[0:02] This conference will now be recorded.

[0:08] » Good afternoon everyone. Welcome. I'd like to call to order the city of Salmon

[0:13] regular council meeting of Monday, August 24th. Welcome to you all. Welcome

[0:18] to our staff, guests who are in the gallery and council members both who are

[0:24] here virtually and in person. Councelor Lingurn, Councelor Cannon, Councelor

[0:28] Wallace Richmond, Councelor Ganella, and myself are in the council chamber.

[0:32] Councelor Lavy, good afternoon. Nice to see you.

[0:38] Councilors, we have a uh agenda to consider. I will check with our CEO to

[0:43] see if there are any um changes to the agenda.

[0:48] » Yes, your worship. Um there's an addition of an in camera session as item

[0:53] four and the following late submissions letter dated August 20th 2026 related to

[1:00] item 22.1 uh VP627

[1:05] as well as item 14.1 emails of August 23rd and 22nd um from Armore and a group

[1:14] and uh that's it. >> Great. Thank you. If I could have a

[1:18] motion to adopt that agenda as uh adjusted. Thank you, Councelor Wallace

[1:23] Richmond. Okay, I can get that question after I

[1:26] get a seconder. Councelor Ganella, councelor Canon,

[1:29] » please go ahead. >> Was there also a change in the agenda of

[1:35] how two things line up the order? >> I through your worship to councelor

[1:42] Cannon. Yes, that was also contemplated. Um item

[1:48] 10 10.11

[1:52] and 10.10 will be switched. Thank you for that.

[1:56] » Thank you councelor Can for cashing. I'll check with her mover and seconder.

[1:59] Make sure you're comfortable with that. Yes. Okay. Um any other input to that

[2:04] motion? Call a question. All those in favor?

[2:08] Thank you very much. Um I'd like to acknowledge our traditional territory.

[2:13] We acknowledge we're gathering here on the traditional territory of the

[2:16] Shaquetmik people with whom we share these lands where we live and we work

[2:21] together. Council, as uh you heard, we're going to

[2:24] move in uh in camera. Um we have a motion for consideration and I'll ask

[2:29] our CEO to read that motion. >> That pursuant to section 91 of the

[2:35] community charter, council moving camera.

[2:38] » Thank you. Is there a mover and a seconder? Councelor Lingren, councelor

[2:42] Cannon. Thank you. Just before I call the uh vote on it, um for members of the

[2:46] public who might be with us um at this time, uh our regular session will

[2:51] reconvene at 100 p.m. Any input to the motion?

[2:57] Call a question. All those in favor

[3:02] that passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll just give a minute to adjust uh

[3:09] before we go into our camera session.

[3:19] just check with our corporate officer. Um we're okay to uh continue with the

[3:25] virtual um session that's on the screen now.

[3:33] This conference will now be recorded.

[3:48] I'd like to resume the city of Salmon regular council meeting of Monday,

[3:52] August the 24th. Um for those who are with us virtually, welcome to you all. I

[3:57] see that we have uh our media with us as well as some members of the public.

[4:01] Councelor Lavy is also with us virtually. Councelor Lingren, councelor

[4:05] Cannon, councelor Walls Richmond, councelor Canella and myself are in the

[4:09] council chamber along with our staff. So, welcome everyone. We have read the

[4:14] acknowledgement of traditional territory and we've adopted our agenda. I'm going

[4:18] to ask councilors if there is any disclosure of interest that you have

[4:22] over any of the items in the regular council meeting today. Councelor

[4:32] Ganella. >> Thank you, your worship. In

[4:35] correspondence 14.1.9, um the letter from the Trail Alliance,

[4:41] um I have declared a conflict that my employer has sponsored the Trail

[4:46] Alliance event each year. Um item 141.15

[4:52] um the Shishwap Agricultural Association's request for road closure.

[4:57] Uh my organization I work for has rents the property the south fairgrounds from

[5:03] this organization. >> Thank you councelor Ganell. When we get

[5:06] there we'll deal with those two first and then you'll be able to return for

[5:09] the rest. >> Appreciate it. Thank you.

[5:10] » Any other disclosure of interest from any counselor at this time?

[5:16] Okay. Seeing none, we'll uh continue with our business then. Um the first is

[5:21] confirmation of minutes of the regular council meeting of August the 10th. We

[5:25] have a proposed motion. If I could have a mover and a seconder, councelor

[5:28] Wallace Richmond and councelor Lingren. Thank you very much. Is there any

[5:34] additions deletions to those minutes? Seeing none, I'll call a question. All

[5:40] those in favor? That passes unanimously? Any business

[5:44] arising? Council. Okay. We have one committee report which

[5:49] says development planning services committee meeting minutes of August the

[5:52] 17th. Is there any business arising from those minutes?

[5:58] [clears throat] Seeing none, we'll move to the Columbia

[6:02] Shushwap Regional District update. We don't have a written update today, but

[6:05] perhaps one of our reps wishes to uh speak to any happenings in the CSRD as

[6:11] would be welcome if you do.

[6:17] Seeing none, we will move forward. Um, we don't have any presentations today,

[6:21] so we'll go to tab 10, which is the staff reports. The first one is the

[6:26] corporate officer's uh report on the deputy chief financial officer

[6:31] appointment. We do have a proposed motion. Um, councelor Canam will move

[6:36] that motion. Councelor Wallace Richmond will second. And I'll ask Miss West if

[6:40] she would speak to the report. Thank you, your worship and members of

[6:46] council. The report before you seeks council's formal appointment of Chelsea

[6:51] Vanderapel as deputy chief financial officer for the city of Salmon effective

[6:56] August 24th, 2026. This is an administrative and statutory

[7:02] appointment required under section 149 of the community charter and the city's

[7:08] officers designation and establishment bylaw number 4267.

[7:13] The community charter requires that a municipal officer be assigned

[7:17] responsibility for financial administration and the city's bylaw

[7:22] establishes both the chief financial officer and the deputy chief financial

[7:26] officer roles and identifies the powers, duties, and functions associated with

[7:31] those positions. If council supports the motion, Chelsea Vanderapel will be

[7:37] formally appointed as deputy chief financial officer and an oath of office

[7:42] will be sworn following the appointment. There are no financial implications

[7:48] identified, but with the appointment of Miss Vanderapel, adding her to the

[7:55] financial department will definitely be an asset.

[7:58] » Thank you very much. and I'm available for questions. [snorts]

[8:02] » Counselors, any questions or comments that you have around this motion?

[8:10] » Seeing none, I will call the question. All those in favor

[8:14] that passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll move to 10 two, which is from the

[8:20] manager of engineering and planks here today on the Claire's Cove lift station

[8:24] upgrade award of contract. There is a proposed motion. Um, councelor Lavy, are

[8:29] you uh comfortable moving it? Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?

[8:33] Councelor Ganella, and I'll ask uh Blank if she would speak to the report. Good

[8:37] afternoon. Nice to have you here. >> Thank you, your worship.

[8:43] » In 2025, the city issued a request for proposals for the full replacement of

[8:48] the Claris Cove lift station. The procurement process did not proceed as

[8:53] the pricing received at that time exceeded the approved project budget.

[8:58] In 2026, the city revised the project scope and issued a new request for

[9:03] proposals for the Claris Cove lift station upgrades. The revised scope

[9:08] focuses on priority improvements to the existing facility, including replacement

[9:13] of pumps and associated components, installation of a spray-on liner, force

[9:19] main works, and related site improvements. These upgrades are

[9:23] required to maintain the reliable operation of the lift station and ensure

[9:27] the continued provision of sanitary sewer service. The request for proposals

[9:32] for the Claire's Cove lift station upgrades closed on July 16th, 2026. One

[9:38] proposal was received by the closing deadline from Spark Industries and

[9:42] Automation with a proposed price of $272,947.89

[9:49] 89 plus applicable taxes. The proposal was reviewed by the project coordinator,

[9:56] capital works supervisor, loss and engineering, and the utilities manager.

[10:01] Although the submitted price exceeds the engineering estimate of $245,600,

[10:08] staff are satisfied that that the proposal meets the project requirements

[10:13] and represents fair value for the proposed scope of work. It is also

[10:17] within the approved project budget of $490,000.

[10:22] Based on the evaluation, staff recommend that council select Spark Industries and

[10:26] Automation as the preferred proponent and authorize staff to negotiate and

[10:31] finalize a construction contract in accordance with the terms and conditions

[10:35] of the request for proposals. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[10:38] » Great. Thank you very much. I'll open it up to council if you have questions or

[10:42] have comments. We'll start with councelor Cannon. So I just had a

[10:46] question in regards to the project budget is 490

[10:53] but this is just a portion that we're allotting or did we downsize uh what

[10:58] this project was going to be cuz of the the bids that came over the 245 that

[11:05] Lawson had uh uh did the estimate on. So you're

[11:11] referring to under financial considerations where it says the

[11:14] proposal submitted by Spark with 272 plus applicable taxes is within the

[11:21] available project budget at 490,000. >> So did we budget 490 for this project

[11:26] and we're just doing a portion of it is my question.

[11:29] » Thank you. Um Miss Plank, could you answer that question

[11:33] » through your worship? My understanding was that the original project scope that

[11:37] went out um the bids that came in exceeded the project budget of uh

[11:43] 490,000 and then the scope was adjusted and sent

[11:47] out and we received the one bid from Spark. So their bid uh with within the

[11:53] revised scope um does fall within the project budget and the remainder of that

[11:58] will be to do some other site works. So, I understand some of that will be done,

[12:03] I believe, by city staff. >> Miss C. Uh, councelor Cannon, do you

[12:08] have any followup? >> Yeah. So, just so I understand, Spark

[12:12] was awarded with the 272 947.

[12:18] Uh, but the budget project or the project budget is 490. So, the rest of

[12:25] the works to bring it up to that will get done by city staff.

[12:30] M >> plank

[12:31] » for your worship. Our project coordinator who was part of the

[12:35] evaluation process is here. So perhaps he can answer those questions in more

[12:38] detail. >> Good afternoon,

[12:40] » Mr. Daf. It's so pleasant to see you. >> Thank you very much. Your worship. Uh

[12:44] yeah so the uh the original uh uh scope of the project when we budgeted the 490

[12:50] included a electrical work which is uh included a kiosk placement and it

[12:55] included a grading of the work uh lock block fencing and side grading. Uh so

[13:01] we're only awarding one portion of the work right now which is the the lining

[13:05] and the replacement of the bump. Later on we are uh the the remaining of the

[13:09] budget will be used to uh procure a kiosk as well as uh use the city staff

[13:15] crew to uh uh grade the grade the site as well as put fencer around.

