[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?

Regional District of Central Kootenay Board Meeting - August 20, 2026

Transcript