have that
conversation. So, I don't think that
[3:57:58] I'll be able to support the motive.
>> Okay. Uh, I'm still here.
[3:58:05] I had so I had Jackman Huitt and other
folks announced pop off. So who's Q it
[3:58:10] was before that? Jackman also you got
new on the list. Go ahead.
[3:58:16] All right. I just wanted to I thought we
stopped partway through Paris's
[3:58:21] presentation to take questions and she
still had more to go but I could be I
[3:58:25] could be incorrect.
I think we we just went ahead and
[3:58:30] started asking questions and if there
was anything just yeah there was no
[3:58:34] Paris. Was there anything else you
wanted to share with us?
[3:58:36] » Thank you through the chair. No, I just
had more potential answers to questions
[3:58:40] or questions to potent Yeah, potential
answers to questions. Um but I I think
[3:58:45] everything has been covered. There are
direct questions and to respond to them.
[3:58:48] I've noted everything that's been said.
>> Okay.
[3:58:52] » Um so Newell and Jackman were not on
that list.
[3:58:57] That's right.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, go ahead.
[3:59:01] » Me?
>> Yes.
[3:59:02] » Yeah. Thanks. Well, now this is a
recommendation. So, list is really
[3:59:05] moving to Wait. We've talked about the
world changing. This organization's
[3:59:11] changed. I'm going to go say Jim
Gustiff. Again, we were in more of a
[3:59:17] functional silo
management system back when Jim was and
[3:59:22] he was being challenged with a way to
field ideas, fund the very initial
[3:59:28] stages and make something happen. So we
created S105 which was fine at that
[3:59:33] time. We now have a much more
sophisticated system through Steuart as
[3:59:39] CEO and CFO previously where we have
allocation. We have a more of a matrix
[3:59:45] management system which is entirely
appropriate for this size of
[3:59:48] organization. You can't say, "Oh, I walk
work at water. I have a truck. I can't
[3:59:52] go get something for the rec center
because I work in water." We're well be
[3:59:57] I must have this time. I got well beyond
>> the organization we were when we created
[4:00:04] S105. Today I would say it would be a
mistake to create S105. That's what I'm
[4:00:10] trying to drive home. Okay.
>> Today what we still need under
[4:00:13] governance point is the way to hold a
conversation without being a board where
[4:00:18] we make a motion say let's do this. We
get ourselves in over our heads because
[4:00:22] we didn't have a conversation. Normal
process in local government is to have a
[4:00:26] space for conversation. that 15 dimes
are out. This recommendation preempts
[4:00:31] all of that. It preempts looking at the
fact that desk 105 is maybe past it as
[4:00:36] best before you for two reasons. They're
more sophisticated on accounting. We
[4:00:41] share resources whether somebody's
embedded in planning, embedded in water,
[4:00:45] embedded in waste management. We have a
way to pick the best staff to tackle
[4:00:50] something. So we have a conversation who
can do something, how can they fund it?
[4:00:55] we move on from there. We're not lacking
anything how to finance any of this
[4:01:00] today. The only thing we're lacking is a
space for conversation. So I would
[4:01:06] rather the first thing we see is a
response from staff and I will move
[4:01:09] referral to the committee of the whole
concept. How can we perform better to
[4:01:14] give better direction to staff and then
let them aortion it out with all the
[4:01:18] tools they have to solve our problems. I
move for referral.
[4:01:22] » I second. Okay. Just to be clear, if
you're referring the motion, that
[4:01:26] doesn't change what we're asking. We
just get the same motion next month.
[4:01:30] » Yep. That's fine because
>> But I think you're asking for it to be
[4:01:34] amended or at least recommended based on
input today.
[4:01:38] » If I can the second time, I have made
comments previously for consideration.
[4:01:44] » Jackman would like to speak.
>> Staff can give back whatever they give
[4:01:48] back
>> through the chair. I just want to speak
[4:01:50] to the relationship to the committee a
whole and this motion because I don't
[4:01:53] think this motion excludes the ability
for to move forward with the committee
[4:01:56] of the whole [clears throat] because
creating a standing committee of the
[4:02:00] board could be the committee of the
whole and all C slack items are in the
[4:02:04] purview of that committee to discuss and
it actually might bene be beneficial in
[4:02:08] looking at our other committees and the
one that jumps to mind is the emergency
[4:02:11] program executive committee where we've
only got five members who talk about
[4:02:15] things that impact the entire regional
district. So move that over to the
[4:02:18] committee the whole so they can have
more discussions around that and absolve
[4:02:21] the emergency program executive
committee. So I think that this motion
[4:02:24] does not it um it doesn't um block the
committee the whole from the discussion.