[13:20] » So the remaining work to be done. >> Thank you. I'll just pass back to

[13:23] councelor canon. See if you have any follow my question. Yeah.

[13:26] » Thank you very much. >> Um is there any other questions or

[13:30] comments counselors have?

[13:35] I guess I would just I just comment. Um first of all, thank you for your work.

[13:40] Um we know that the list station at uh Claire's Cove Marina pumps the sewage

[13:46] from canoe to the treatment plant in Seminar. Um so it's a very important

[13:51] project. The upgrade is essential to make sure it works. Um, and the cost is

[13:57] about $27,000 over the budget, which is um, in a

[14:03] budget this size, it's um, some money, but it's not um, I would say not

[14:08] prohibitive. So, I certainly will uh, support the motion to move ahead.

[14:15] See no other speakers, I will call a question. All those in favor?

[14:20] That passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

[14:23] Okay, we'll go to 10 three, which is a manager of engineering water meter

[14:28] pressure response. There's no motion here. This is for information. Um, I'll

[14:32] ask Miss Plank if she'd like to to summarize the report. Thank you for

[14:36] doing the research. >> Thank you, your worship. Um, at the

[14:41] regular council meeting of July 13th, council received correspondence from a

[14:46] property owner expressing concerns about water pressure at their residence and

[14:50] requesting that the city replace their existing meter with a larger meter. They

[14:54] have an existing 3/4 in water meter and they were requesting that the city

[14:59] replace it with a 1-in meter. So, analysis by staff indicated that the

[15:04] pressure loss experienced at the residence is largely due to the length

[15:08] of the service. So their service is about a thousand feet long and the

[15:14] average length of a service in the city is closer to say anywhere from 30 to 65

[15:20] ft long. So they have an excessively long um pipe going long service a 1-in

[15:26] pipe going from the main in the street up to their residence. In addition,

[15:31] their residence sits about 6 ft higher than the pipe in the street or 6 ft

[15:37] above the elevation of the street. So that causes some loss of pressure about

[15:41] uh the equivalent of about 2 pounds per square inch. Um there's there's a little

[15:46] bit of loss across the meter, but that's less than 1 PSI. And the analysis

[15:51] indicated that even replacing the 3/4in meter with a 1-in meter would not

[15:57] materially affect the loss of pressure. Primarily, it's because of the length of

[16:01] the service. Uh having said that, the pressure that they're experiencing at

[16:06] their residence, they're indicating it's about 32 pounds per square inch, that

[16:10] does meet the minimum pressure requirements in our subdivision

[16:15] servicing standards. So they are receiving the pressure that's in align

[16:19] um in alignment with our standards and uh I am available for any further

[16:26] questions you may have. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much

[16:29] for that uh report and for the summary. Counselors, I'll open it up to you if

[16:34] you have any questions. Councelor Lingren, please go ahead.

[16:36] » Thanks, Worship. Um, always interesting to learn something new about something

[16:40] you never heard of before. So, um, I'm just curious about mitigation for this

[16:45] um, household. Are there other things that they can do besides replacing the

[16:50] meter? And is it worth our while or is it too expensive to replace the meter

[16:54] just to show them that that's not where the issue is? Um could they for instance

[16:58] have a pump on their property that increases water pressure?

[17:02] » M plank >> through your worship that is exactly

[17:05] what they could do to boost the pressure individually on their own uh on their

[17:09] own service. They could install a pressure pump on their service. Okay.

[17:13] Thanks. >> Thank you.

[17:16] » As there's no motion, is there any other comment or question on this report?

[17:24] » We appreciate staff bringing it to council. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll

[17:27] go to 10.4 which is manage of engineering auto road connector Fordus

[17:31] BC high-pressure gas mains. Um moved by councelor Lavy, seconded by councelor

[17:36] Ganella. Miss plank, we're back to you. Thank you

[17:40] very much. >> Thank you your worship. The proposed

[17:44] autoroad connector crosses two Fordis BC high-pressure transmission pipelines and

[17:51] in May of 2024, council approved Fordis BC to complete a class 4 estimate for

[17:58] upgrading [clears throat and snorts] or replacement of these two mains. The

[18:01] estimate package was received in July 2025 and this confirmed that due to

[18:06] their age and their depth, the both pipelines would have to be replaced at a

[18:11] lower depth for an estimated cost of $1,643,000.

[18:17] However, the estimate that was provided at that time was valid for only 3 months

[18:21] and had expired by the time that the 2026 budget was approved. A revised

[18:27] estimate was received in July 2026 with an increase of $33,000

[18:32] to $1,676,000.

[18:36] An alternative option was considered and that was leaving the pipelines in place

[18:41] and modifying the autoro connector design, but due to the shallow depth and

[18:46] age of the mains and the steep topography, an alternative option was

[18:50] not feasible. Fortis BC have proposed a schedule for

[18:54] the works and provided that the city completes the cost letter agreement

[18:58] during August 2026. Fortis will complete archaeological investigations and

[19:04] material procurement in 2027 and commence construction in May of 2028.

[19:10] This would allow the city to commence the construction of the auto road

[19:14] connector in 2029 subject to available funds. And I'm available for any

[19:20] questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much uh for the report. We'll turn

[19:24] it over to council if they have questions or comments. Councelor

[19:26] Lingram, we'll start with you. >> Thanks worship. I just a question about

[19:30] why this is the city's cost to bear. If this belongs to Foris and the age of and

[19:36] the depth of the pipes make them high risk for whatever reason,

[19:41] why isn't Foris having to pay to have them moved and replaced?

[19:47] » Miss Plank, can you respond to that? uh through your worship. I don't know

[19:52] the answer to that question. I believe it may have to do with the fact that the

[19:56] city is um requesting to do some work to to account for or to accommodate our

[20:04] auto road connector. I don't know if the timeline if Foris would have uh replace

[20:10] them perhaps later, but I can certainly do some more investigation and find out

[20:15] exactly why. And I also don't know if this cost that has been quoted is the

[20:20] entire cost to replace those mains or whether that's just the city's portion,

[20:24] but I can certainly find out some some answers for you.

[20:27] » Yeah, I think I'd like to know if that's a cost share then because that would

[20:30] make a lot of sense actually if that's the if that's the case. Thanks.

[20:34] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Um, are there other comments um from council?

[20:41] Councelor Lavy. >> Yeah, thanks Mayor Harrison. Uh just a

[20:45] question through you the finance staff. I think I'm not sure who's in the

[20:49] gallery, but I think we have some potential candidates for council online

[20:53] here. Um >> we do we have an expert out there.

[20:57] » There uh is so the the proposal of taking almost $1.7 million out of the uh

[21:04] reserve fund, the auto road extension reserve fund through you to I think

[21:09] finance staff. Um could they generally describe

[21:14] how that reserve account is funded? >> Mr. Graniac.

[21:20] » Uh thank you your worship and through to councelor Lavy. We fund it um every

[21:27] year. We throw some money in every year and then it accumulates interest and I

[21:31] don't know when the fund started but I can I can look back on that and we

[21:35] continue to fund it through taxation every year. Thank you,

[21:39] » Councelor Lavy. >> Yeah, thanks. Thanks for that

[21:42] information. It certainly confirms my understanding. So, general comments

[21:45] worship fully support this. This is important news. Um, this is key road

[21:50] infrastructure. It's been long needed. Um, it's important, I think, for

[21:56] residents to understand that these things happen step by step, phase by

[22:03] phase. And I'm glad to hear the using words like 2028 and 2029, all of it

[22:08] contingent on available funding, but this is how local governments do it. I

[22:15] would just note that one about $1.7 million is the equivalent if it was to

[22:22] be done right off the bat out of taxation almost a 7% tax increase. So to

[22:28] get these important, highly prioritized items underway, it takes time. Not only

[22:34] for design, not only for working with other agencies like we have here, it

[22:38] takes time to save the money so that the project moves forward. residents aren't

[22:45] hit with a huge tax bill and that we squirrel money away in the reserve

[22:51] responsibly to get to these high uh high highly

[22:56] needed infrastructure. Uh kudos to staff for uh guiding this and I look forward

[23:02] to it being done. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments or

[23:07] questions from council? Councelor Lingren.

[23:09] » Uh thanks worship. Just a question about the auto road connector. Do we have a

[23:13] ballpark figure of what that project will cost one day if say we were to be

[23:18] able to do it in 2029? We'd have to save a lot of money I imagine.

[23:22] » Um not sure who to ask that perhaps Miss

[23:26] Plank. >> Thank you through your worship. The uh I

[23:31] believe there is 3.4 million in the current reserve account and what I noted

[23:36] from looking at this project is in the 20-year plan. There's another I believe

[23:40] it's 4 million allocated for 2029. So, um those are the two numbers that I

[23:47] have available right now. >> Okay. But we don't know if that

[23:53] 4 million plus whatever's left here, 1.7 million that's left over is going to be

[23:57] enough to do the um actual work. I guess >> that's through your worship. That's a

[24:03] very good question. there are factors that could um in the subsequent years

[24:07] there could be changes to the costs of materials that kind of thing. Um but at

[24:12] at this point that's what we have allocated and because it's kind of a I

[24:16] mean that's that's several years out so as we get closer to doing things like

[24:20] the detail design we'll have more refined cost estimates.

[24:24] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you confident.

[24:27] Um the question that I had is the revised estimate was received in July

[24:34] and it was an increase of 33,000. So if we go along this route and we're

[24:42] looking at uh a letter agreement August 2026

[24:48] uh material procurement 2027 construction May 2028. Does this

[24:55] agreement lock us in to this price or are we looking at possibly 33,000 plus

[25:03] added on each year that we have? >> Miss blank.

[25:08] » Uh through your worship. Um my understanding based on the history of

[25:11] this is that initially the um there was a cost estimate of 1,643,000

[25:17] that was valid for three months. And the cost um the reason this item is coming

[25:24] forward again is because there was an increase from that time of 33,000 to so

[25:30] it's now uh 1,676,000. Um I don't know what factors influence

[25:36] that cost but it is it is possible that um if if um this agreement does not take

[25:44] place that again the cost will be adjusted. I don't know um if this I'm

[25:49] assuming that this agreement similarly has a kind of a cuto off date that says

[25:54] it's valid for this period of time. It could be similar to the previous one

[25:58] that says this amount this agreement is valid for 3 months and then another

[26:04] estimate would have to be created. I that would be my that would be my guess.

[26:09] So here worship three. So my question is forest BC have proposed a schedule for

[26:14] the works similar to the three-month one which expired. So if we go into this

[26:21] agreement, is this pricing locked in on these timelines?

[26:27] Miss Blank, uh, >> through your worship, I I would make the

[26:31] assumption, yes, I can find out for sure, but I believe once the agreement

[26:35] is signed that says this is the price for the work, um, that would be the

[26:41] price for the work, but I can certainly find out if that's the case.

[26:44] » Thank you. I I support this. I think that's a important uh connection in our

[26:49] roads. >> Thank you, Councelor Cannon.

[26:53] Any other speakers to the motion? Okay, I'll just summarize my thoughts.

[27:00] Um, this is part of our long-term strategic plan and the reason it is such

[27:06] an important connector is because of the densification that's happened up in the

[27:10] Hillrest area and what happens presently is the traffic gets funneled down 10th

[27:16] down fifth um through the residential areas um even

[27:22] if it's not heading in that way. So this is a long had been a long planned uh

[27:28] connector road to move the traffic so that it uh does not have to go in that

[27:32] direction. The

[27:37] land acquisition piece um took some time and we have always known that the fortis

[27:42] gas mains are there. Um for is not going to replace or move those gas mains and

[27:51] they wouldn't if we didn't do our project. Um so I think it really is

[27:56] important for us to lock in at this price as we can see if we don't the

[28:00] increases will continue to happen. We do have the money to do the project and

[28:06] when you work with fordis foris um does the procurement um of the project we

[28:13] supply the money and that is how it works um when you work with uh when you

[28:18] work with a utility like foris. So, I I really appreciate this uh piece, this

[28:24] report, and the fact that we're moving forward on the project, and I know the

[28:28] residents that live down in that area certainly will be happy to see um this

[28:33] progress being made, and especially as councelor Lavy said, with the dates that

[28:37] are there. Um this is very promising. So, um major project um very important

[28:43] project, I'll certainly support this step.

[28:48] See no other speakers. So I will call a motion. All those in favor

[28:53] that passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

[28:57] Okay, let's talk about washrooms. We have a report from the director of

[29:04] operations. Um there isn't a motion yet. Um but there may well be. But how about

[29:11] if we hear from Mr. JRo about Blackburn Park offseason washroom options and then

[29:17] see if council wishes to make a motion. Thank you for your report.

[29:21] » Thank you. Good afternoon worship members of council. So way back when

[29:24] January 26 regular council meeting uh we received correspondence from Shishwap

[29:29] youth soccer association requesting that washroom facilities be made available um

[29:33] for the newly built uh synthetic turf fields.

[29:38] Um staff brought back a report in February with options for these washroom

[29:42] facilities to remain open. It outlined uh options um through discussions it was

[29:47] determined that utilizing the existing washroom facility while protecting for

[29:51] the winter weather would be the best option. Uh should be noted that staff

[29:56] have received feedback over the years um from a variety of non-sock and non-sport

[30:00] users um including playground visitors, walkers throughout the year requesting

[30:04] that this washroom remain open for longer portions of the year.

[30:08] uh including throughout winter months. So we've identified the work required

[30:12] and prepared cost estimates which you can see in the the graph in the or table

[30:15] in the report. Um for purpose of these estimates it was assumed that the

[30:19] washrooms would remain open for the period where they are typically closed

[30:23] which is approximately from October 31st to March 19th. This resulted in 140

[30:29] additional days um of maintenance and operations if open each and every one of

[30:33] these days. Um it would be anticipated that they would remain open, but the

[30:38] hours could be varied um based on bookings and and use of the park.

[30:44] Uh it should also be noted that other yearround public washrooms uh like Ross

[30:48] Street Plaza, they typically don't receive uh weekend maintenance during

[30:52] the fall and winter months. When we have staff on weekends during the winter,

[30:56] they will uh tend to them. However, they typically do go the weekends without

[31:00] maintenance and typically is not an issue. However, there's been vandalism

[31:04] and graffiti um where it may lead to temporary closures until they can be

[31:09] repaired. Um staff reviewed available funding

[31:12] sources. Um we are quite confident that the replacement of the Meguire Lake

[31:16] Fountain um is not required now um thanks to the repairs been completed on

[31:20] that. There was a total of $100,000 budgeted um for that project within the

[31:25] 2026 budget and only a small portion of those funds have been allocated for the

[31:29] repairs. So that leaves uh approximately $80,000. Alternatively, council could

[31:34] fund through allocation from the Black Park Reserve Fund estimated to have a

[31:40] year-end balance of approximately $210,000.

[31:44] And if approved, uh staff would include funding required for ongoing operations

[31:48] and maintenance within the 2027 parks operations maintenance budget. Um,

[31:53] however, we're quite confident that the the hours um for maintaining for the

[31:58] remainder of 2026 can be covered in this year's budget.

[32:03] Um, I'm open to any questions you may have.

[32:05] » Great. Thank you. Uh, I'm wondering if there's a counselor that would like to

[32:09] make a motion that we allocate $5,750 from the Maguire Lake Fountain Fund um

[32:15] for this project. Councelor Wallace Richmond. Councelor Cannon, thank you

[32:19] for getting the motion on the floor. I'll go to councelor Wallace Richmond

[32:23] next. >> Yes, thank you. Happy to move the

[32:25] motion. Thank you to staff for um looking into it. Seems a very reasonable

[32:29] solution and I will um 100% support it. >> Thank you councelor Wallace Richmond.

[32:35] Councelor Cannon. >> Thank you worship. I too will support

[32:38] this. Um I think as uh director of

[32:45] I always forget your title operations. [laughter]

[32:48] » I was going to say SRS. got a lot of hats, so I get it.

[32:52] » Saw a different hat this morning. Um, we know that even before the youth

[32:59] soccer approached us, um, in the past, especially early spring, uh, I always

[33:05] fielded a lot of phone calls from moms and dads down there playing at the park

[33:10] with their kids and, you know, having to use a tree and they really wanted to see

[33:16] year round uh, use of the washrooms down there. And I know it comes at a cost,

[33:21] but I think our taxpayers will really appreciate having a washroom to use year

[33:27] round. >> Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Councelor

[33:30] Lingren, >> thanks for worship. I too will support

[33:32] this moving forward. I think we're um probably a little bit late coming to the

[33:36] table with year round washrooms people. We've seen many instances across town. I

[33:42] think we need more of these actually. Um uh my I've I've been inundated since um

[33:50] whatever the last conference we went to was at UBCM. Um not UBCM

[33:56] » FCM FCM in Edmonton. Um I've been inundated with uh emails from Urban

[34:02] Blue, which is a company out of Quebec that um designs and builds uh

[34:07] self-cleaning winterized type, you know, these magical washrooms that lock

[34:12] themselves up at night. And I'm just thinking now this is a timely thing

[34:16] because maybe as we move forward with new washrooms and more washrooms that

[34:20] are open 24/7 that and and particularly with um you know uh vandalism and people

[34:27] attempting to sleep in washrooms, that sort of thing. Um we might want to start

[34:31] looking at some company that's providing kind of smart washrooms. Um apparently

[34:37] Summerland has one that is, you know, close enough for us to go and tour if we

[34:42] wanted to. So anyway, just a thought for moving forward.

[34:45] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Any other speakers to the motion?

[34:50] Seeing none, I'll call a question. All those in favor?

[34:54] That passes unanimously. Thank you for the report and for the funding options.

[35:00] Okay, we're at uh 10.6. Director of Plan and Community Services, Street Cafe

[35:06] Policy Amendments. There is a motion for consideration. Um, is there a mover and

[35:11] a second or councelor Lingren will move? Councelor Ganella will second. I'll ask

[35:16] Mr. Buckston if you would speak to the report.

[35:18] » Thank you, worship, members of council. Absolutely. Um, dating back to June of

[35:23] this year, um, council did receive some correspondence. We did report back in

[35:26] July um with respect to that correspondence leading to a motion

[35:32] um on July 27th from council asking us to review this policy based on the the

[35:38] feedback that we provided in the letters that we

[35:42] um that we got and council was looking for accessibility and barrier free

[35:45] access requirements for street cafes and referring to building code requirements.

[35:49] So we've done that. Um the amended uh street cafe policy that is in front of

[35:56] you. Um the primary amendment is in section 4.7D. Previously

[36:02] um it was stated that patio should be accessible and strongly encouraged.

[36:06] We've simply changed the the words in that section to read shall and required.

[36:11] So it is now mandatory. Um, we also did look into the the

[36:17] building code requirements and that led to a building accessibility

[36:21] accessibility handbook, which is a um, if any of you have ever read the BC

[36:25] building code and fallen asleep doing so, um, this is a much more user

[36:29] friendly way of getting to the relevant provisions that deal with it. So, we've

[36:33] referred to that. Um, and it makes reference to ramps with a grade of no

[36:38] more than one in 12 or 5 degrees. Um, wheelchair access to all seating. um

[36:43] with widths of no less than 1.5 meters and turnaround areas for wheelchairs of

[36:47] no less than 1.5 meters. Those are the bare minimums that I sort of pulled out

[36:52] of that um that handbook. Um while we were into reviewing the

[36:59] policy um the people that administer this made a couple of recommendations

[37:02] that we've noted to sections 4 I 4 I uh 48 and 75 that are sort of

[37:09] clarification amendments. They we're bringing those along. They're unrelated

[37:13] really. Those just add clarity about uh certain issues.

[37:19] Um those are just ad I would consider administrative amendments. Um we did

[37:23] also refer the the policy changes to downtown salmon arm. Um and as you can

[37:29] see in their correspondence, they have some concerns that the se that the

[37:32] references in sections 43 and 47 with respect to uh wheelchair access widths

[37:39] and turning radi um are a little too restrictive due to the limited

[37:44] dimensions that occur on some of the patios. So um their their recommendation

[37:49] is to limit the changes to the ramp being provided and to remove the other

[37:52] references. um staff didn't make those changes

[37:57] because those contradict the the reference in the motion to building code

[38:02] requirements. So I felt that the the motion was quite specific. Um but if

[38:06] council wanted to make those changes, I would recommend you refer it back to us

[38:10] then rather than trying to maneuver through a motion this afternoon that

[38:13] that picks apart certain sections. So um that that's a summary of the changes

[38:19] that we've made. Um literally the the principal section changes from um should

[38:25] to shall um strongly suggested to required so

[38:29] that um they are now required to produce the ramps that were currently previously

[38:34] just suggested. >> Thank you very much Mr. Buckston. Um we

[38:38] will turn it over to council to see if they have any questions or comments.