[4:02:29] I think it could um staff could still
come back with a recommendation around
[4:02:34] something like that but we could also
look at it broadly across the
[4:02:36] organization to see how it can be a bit
more efficient today on days like today
[4:02:42] where items are at the committee a
whole. So I want to clarify something
[4:02:46] before you speak again. If this is
referred, we get the motion back, but
[4:02:50] can you're saying the committee hold can
be considered? What about all the other
[4:02:53] aspects?
Does staff come back with the input to
[4:02:56] say, so here's what else we might
recommend?
[4:03:00] » Yeah, through the chair, we could come
back with something that could represent
[4:03:03] the conversation we've heard and the
list.
[4:03:07] » Yeah, it could be it could be shifted by
50%. that could be shifted completely on
[4:03:10] its head depending on where we land, but
I haven't um I wasn't uh party to all of
[4:03:16] the conversation at SEAL yesterday. So
Amy and Paris and myself can get
[4:03:20] together and discuss those items and see
how we come back if it's referred with
[4:03:24] something that would uh meet the
expectations of the group.
[4:03:29] » So Jackman did refer and it was second.
I was clarifying the intention of that.
[4:03:33] If that is the referral, then we're on
referral discussion. Jackman, back to
[4:03:38] you. You're still referring?
>> Yeah, this narrows the scope funding
[4:03:42] model too.
>> Okay, so
[4:03:44] » he needs to come up with new idea.
>> Okay, so it's been referred on referral.
[4:03:51] Uh pop off.
>> Yeah, thank you.
[4:03:55] On referral, there was a lot of comments
made here. So those comments would be
[4:04:00] considered.
>> That's what we just clarified.
[4:04:02] » Staff will come back with all of the
considerations.
[4:04:05] » Yeah. So the the other aspect there are
projects there that are only area one
[4:04:11] area will benefit from
>> on referral
[4:04:14] » on referral. So those will be addressed.
>> Yes.
[4:04:19] » Staff support is my concern about that.
>> Yeah. You're not losing that staff
[4:04:22] support.
New on referral.
[4:04:26] » No.
>> L on referral.
[4:04:29] Okay.
All those in favor?
[4:04:33] opposed.
Recorded opposing
[4:04:38] [laughter]
[4:04:40] hands.
>> Oh,
[4:04:43] short.
>> Okay. Sorry to chair. Are we wanting to
[4:04:49] put a date when this returns back to the
board or is it just
[4:04:52] » one staff is ready with it? I think.
>> Okay.
[4:04:57] Okay. I did miss something at public
time.
[4:05:01] Um, where are we on the agenda? Are we
done with
[4:05:03] » open?
Open meeting is the next.
[4:05:07] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[4:05:10] So, I needed to acknowledge someone who
has been with us for many many years.
[4:05:16] Um, after many years of dedicated
service to the RDCK, we are pleased to
[4:05:20] recognize and celebrate celebrate the
retirement of bylaw enforcement officer
[4:05:24] Pam Dial.
Pam began her career with the RDCK in
[4:05:28] 2010 as a dog control officer before
joining the bylaw department 2015.
[4:05:34] Throughout her years of service, Pam has
brought a genuine love of animals, a
[4:05:37] strong commitment to the community she
served, and a deep care for the people
[4:05:40] of the RBCK.
She has consistently approached life and
[4:05:44] her work with positivity, compassion,
and resilience. She has also been caring
[4:05:48] and supportive colleague who has always
looked out for the well-being of those
[4:05:51] around her. Pam's dedication, kindness,
sense of compassion, and commitment to
[4:05:56] the RDCK and its residents have made a
lasting impact. We thank Pam for her
[4:06:00] many years of service and wish her all
the very best as she begins the next
[4:06:03] chapter of her life. Congratulations on
your retirement, Pam. I know you can't
[4:06:07] hear me, but I'm putting it out there.
Thank you for everything you have done
[4:06:10] to the RDCK and the communities. And if
you see Pam,
[4:06:14] by all means, give her a big hug if you
would like.
[4:06:18] Okay, sorry I missed that. Now we I will
take a we need just do our afternoon
[4:06:25] break real quick and then we'll go in
time.
[4:06:28] Okay. And then
That was
[4:07:04] We are backing
[4:07:09] uh a motion to close the meeting to the
public. Second. Thank you. Discussion.
[4:07:13] All those in favor? Opposed? Carried.
Recess of the meeting.
[4:07:18] » So move discussion.
>> Just voice you use sounded like the
[4:07:25] voice.
>> Sorry.
[4:07:28] » Sorry about that.
Uh so we are currently recessing an open
[4:07:33] meeting. All those in favor
opposed carried.
[4:07:40] » Uh Walter and Aiden if you're going to
stay on if you can turn on your cameras.
[4:07:46] » Steve Hopkins is she still around?