[38:42] Start with councelor Cannon. >> Thank you. Um, I really appreciate that

[38:46] we took it to the DSA. Um, and I think that, you know, they really represent

[38:53] people that have the patios and

[38:58] definitely, uh, Jennifer brought up some good, you know, some good thoughts. And

[39:03] I think the do we have to do it exactly like the building code or can we am I

[39:09] hearing that we can make changes to it to accommodate uh what

[39:17] they're possibly recommending that we do.

[39:19] » Mr. Buckton to the chair. If council wished to simply have the the motion

[39:25] refer to ramps then we can make those changes. Let's say I didn't because I

[39:30] felt that council's council's motion was very clear [laughter] about what it

[39:34] wanted to see in the in the amendments. But if council wanted to make that

[39:40] recommendation, I can take it back, pull those things out um and bring it back

[39:45] for for council to reconsider. I I think it, you know, is all about

[39:51] accessibility and I think that if a ramp gives the accessibility that we're

[39:55] looking for rather than restricting and taking up lots of more space of the

[40:01] small patio already. Um I would like to see us just do ramps and accommodate

[40:07] this suggestion from the DSA. >> Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Uh we'll

[40:12] see how this discussion goes. I may come back for a deferral motion if if you

[40:17] feel that's necessary. But >> so deferral is how we would handle it.

[40:20] » Um I I'll just I don't want to talk about deferral right this minute because

[40:24] we can't talk about it. But that would be an option.

[40:27] » And the other option wouldn't be to make the motion do this.

[40:33] » Yeah. I think Mr. Buckton was suggesting we send it back to staff. Mr. Buckton,

[40:36] do you wish to comment? I think I if if council has the wish to

[40:42] change it, my recommendation is to refer it refer it back to staff. Not defer,

[40:46] but refer back. >> Yeah,

[40:49] » that's an R and not a D. Correct. >> Got it.

[40:53] » Okay, you're on it. That was my error. >> Um, councelor Cannon, you're you're

[40:57] complete for now. >> Yeah.

[40:58] » Okay, then we'll go to councelor Lingren next.

[41:02] » Thanks, Worship. Um, so I feel a bit differently about this. I'm in favor of

[41:06] approving this the way it's written. Um there are some pretty easy creative ways

[41:11] to create that 1.5 or whatever it is 4T um space for a wheelchair to turn around

[41:18] in. It can be that once you're on the ramp, the wheelchair accessible seating

[41:22] is the first space. A table can be on a hinge so it can be lifted out of the way

[41:26] to create the space and then put the table down when the wheelchair is

[41:29] parked. I don't think this is a complicated thing to solve. Um, and I I

[41:34] would be fine with it going ahead just the way it is.

[41:37] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Um, we'll go to Councelor Lavy next.

[41:41] » Thanks, Mayor Harrison. And, uh, thanks to staff for the work that they've done

[41:46] on this. I really appreciate it. U, my first question is just a confirmatory

[41:51] one. Um, with the, uh, proposals, it says the ramp has to be fixed to the

[41:59] patio. And I I think it's pretty straightforward, but I'm want to confirm

[42:03] for anybody who's watching that means no temporary wrap. Is that correct,

[42:09] » Mr. Buckton? >> That's correct. That language was very

[42:11] specific to that intent. >> Thank you very much,

[42:14] » Council Lavin. Continue. >> Yeah. And I I have some of the same um

[42:18] ponderings about uh especially with the turning radi.

[42:25] Um, I think it can be done, but I'm comfortable your worship um sending this

[42:32] back to staff uh to fine-tune that. I think it's uh

[42:39] it's important I the the crux of this is that the policy now says

[42:47] will shall be and required in terms of the access to that. So, I I um we've

[42:53] come a ways here. Um we're talking of a policy that would not take in effect

[42:58] until the next patio season that would give owners time to adjust. And I think

[43:04] this benefits from uh I and I see all all the points that are being made here,

[43:09] but I think uh that gives staff to come back with a proposal. on the whole if

[43:14] there's a way of not uh uh codifying the turning radi I'd like to hear staff's

[43:22] input on that. So I will uh support what might be upcoming. Thank you.

[43:27] » Thank you councelor Lavy. Are there other speakers?

[43:32] Maybe I'll just say my part then and others might chime in. Um I'm I agree

[43:37] with councelor Cannon and the input from downtown Salmon. Um I I think um

[43:44] everybody loves patios um for sure and they're a very important part of our

[43:48] downtown and as we know they really became established uh during the

[43:53] pandemic to to help out restaurants be able to make their businesses work um so

[43:58] that people could go outdoors and I guess it was a a positive uh thing that

[44:03] happened um despite despite that pandemic. the I think what we asked was

[44:09] um that we wanted those patios to be accessible by ramp um and a

[44:18] permanent ramp and councelor Lavy has confirmed that. So I I want to see that

[44:24] change for 2027. So you must have a permanent ramp on the patios. Um, but I

[44:29] don't want to overregulate it because the

[44:34] amount of room is like a parking space and it's not very large. And so, um, we

[44:41] want to have patios and we want them people to be able to get on them. I

[44:44] think there are ways, um, for people to maneuver on them without having to

[44:50] follow the the large, um, areas that are described in this, uh, draft. So, um I

[44:58] would support referring it back to staff to bring it back to us with the ramp

[45:04] piece in but without the other parts.

[45:10] Any other speakers? Councelor Canon, if you're wanting to

[45:13] make that amendment, now would be the time.

[45:18] » I would like to refer I'll defer this back to staff to make those changes.

[45:24] » Okay. Is there a seconder to that amendment? Councelor Ganella.

[45:30] Speaking to the amendment, councelor Canon, do you have further input to the

[45:34] amendment? >> I just think that uh of all things that

[45:39] uh worship you touched on limited space. I mean,

[45:44] » really, we want ramps and we want them to be fixed so

[45:49] that uh wheelchairs and it's accessible to everyone. So, see what staff comes up

[45:55] with. >> Thank you. Any other speakers to the

[45:58] amendment? >> We'll call a question on the amendment.

[46:02] All those in favor.

[46:08] Now, we'll talk about the motion as amended. Is there any speakers to the

[46:11] motion as amended? >> Councelor Lingren,

[46:14] » I'm confused, your worship. I think we're just referring it back to staff.

[46:18] We're not amending it. They're going to uh revamp it and bring it back to

[46:22] council and we're going to vote on it as amended once it's been brought back by

[46:26] staff. >> That's correct.

[46:30] Any other comments? Call a question. All those in favor?

[46:36] That passes unanimously. So, we'll look forward to it coming back from staff.

[46:42] Okay. We're on to items 107 which is the chief financial officer July 2026

[46:47] supplier payment transparency report. Chief financial officer I'll have you

[46:53] speak to that if you wish. Thank you. >> Uh thank you worship. This is the

[46:57] monthly report to u for July supplier payment transparency report as provided.

[47:03] Um, it lists all payments over 100,000 in accordance with the purchasing policy

[47:07] 7.13 and all the payments are within the approved budget and authorities. And of

[47:12] course, I'm here for any questions for the uh five payments that are listed.

[47:17] » Thank you very much for supplying that to us. Counselors, there's no motion

[47:21] attached. This is for your information. Any questions or comments anyone would

[47:25] like to make?

[47:29] » Councelor Cannon. I just want to say that uh so glad that the lighting is in

[47:34] Rogers rink so you'll be able to play better hockey your worship.

[47:39] [laughter] >> I I like your your faith that you have

[47:43] in me. Um thank you very much.

[47:47] Any other comments or questions? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to

[47:54] 10.8. Thank you so much to our chief financial officer. This is chief

[47:59] financial officer regarding reserve consolidation. It's an update. Um if we

[48:04] could have a a mover and a second or for the motion which is really to defer it.

[48:09] So mover councelor Ganella councelor Cannon. Thank you. Um I'll have uh the

[48:17] chief financial officer speak to his report and I'll go to speakers.

[48:21] » Thank you worship and members of council. The recommendation before you

[48:24] is to defer the consideration of the reserve account consolidation to the

[48:28] September 28th, 2026 regular council meeting. Staff have continued to work on

[48:33] validating reserve purposes, confirming service area input, and completing the

[48:37] supporting schedules and future reporting frameworks. uh rather than

[48:40] bring forward an incomplete package for final decision, staff are requesting

[48:44] additional time to ensure the recommend recommendations are fully supported and

[48:48] resulting reserve structure is clear, accurate and administratively sound. Uh

[48:53] there is no immediate financial impact associ associated with this deferral and

[48:57] I'm here for any questions you worship and members of council.

[49:01] » Okay, thank you. So basically you need some more time. Okay, fair enough. Um,

[49:07] any questions or comments on the motion?

[49:13] I'll call a question and all those in favor.

[49:17] That passes unanimously. Council, we agreed we would do 101 first

[49:22] and 10:10. We're going to take a five minute comfort break and then we are

[49:27] going to deal with those two items. >> Oh,

[49:33] thank you. You guys are really on the ball here. There's two of you brought

[49:36] that to my attention and the others were thinking about it. 10 nine, sorry. Uh,

[49:41] director of engineering sustainability, airport industrial special development

[49:45] area.

[49:49] There's no motion attached. This is for information and there's a lot of

[49:52] information there, but we'll pass it over to uh to um Mr. JRO.

[49:58] » Oh, Miss Plank's going to speak to it. Okay, you're quick to point that

[50:02] direction, Miss Plank. Thank you, your worship and members of

[50:06] council. I'd like to invite one of our engineering assistants, Nathan Johnson,

[50:11] to come up and present this report to council. Thank you,

[50:14] » Mr. Johnson. Welcome to council. It's nice to have you here. I know that

[50:18] you've been working on this, so please go ahead.

[50:20] » Yeah, happy to be here. Uh before you today is an information only report

[50:25] related to the airport industrial special development area. This area

[50:30] covers roughly 60 hectares of light industrial land located between 10th

[50:33] Avenue Southeast and 20th Avenue Southeast next to the airport. Purpose

[50:38] today is to introduce an updated practical servicing framework before we

[50:42] bring these concepts to land owners themselves and the broader public for

[50:46] feedback. An initial conceptual servicing plan was completed for this

[50:50] area in 2009. And while it was or while it provided a useful starting point,

[50:55] certain elements like roads bicting private properties, costly road

[51:00] crosssections, and heavy reliance on centralized infrastructure proved

[51:05] impractical for owner-driven developments.

[51:08] The updated layout within the report addresses certain issues by aligning the

[51:13] proposed internal roads along existing property lines. This would protect

[51:18] long-term connectivity while allowing dedication and construction to happen.

[51:21] parcel by parcel using financial tools like latecomers agreements would also

[51:25] assist in the first for the first stage developers

[51:29] to facilitate community and council feedback. The report evaluates two

[51:33] servicing philosophies alongside a recommended hybrid approach. Option one

[51:37] is a minimum servicing strategy with lowerc cost rural road crosssections,

[51:42] roadside ditches, private groundwater wells, and on-site septic systems.

[51:47] Option two is the enhanced servicing strategy with curb, gutter, dry wells,

[51:52] and full municipal water and sanitary sewer. And then the recommended hybrid

[51:56] approach kind of marries the two a bit with the lower rural cross rural road

[52:02] crosssection uh ditches throughout removing the need

[52:05] for curbon gutter and pond infrastructure. It would install water

[52:08] manes throughout all the internal road networks ensuring full fire protection.

[52:12] And while primarily relying on private septic systems, gravity or gravity

[52:17] sanitary sewer in the northwest quadrant could be installed where the topography

[52:21] commits. Looking ahead, public and stakeholder

[52:26] consultation is the next step. Staff has tenatively scheduled a public open house

[52:31] for September 9th. Uh we hope to colllocate it with the liquid waste

[52:35] management plan and the community wildfire protection plan to maximize

[52:39] turnout. Uh we'll be reaching out directly to all affected property

[52:43] owners, advertising in the newspaper and launching an online feedback portal

[52:48] through the city's website for those who can't attend. And then all this feedback

[52:51] will be incorporated into the final plan before we return to council for formal

[52:55] endorsement. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for uh

[53:00] summarizing that report. Council, this is for our information, but I certainly

[53:04] open it up to you for any questions or comments you might like to make.

[53:08] Councelor Wallace Richmond. >> Yeah, thank you for for the report. Um,

[53:12] council, this is a important and ambitious uh project and there's a great

[53:18] deal of interest in the airport. Um, if council were willing, could we at the

[53:24] very least approve the public um, uh, consultation plan so that it

[53:31] continue it can continue to move ahead because um, we need to hear from the

[53:36] public uh, u, you know, it's a primary concern to make sure that if we were to

[53:42] do this project, it would be done uh, properly and uh, would meet the needs of

[53:48] uh, of those that will serve. Thank you for that question. I'll just

[53:52] check with our CEO. Do we need a motion to ensure that the public consultation

[53:57] that Mr. Johnson's talked about um will take place or does uh his report bring

[54:04] it to us assume that that will happen? >> Your worship, if council has any

[54:09] objections to moving forward, certainly um please do raise them, but staff are

[54:14] planning to move forward with consultation as contemplated by Mr.

[54:18] Johnson's report and as he stated, we are looking to um have all three of

[54:24] those engagements happen simultaneously um to generate additional interest.

[54:31] » Councelor Wallman, I'll go back to you. >> Yeah, through you. Thank you uh for that

[54:34] answer. Well, I I have absolutely no objection. So, I'm happy to see this

[54:39] move forward and I appreciate the report.

[54:42] » Thank you. Other comments or questions from council?

[54:49] Okay, I'll just maybe make my comments. First of all, thank you very much for

[54:52] the report and uh yeah, I don't want to uh um bias with my views, but I think

[54:58] it's great that we're going to the public with options so that they can

[55:02] look at them because I know there's been some concerns about um you know the um

[55:06] the initial planning. So going to the public is a great idea so we can get

[55:11] their feedback and uh grouping together those three things I think's very smart

[55:16] move. we'll get a we'll get a better turnout. So, I uh I have no objections

[55:20] as well. I see no other speakers. So, thank you

[55:24] very much uh for coming and reporting to us and we'll look forward to seeing the

[55:29] results of uh the input from the public. Okay. Now, now have I got it? Yes. So we

[55:36] will take a 5m minute comfort break um and then we will come back and do 10 11

[55:42] and then 10 10

[1:02:26] We are on to item 1011, Director of Planning Community Services,

[1:02:31] building bylaw number 4725, zero carbon step code. There is a motion for

[1:02:37] consideration that was uh deferred from our May 11th meeting. And so I maybe

[1:02:43] just ask the corporate officer to read that motion out for us. It was moved by

[1:02:48] councelor Lingren and seconded by councelor Ganella and then we'll have

[1:02:51] staff do their report. Thank you your worship. As indicated

[1:02:57] from the regular council meeting of May 11th, 2026,

[1:03:01] it was moved by councelor Lingren, seconded by councelor Ganella, that

[1:03:06] council direct staff to prepare amendments to building bylaw number 4725

[1:03:12] to require that building permits submitted to the city need to meet the

[1:03:16] following zerocarbon step code requirements of the BC building code on

[1:03:20] the following schedule. EL-2 June 1st 2027 EL-3

[1:03:29] June 1st 2029 and EL-4 as required by the province.

[1:03:35] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckston. I'll pass it to you to see if

[1:03:38] there's any further information you would like to share with council at this

[1:03:42] time. >> Thank you, Worship. Um I will focus on

[1:03:44] the new information because council has seen this issue uh a number of times

[1:03:49] before. Um so just starting with the the new information from the CRP I mean

[1:03:55] there was substantial public engagement um as part of that process and a clear

[1:04:01] public expectation that we were going to use um policies to drive meaningful

[1:04:06] emissions reductions as noted in section 5.2. The vast

[1:04:11] majority of emissions related to buildings result from natural gas and

[1:04:15] space heating and water heating in buildings.

[1:04:19] Um table 51 the the emissions reductions targets um there's a significant

[1:04:26] reduction that's modeled there um that requires a significant reduction in the

[1:04:32] use of natural gas in buildings. The only way to reduce that is to

[1:04:38] uh limit the use of natural gas in both new buildings and retrofit existing

[1:04:42] buildings. the emissions projections um do include adoption of the or

[1:04:49] effective adoption of the zero carbon step code to reach those those

[1:04:52] projections. Um the actions identified one of the

[1:04:57] very high priority high priority action items um in section 635 of the C CP

[1:05:06] identifies specifically implementation of the zerocarbon step code that's

[1:05:11] directly targeted at emissions reductions.

[1:05:14] Um so the regulations of building and construction are one of the few areas

[1:05:18] that is that municipalities have direct authority. So it's one of the very

[1:05:22] limited areas where we have direct agency over the um trying to achieve

[1:05:28] those OCP emissions reductions targets. Very often the regulatory authorities

[1:05:34] shared with other jurisdictions.

[1:05:38] Um so public engagement with both the OCP and the CRP has identified

[1:05:42] greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a community priority.

[1:05:46] Um I say we've we've identified uh sorry the um we have identified some options

[1:05:54] here in terms of new information. Um one of the options would be to

[1:05:59] separate the um the adoption of of the zerocarbon step code between part three

[1:06:06] which are the complex buildings and part nine which are the simple buildings.

[1:06:11] um that would allow um that's a more pra that's a practical path for

[1:06:16] implementation. We've in we've had some indication in uh from the industry

[1:06:21] through the survey that um and through some of our monitoring that some of the

[1:06:25] more complex buildings are already meeting the higher level EL2 EL3.

[1:06:31] So there might be greater industry willingness and ability to um

[1:06:38] undertake the zero carbon step code in part nine buildings.

[1:06:44] Um so we've offered a proposed option there that um

[1:06:51] um the council could if they wanted to separate between part three and part 9

[1:06:56] buildings. One of the other options might be given that we're going to need

[1:07:01] to do some form of public engagement no matter what we do um is to delay the EL2

[1:07:08] into 2028 and that would give us more time to budget and do that engagement

[1:07:12] work through 2027 because if we start in if there's an EL

[1:07:17] bump in June of 2027 and the budget isn't adopted until early in Q1 that

[1:07:23] doesn't give staff a lot of time to design implement ment and administer

[1:07:28] that that engagement program. So that that's another option. But I say as

[1:07:33] noted um really the the only financial consideration is that we're going to

[1:07:38] have to do some form of public engagement um and a budget for

[1:07:42] consulting services that the the expertise and the time and the resources

[1:07:46] are simply not here in our department to be able to pull this thing off. And the

[1:07:50] survey is clearly indicative that there's there is some reluctance amongst

[1:07:54] some in industry to move on this initiative. So we would need to inform,

[1:07:59] educate and encourage through that engagement process. Um that project can

[1:08:05] be scaled up and scaled down to be as big and as large as or as small as it

[1:08:09] needs to be. So that would be a decision that council would make in the 2027

[1:08:14] budget. There's nothing in the 2026 budget unless we reallocate something.

[1:08:19] Um but that would be the only financial implication.

[1:08:22] So, I think I've covered all the new information

[1:08:27] that's in this report that council hasn't previously seen. So,

[1:08:32] um I can certainly try and answer your questions.

[1:08:34] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckton. I'll open it up to council for any

[1:08:38] comments or questions they may wish to ask.

[1:08:42] » Starting with councelor Lingren. >> Thanks, your worship. I'm happy to see

[1:08:46] this back at the table uh and connected with our climate resiliency plan. Um I

[1:08:52] had a couple questions about uh things that were just presented by the director

[1:08:56] of planning that I just need some clarification on. One was um the budget

[1:09:02] piece. Can you sorry can you just say again if we were to defer until 2028

[1:09:09] that would be because we needed a budget to do what

[1:09:13] » Mr. Buckston >> through the chat. I'm strongly

[1:09:16] suggesting that there's a need for for budget for consulting services to to

[1:09:21] move a consultation program through. If if we were to choose the June 2027 date

[1:09:27] for EL2, um but the budget isn't approved till,

[1:09:32] let's say, until January or February of 2027. That gives staff 3 to four months

[1:09:37] to design, implement, and administer a program. The timeline just gets a little

[1:09:42] tight. It's not undoable. Just wanted to flag that issue is

[1:09:47] because of the budgeting, the timing of the budget. Um I believe that's

[1:09:51] scheduled for early in the year, the new year with the new council. So I'm just

[1:09:57] saying that um if that is a problem then moving the

[1:10:05] EL2 to 2028 would give us more time to develop the budget through 2027 and then

[1:10:10] administer that early in 2028 or start in 2027 and move through 27 2027 2028.

[1:10:18] It's just a scheduling issue on that particular start date

[1:10:22] » clarification. Can you just clarify? >> Thanks. Uh, who are we consulting with

[1:10:27] and in what regard? >> Mr.

[1:10:32] Through the chair. It would be through with the construction industry builders

[1:10:37] » as as a followup. >> Yeah. Is that uh an uh effort on the

[1:10:42] city's part to educate the builders about what EL2 looks like?

[1:10:47] » Mr. Buckton. >> Educate. Yes. Through the chair.

[1:10:49] educate, inform and how what you would need to do, what it means. I mean there

[1:10:54] is obviously some based on the survey some

[1:10:58] misunderstanding about what this means. So yes, getting getting the industry to

[1:11:02] the point that adoption isn't problematic for them.

[1:11:07] » Right. Okay. >> Yeah. So just some comments about that.

[1:11:10] Um, so I think that the province has done an exceptional job of putting out

[1:11:15] information about what the steps are and how to access that information. There

[1:11:20] are webinars. There are um public like uh townhouse type online things where

[1:11:27] people can go to get the information they need. Um, but I think the reality

[1:11:31] is is that the vast majority of developers uh builders doing multif

[1:11:36] family homes already understand this very well. They're already building to

[1:11:40] this um new standard and have been for you know decades already. Um it's very

[1:11:46] rare actually in the last 20 years to find an apartment building that's

[1:11:50] running on gas anything. Um they don't they might bring in gas because the

[1:11:55] client wants a fireplace in their um two-bedroom condo. Um, but the reality

[1:12:01] is is gas furnaces don't heat multif family buildings because everybody needs

[1:12:05] to set their heat at a different level unless you had a furnace and a system

[1:12:09] for each apartment itself. Um, that would not be very practical. Um, so

[1:12:14] electric heat has been the standard for a very long time. Electric hot water

[1:12:17] tanks have been the standard for a very long time. So I'm less concerned about

[1:12:23] uh developers building multif family uh buildings because they're already well

[1:12:27] informed. Several of them are coming from out of town to build here. They're

[1:12:31] already building like this and have been mandated to build like this in Vancouver

[1:12:35] Island and the Lower Mainland and a number of other areas including the

[1:12:38] Coupney. So, I don't think that that's um a worry that the city needs to take

[1:12:44] on. Um I think that um every um HVAC and plumbing company in Salmon Arm is

[1:12:51] already wellversed in how to install an electric hot water tank and how to

[1:12:56] install a uh heat pump system whether that's integrated with um the gas

[1:13:01] furnace such as we're putting in at the RCMP station or if we're talking about

[1:13:05] mini splits and um room individual systems that type of thing. So I don't

[1:13:11] think we need to educate them either. They're already doing the work and

[1:13:14] they're doing a great job. Um, I think that the only reason I could think of to

[1:13:19] def defer implementation of this uh might be to educate the consumer um not

[1:13:26] the developers themselves or the builders themselves. We've heard from uh

[1:13:30] the Zero Home Collective. We've heard from other developers that have written

[1:13:34] us letters this week that they they've been doing this already and that they're

[1:13:38] finding that it's cost-effective for them and very cost effective for the

[1:13:42] buyer. Uh once they own the home, the costs of running the home are

[1:13:45] substantially lower. Um I think that deferring this to 2028 would be a

[1:13:51] mistake. I think we uh are obligated by our uh knowledge of what I mean climate

[1:13:58] change has been all around us this summer and um the longer we defer the

[1:14:04] longer these effects will accumulate and um multiply and 20 years from now I

[1:14:12] don't want a council sitting at this table trying to find ways to mitigate

[1:14:15] things that we should have done today. So, um, yeah, at this point, I'm I mean,

[1:14:22] obviously everybody in this room already knows that I would have this instituted

[1:14:25] yesterday if we had the option. Um, if going slower is uh the will of the

[1:14:31] council, then I I I understand that. Um, but I would not be in favor of deferring

[1:14:37] past this this lengthy deferral we've already got set up.

[1:14:42] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Councelor Cannon.

[1:14:45] » Thank you, Worship. Um, as far as consultation,

[1:14:50] did we not already take this to skip and get uh some feedback on that or am I

[1:14:58] remembering that correctly, >> Mr. Bton?

[1:15:01] » Through through the chair, no, we we've simply raised the issue with skip. They

[1:15:05] asked us they asked us to produce the survey. We did that. So, that that's the

[1:15:09] only engagement that we >> So, we got a survey from them from

[1:15:13] » Councelor Cannon. Go ahead. We got a survey that we did and Skip

[1:15:18] filled it out. >> No, Mr.

[1:15:20] » Buckton, >> that was the survey responses that would

[1:15:23] that were outlined in prior >> Okay.

[1:15:25] » prior reports. >> Council Cannon. Now, when I look at

[1:15:30] this, um, I see the motion would put it in

[1:15:35] effect March 1st, 2028 for EL2,

[1:15:41] EL3, June 1st, 2029, and then EL4 as required by the province.

[1:15:48] But what the province has is EL2

[1:15:56] March 1st 2028, EL3 June 1st 2029 and EL4 as required by the province. That's

[1:16:04] what the province has suggested. Is that correct?

[1:16:07] » Mr. Beckton, can you comment >> through the chair? I'm I'm not aware

[1:16:11] that unless new information that that I'm not aware of. I'm not aware of any

[1:16:16] schedule for EL2 or EL3 that the province has. Now, I may have missed

[1:16:20] that. I don't know where you got that from, but no, the only information I

[1:16:24] have is that the province will require EL4 by 2030.

[1:16:28] » And then the other ones are just grad can be gradual whatever anyone decides.

[1:16:36] » Mr. each authority having jurisdiction can

[1:16:39] set a time at which those are required to come in or not

[1:16:46] » council >> like when I look at this even before we

[1:16:52] deferred it but now it's not deferred anymore um I think putting I feel

[1:16:58] strongly putting it uh in place of different dates

[1:17:05] I don't support that I think the we're hearing already that a lot of

[1:17:10] developments especially multif family ones are already doing

[1:17:15] uh developments that are probably EL4 or EL3

[1:17:20] and I think by putting that limit you know it has to be on this date and and

[1:17:28] uh EL3 on this date uh I don't support that I don't think that we need to do

[1:17:34] that and Yes, we have have been inundated with different people. A lot

[1:17:40] of people that don't even live in our community. Builders that don't live in

[1:17:43] our community have sent us letters saying that they're already doing this.

[1:17:49] You know, it's something that we should look at. But I don't agree with that

[1:17:54] because I think builders and the consumers are the ones that are going to

[1:18:00] control how they want a house built, how a multif family house is built. And I

[1:18:07] think just keeping it status quo and we know that EL4 is going to be we have to

[1:18:15] have it by a certain date. We're going to be at EL4.

[1:18:20] So, I don't support this motion. I think that we need to keep it status quo and

[1:18:28] let the the market dictate how they want their house built.

[1:18:33] » Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Is there other speakers? Councelor Lingren for a

[1:18:37] second time. >> Nobody else wants to go. Um,

[1:18:40] » there's no one else up yet. >> Okay. So I'm just I'm concerned about if

[1:18:45] we just uh ignore this issue and we leave it say and 2030 comes around and

[1:18:52] suddenly EL4 is the mandated uh state of affairs uh people won't be ready because

[1:18:58] they haven't been moving towards that um on their own and as far as allowing the

[1:19:04] market to regulate this as we go you know let the consumer decide I mean if

[1:19:10] we went by that in every industry. We would have cars that didn't have seat

[1:19:14] belts or emissions control. We would have um you know food that wasn't

[1:19:19] inspected and kept safe. Nobody wants to spend extra money on these issues if

[1:19:24] they don't have to, which is the point of government regulation. But I think

[1:19:27] the the key piece for us as a municipality is that we have a

[1:19:32] responsibility to help our uh residents make choices that make things safer. And

[1:19:41] uh we do that by putting sidewalks in. We do that by cleaning our water before

[1:19:46] it arrives in their house. We do that in a multitude of ways. And one of the

[1:19:50] things we can do and is of zero cost to the um city which is always one of our

[1:19:58] concerns is can the city afford to implement this. This is one that's free.

[1:20:02] This is really lowhanging fruit with a huge impact. So when EL4 becomes the

[1:20:09] standard, we may then move into the next phase which may be to and this I mean

[1:20:15] the province is already um incentivizing retrofitting your home. So you can get

[1:20:21] grants right now for installing solar panels. You can get grants for

[1:20:25] installing heat pumps. You can get grants for replacing and upgrading

[1:20:28] windows. You can get grants for um updating your insulation so that your

[1:20:34] house is uh easier to heat and cool. And the cost of those retrofits is

[1:20:40] astronomical. It's far better to build it right the

[1:20:44] first time than to have to go back. And I don't want to see more and more and

[1:20:48] more people building things that they will later uh need to retrofit in order

[1:20:53] to survive the climate changes that are coming.

[1:20:57] Thank you, councelor Lingren. We'll go to councelor G or councelor Lavy next.

[1:21:01] Councelor Lavy, please go ahead. >> Uh yes, thanks your worship. Um I want

[1:21:07] to start off by thanking staff um not only for the reports and the providing

[1:21:13] of information and we'll refer to in a bit, but providing other options to

[1:21:18] consider about tiering this aspect. Um but I also like to mainly thank them for

[1:21:23] the patience you've you've done your work. Um and uh this table we've been

[1:21:30] split on it and uh this has been deferred not because we wanted to avoid

[1:21:35] it in my view but just wanted to make sure we had a full table for the uh

[1:21:40] further discussion. Your worship um this is good and I I'm hoping that we will

[1:21:46] decide this here now today. Um, I'm not going to deliver any of my points here

[1:21:52] uh as an attempt to persuade anyone because I think we've been around this

[1:21:57] circle. I uh rather what I'm going to say here is what I firmly believe is

[1:22:04] what a reasonable way forward is. And so you got four or five talking points

[1:22:10] quickly summarize them about the survey. Um, and I want to be direct here. We had

[1:22:18] there was some initial delays about this because and I was one of them to said we

[1:22:23] need to hear from Skip. The reality is we didn't hear much from

[1:22:27] Skip. There was little quantitative response from Skip about feedback. Maybe

[1:22:35] others should it. I certainly didn't didn't. staff put out a uh a survey

[1:22:42] that was led to a a big wave of opposition but that survey was tainted

[1:22:50] in my view your worship really clearly. I believe it was stacked by uh who knows

[1:22:57] unknown parties coming from the same IP address to try to influence this and it

[1:23:03] is very difficult for me and this is unfortunate

[1:23:07] that there has not been a clear voice from local land builders land developers

[1:23:15] and I think they missed an opportunity and I don't um personally

[1:23:21] uh don't subscribe subscribe to the idea of uh what our local developers are

[1:23:28] capable of or need to do. They haven't really spoken up and I actually have

[1:23:32] faith in their ability to adapt. Um it's been pointed out both by staff and

[1:23:36] councelor Lingren and others. Um multif family developers right now in our

[1:23:40] community are already doing EL3. It's part of their business model. They know

[1:23:45] how to do it. I personally don't think and I want to thank staff for the option

[1:23:49] of saying okay split this into multi-development versus single family.

[1:23:53] Um I don't see the need for that. I think that this is uh that's already

[1:23:57] happening. They know how to do it and they are doing it. I think the crux is

[1:24:02] in single family uh developments. I think it mainly lies with local

[1:24:08] builders. We have lots and unfortunately not a lot

[1:24:14] of feedback from local developers but lots of feedback from elsewhere that

[1:24:18] this is doable that it makes sense. And so I don't begrudge that feedback coming

[1:24:25] in uh from those who are not in the community because we did not hear from

[1:24:30] and there's a theme here. We did not hear clearly in my view from our local

[1:24:34] builders. the motion in front of us about

[1:24:39] what essentially ex a defined a timeline for EL2 and EL3

[1:24:44] uh which is accelerated from no language from the province um is not as fast as

[1:24:52] advocates have been calling for and and in reality worship that I would like to

[1:24:56] see accelerated. It's not going to please everyone. Um,

[1:25:00] but I supported I spoke in favor of this motion before it was deferred. Um, I

[1:25:05] remain in favor of it now because at a minimum I I see this as a a reasonable

[1:25:12] compromise to actually move this forward. I think this is within our pure

[1:25:17] purview. It's low cost as referenced in our CRP that we're

[1:25:22] going to talk about next to be fully electrified by 2030. Not that far away.

[1:25:28] it's identified as a high priority and it's been identified that meaningful

[1:25:33] change has to come from these sort of actions. So your worship um

[1:25:40] I council Linguin referred to it a little bit again I'd like to see this

[1:25:44] accelerated more but the motion in front of us does give some time for local

[1:25:48] builders to get up to snuff and I don't think that's hard to do and I've got

[1:25:52] confidence that they can do it. I think it permits uh uh suppliers, equipment,

[1:25:58] retailers and suppliers time to gauge uh the supply of their equipment going

[1:26:04] forward and those are reasonable amounts of time

[1:26:08] probably more than reasonable amount of time to do it. So I fully support this

[1:26:13] your worship even though that I would uh see I'd like to see personally something

[1:26:18] more stringent but I think this is a compromise that we need to make to move

[1:26:22] forward. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Councelor Lavy. Um, councelor

[1:26:27] Ganella, >> [clears throat]

[1:26:28] » uh, thank you, your worship. I also want to echo um, councelor Lavy's comments

[1:26:32] about thanking staff through this process. It's quite complicated. Um,

[1:26:37] and I too will also echo that I'd like to see this accelerated, but I also

[1:26:42] understand why we need to find a um, a start to this u solution. And I believe

[1:26:48] this motion here today in front of us is that solution. I think it's important

[1:26:52] that um after this summer that we've gone through with the this um the smoke

[1:26:57] um that is it's affecting our everyone who's working outside in a real critical

[1:27:04] way and um I myself have you know family who worked outside and it was and you

[1:27:10] could see how brutal it is and it's not going to get better until we start

[1:27:13] making these steps that are going to be very difficult and not just difficult

[1:27:17] for the building community it's going to be difficult for all of us because we're

[1:27:20] all going going to own this solution. Um, and that solution is not going to be

[1:27:25] easy. Um, we've gotten ourselves to this point where we know that the solutions

[1:27:31] we make today will have a mitigating effect on the impacts going forward, but

[1:27:37] even then there's this echo effect with the the climate that we have with where

[1:27:41] it is now that it's going to take time even if we make all the changes you want

[1:27:45] today in an accelerated rate. So, I believe that we need to start making

[1:27:49] steps now. And it comes right back to if we're going to do anything, why not now?

[1:27:54] I think we've used enough time to decide um what's best for um everyone. I think

[1:28:03] we've put some time into this and thinking what's good for compromise to

[1:28:07] our building community. But at the at the end of it, I represent the whole of

[1:28:11] the city and I am hearing from a lot of people that they want this to be

[1:28:15] accelerated. But I'm willing to work with our comm our industries to meet a

[1:28:21] compromise and this motion is that compromise and I'm going to approve it.

[1:28:27] » Thank you, councelor Ganella. Councelor Wallace Richmond.

[1:28:29] » Y thanks your worship. Uh first one question uh through you to staff. Can

[1:28:36] builders build to zero now? >> Mr. Bton,

[1:28:42] » sorry. Build to zero >> to zero carbon now if they want if they

[1:28:46] so choose. Okay. >> Um, so before I get into my comments,

[1:28:50] for me, the conversation is around not whether or not people can build or

[1:28:54] people want to build, but whether or not this is our decision to make. So, um, as

[1:29:03] we've seen in the leadup to this, uh, one motion on one policy, um, to make

[1:29:10] this decision, but we have to answer many, many questions in the leadup to

[1:29:14] making this decision. So, uh, full transparency, I'm just going to share

[1:29:18] with you some of the things I have been thinking about, some of the questions I

[1:29:22] have been trying to answer, um, in addressing this. um

[1:29:28] and it's a provincial policy with a municipal adoption to adopt early. So

[1:29:34] the first question that came to my mind and I'm sure I hope some of you have

[1:29:38] thought about that is isn't BC um actively developing

[1:29:46] um LG facilities for export. We know the answer to that is yes. The

[1:29:53] second question I always have on my mind is does the province have a serious

[1:29:57] budget challenge? We also know the answer to that is yes.

[1:30:03] And so I think part of the reason they're actively pursuing LG projects is

[1:30:08] to bolster um u provincial coffers so they can pay for the things that we want

[1:30:13] to be able to do. So this is a reality of the world that we live in. So, does

[1:30:18] local government normally have the option to BC to vary the BC building

[1:30:23] code? And the answer to that in my experience is no. This is very unusual

[1:30:29] that the province would say, well, except for this thing, you could change

[1:30:32] this thing if you wanted to. So, here's my sense. It's just me being

[1:30:38] completely honest with everyone. My sense is there's a reason the province

[1:30:42] hasn't been pushing this because I don't think they're there yet either. I think

[1:30:48] they're actively developing now. They're talking about site C, site E. Um they're

[1:30:54] working on uh energy opportunities. Um you know, so my sense is the urgency is

[1:31:00] to build the electrical capacity right now. So the next question is have the

[1:31:07] feds and the province been incentivizing lower emissions and higher efficiency

[1:31:12] for decades in fact and the answer of course to that is yes but all that takes

[1:31:17] is that takes revenue to accomplish. So um given that builders can now build to

[1:31:23] zero already um the question is are they and the answer is mostly yes especially

[1:31:31] multif family right um however the caveat is you have to have BC Hydro

[1:31:38] approve your proposal so we don't even control that part so we could say yes

[1:31:44] zero carbon today and we leave our builders um subject to

[1:31:50] a regulation we have no control over, we have no budget for, right? And so just

[1:31:55] from a policy, strategic strategy perspective, I have a a lot of concerns.

[1:32:02] Um and here's my next t. I think we should all be asking this

[1:32:07] question. Do multifamily um units use less energy than single

[1:32:14] family units? And of course, the answer to that is yes. And it's pretty

[1:32:18] considerable. It's like 30 to 50%. A multif family unit is 30 to 50% less

[1:32:25] energy used than a single family home. So then if you ask yourself, will this

[1:32:32] change be up and down the valley all over the southern interior? And we know

[1:32:37] the answer to that is already no because we would be the first and the only.

[1:32:42] Um so here's the big question. I have

[1:32:47] wrestled with could this decision to accelerate uh zerocarbon uh step uh

[1:32:57] could this influence the decision of multif family builders to build here and

[1:33:02] it's reasonable to say that it could right um so they might decide not to

[1:33:09] build here they might decide to go to Vernon because they're implementing it

[1:33:12] more slowly than we are I mean the housing market is still at risk. We are

[1:33:17] making progress. It's been very promising lately. We're ve we have a

[1:33:22] very favorable status with multif family builds and we know that they're already

[1:33:25] at EL3 or EL2 or even EL1. So another thing, we're going to consider

[1:33:32] this in the next item, but according to our own climate resiliency plan, if you

[1:33:38] asked um is community housing the largest risk factor for energy and

[1:33:45] emissions in the community? No, it's

[1:33:50] transportation. Then if you would ask if the city's

[1:33:53] largest risk factor for energy efficiency and emissions is building the

[1:33:59] answer is yes 60% that's our biggest risk

[1:34:03] and so will this zerocarbon impact the city what's the city what the city is

[1:34:08] doing now no and so to me and I'm telling you this from the bottom of my

[1:34:13] heart um for me true leadership is not to ask the private sector to do as we

[1:34:21] say but not as we do which is effectively what would be we would be

[1:34:26] doing. So

[1:34:29] uh so for the for these reasons the the

[1:34:34] fact that this is normally not something that municipalities weigh into that

[1:34:38] there's an uncertainty as to why the province is saying okay in this case you

[1:34:42] can go ahead and change that part of the code. um that we don't control the grid

[1:34:47] that BC Hydro plays a huge rule role in this and we have no control over it. So

[1:34:53] am I ready to go alone risk the need to diversify our housing supply and signal

[1:34:59] to our market that the rules are just a tiny bit different here? I don't think

[1:35:04] um this is the right tool for the right challenge. So, and unless I were beyond

[1:35:10] a reasonable doubt that it would in fact make a material impact um on GHG

[1:35:15] emissions, there's no multif family and very little single family, then I can't

[1:35:19] commit our community or our business community to it ahead of time. And I

[1:35:23] have heard from business owners and I have heard from builders. Um, so you

[1:35:30] know I am my preference would be I think I could live with 28 2930.

[1:35:37] It would give us time to get everyone ready for the change. I would even

[1:35:41] consider splitting single building versus complex building. But, you know,

[1:35:46] this is going to have a big impact on a number of sectors in our community. And

[1:35:52] I'm not feeling like we have um you know

[1:36:01] I mean I know I understand a lot of people be disappointed in me and I

[1:36:05] wanted to acknowledge that but the the knockoff effect

[1:36:09] um of this decision um has to be considered and we have to thoroughly and

[1:36:14] appropriately address all those concerns before we move it forward at this time.

[1:36:19] Thank you. Thank you, councelor Wallace Richmond. Is there any other counselors

[1:36:24] who wish to speak?

[1:36:29] Seeing none, then I will just summarize with my comments and call a question.

[1:36:33] So, first of all, thank you um to the public who um has responded to us and

[1:36:38] thank you to staff um as we've deferred this along and to counselors and I a

[1:36:43] conversation is always good and it's okay if everyone doesn't agree at the

[1:36:48] end of the conversation. Um,

[1:36:53] wouldn't it have been nice if the province would have said, "We're going

[1:36:56] to go to EL4 in the end of 2026." We wouldn't be sitting here talking

[1:37:02] about this right now if that was the case.

[1:37:07] So, why didn't they? Councelor Wallace Richmond's actually

[1:37:11] done a pretty good job outlining why they haven't.

[1:37:18] Second thing the province said was we think that there should be regional

[1:37:23] consideration for acceleration

[1:37:26] of the zerocarbon step code.

[1:37:32] So when you look at our region and I'll start in the south and I think what

[1:37:38] these local governments are saying is we support the province. I do. I support

[1:37:46] the province's plan with

[1:37:51] acceleration or working through EL2, EL3 to EL4 and

[1:37:58] 2030. And I believe these local governments

[1:38:01] are saying they're not saying no. They're not saying we don't believe in

[1:38:05] climate change. They're not saying we need to reduce GHG emissions. That's not

[1:38:10] what they're saying. They're saying this is the province's job and we agree with

[1:38:14] it.

[1:38:19] So, ause they agree with the province. Oliver, they agree with the province.

[1:38:24] Regional district south of the Similcom, they agree with the province. City of

[1:38:29] Pentictton, they agree with the province.

[1:38:34] City of West Colona, they agree with the province. City of Colona, they agree

[1:38:39] with the province. Peachland, they agree with the province. Summerland, they

[1:38:44] agree with the province. Vernon, they agree with the province. Armstrong, they

[1:38:49] agree with the province. Enderbe, Sycamoose, Revel Stoke, Cam Loops, RDCO,

[1:38:58] CSRD, every local government within our regent

[1:39:04] agrees with the province.

[1:39:09] So, people have pointed out, well, what about Rossland and Nelson? Why are they

[1:39:13] outliers? Well, there's some pretty big variables there. Actually,

[1:39:17] Rossland, extremely small resort community. I was there recently.

[1:39:24] The only building happening there is happening at Red Mountain.

[1:39:30] Very expensive topline condos going in there.

[1:39:35] City and Nelson, they don't even buy their hydro from BC

[1:39:40] Hydro. They have their own hydro company. This is very good business for

[1:39:43] them. If I was in Nelson, I would do the same.

[1:39:47] The c the electricity used there goes back into the city coffers.

[1:39:52] I don't begrudge them at all. I think they're making a good decision.

[1:39:57] But no other local government within our region is making that decision.

[1:40:02] There's a reason for that. So, we started this out by asking the

[1:40:09] public and

[1:40:14] we received 700 respondents. That's versus

[1:40:21] 140 for the CRP, which by the way assumes

[1:40:26] that we're moving to EL4 in 2030. That's what the climate resiliency uh

[1:40:33] report assumes. So, we asked the public and I know that

[1:40:39] there was some uh people who were questionable about those respondents,

[1:40:44] but no matter how you cut it, we asked staff to go back and look at the repeat

[1:40:50] um number of people who filled in more than one form. So the difference

[1:40:57] moves from 700 respondents to 596 and the percentage of support

[1:41:04] the aggregate percentage of support for moving accelerating the EO4

[1:41:11] zero step code is 1% from 26 to 27%.

[1:41:22] We we said that skip has not responded or I've heard that today

[1:41:28] 23% of the respondents to that survey were skip

[1:41:35] respondents. 77% were members of the public.

[1:41:40] So 77% of the members of the public came forward on that survey and said we

[1:41:48] want to follow the province and that's what Skip has said as well. They are not

[1:41:53] saying we don't think it's a good idea. They're saying we agree and we agree

[1:41:57] with the province's plan is what's being said.

[1:42:02] So

[1:42:06] 2026 today, 2030 is not far away. And in between that time, provinces have said

[1:42:14] they're going to accelerate to EL2 and EL3. They haven't given a date, but

[1:42:19] they've said that they're going to do it.

[1:42:22] And so I trust their word.

[1:42:27] I'm not willing to put my foot into what is a provincial jurisdiction.

[1:42:34] It's their job. And that's another reason why a lot of

[1:42:38] the other local governments have not put their foot in there

[1:42:43] because as soon as you take on one of their jobs,

[1:42:48] more falls on it in every single case that's happened in the past with

[1:42:54] different topics. So this is a provincial matter and they

[1:42:59] have a plan. I support the plan. Obviously our residents do as well. The

[1:43:06] majority of our residents do as well. And uh um you know to say that the

[1:43:14] survey was tainted or stacked, I I have to disagree. I don't think it's

[1:43:20] respectful of those people that filled in that survey. Um, so my conclusion is

[1:43:25] we go along with the province's plan. I agree with it. And to go along with the

[1:43:29] province's plan, we have to vote against this motion and that's what I intend on

[1:43:33] doing. So I will give any other counselor one

[1:43:37] opportunity, one more opportunity to speak if they wish and then we'll call a

[1:43:40] question. >> Councelor Lingren,

[1:43:43] » thanks your worship. Um, I'm going to speak again, but obviously it's not

[1:43:47] going to change anybody's mind, but I need to go on record um for future

[1:43:54] um residents reviewing this um that I disagree with most of what was just

[1:44:00] said. So, the survey that went out was anonymous.

[1:44:06] We have no idea where those people lived, whether they were residents of

[1:44:10] Salmon Arm or residents of Atlanta, Georgia.

[1:44:14] Uh some of the IP addresses were clearly not residences residents of Salmon Arm.

[1:44:20] Um I disagree that they were in support of the province's plan. A number of

[1:44:25] those surveys came back saying there's no need to do anything. Climate's not a

[1:44:30] problem. So those were climate deniers. They had no uh interest in supporting

[1:44:37] this plan or the province's plan or any other plan. They were happy to just go

[1:44:40] along status quo. So those people I would discount as uninformed

[1:44:46] um possibly um you know people that were targeting

[1:44:53] whatever gas companies for all I know I don't know but people that had a stake

[1:44:57] in continuing to burn fossil fuels or people that were uh completely

[1:45:02] uninformed about um the effects that fossil fuels have on our climate.

[1:45:09] Um there was a comment about it's not our within our jurisdiction to vary the

[1:45:15] code. Implementing EL2 EL3 um on specific

[1:45:20] dates in my view is not varying the code at all. The province has set the code at

[1:45:27] EL4 for 2030 and us we are not varying the code. We

[1:45:34] are complying with the code by implementing steps to get us to the

[1:45:39] point the provin province has required us to be at.

[1:45:44] As far as being the first in our region, that's just bravery. That's not a valid

[1:45:50] argument. We talk about this all the time. Uh why would we put a sidewalk

[1:45:54] there? It's the sidewalk to nowhere. And the comment at this table is always we

[1:45:58] have to start somewhere. Why would we bury the overhead lines on that one

[1:46:04] frontage when the rest of the ones on the street are above ground? Well,

[1:46:08] because we have to start somewhere. And we talk about this every single meeting

[1:46:14] about having to start somewhere. This could be us starting somewhere. The

[1:46:19] letter from the writer in Chase specifically noted that uh that Chase

[1:46:24] has not implemented this, but to have Salmon Arm, a nearby community,

[1:46:28] institute it would give them the courage to also step forward. And maybe it just

[1:46:33] takes one community to implement this plan and the rest of the communities

[1:46:37] would get on board, which is what we've seen across regions around BC.

[1:46:45] Um, why would uh there was a comment that uh you know

[1:46:50] builders might not build here. They might go build in Vernon instead. Well,

[1:46:53] I I disagree. The builders are already building above and beyond what we're

[1:46:58] asking for in this uh motion. So, I don't believe that it would scare them

[1:47:04] off at all. People are coming all the way from Naimo to build in Salmon Arm

[1:47:09] because there's opportunity here. And this we've seen from multiple letters

[1:47:14] from multiple developers who are building this way that this is actually

[1:47:17] cheaper for the developer and for the builders that this saves them money. It

[1:47:22] saves everybody money. So the argument that they might go somewhere else to

[1:47:27] build that just doesn't sit right with me at all. Also the comment that LG is

[1:47:34] being developed for export. Yes, maybe that's true. Maybe we sell a million

[1:47:39] tons of LNG to other countries, but that doesn't mean that if we reduce our LNG

[1:47:44] use in BC that we're going to just sell more. It means we'll probably still sell

[1:47:50] a million tons of LNG to another country. It doesn't mean that we

[1:47:54] shouldn't stop our own consumption. Again, we have to start somewhere.

[1:48:04] CRP itself uh assumes that we're going to be EL4 by 2030. That's correct and

[1:48:10] that is exactly what this motion asks us to do. But the CRP also states very

[1:48:16] explicitly that they recommend early adoption which is also what we're asking

[1:48:21] for in this motion. So I think we just have to be brave

[1:48:26] enough. For me I mean it for me it doesn't even feel brave. It just feels

[1:48:31] like the only choice there is actually. Um, but we need to try to work through

[1:48:37] these issues and obviously this is going to fail today. I hope that future

[1:48:41] councils after October will take a look at this video and we'll consider these

[1:48:47] options and we'll reconsider this six months from now. I hope uh and bring it

[1:48:53] back to the table and try to get it passed because I think that you know our

[1:48:58] future depends on this kind of action. >> Thank you councelor Lingren. Are there

[1:49:04] further speakers to the motion?

[1:49:11] » I will call the question on the motion. All those in favor? Any opposed?

[1:49:17] Councelor Cannon, myself, councelor Wallace Richmond opposed. Motion does

[1:49:21] not pass. Councilors, we will move move forward to

[1:49:26] what was 1010, which is director of engineering and

[1:49:31] sustainability climate resiliency plan. There is a motion for consideration. If

[1:49:37] we can have a mover in a second or to get that on the floor. Councelor

[1:49:40] Canella. Thank you, Councelor Cannon.

[1:49:47] Mr. Mills, are you speaking to us about this or is this Mr. Buckton?

[1:49:51] » Mr. Buckton. >> Buckton.

[1:49:52] » Okay. I just saw Mr. Mills there. >> Thank you.

[1:49:55] » Mr. Buckton, please go ahead. >> Thank you. You worship it. Members of

[1:49:57] council, um, as noted here, we're seeking council's endorsement of the

[1:50:02] climate resiliency plan, which is a massive project that Miss Wilson, Mr.

[1:50:06] Mills have been working on as project leads for quite some time. Um, August

[1:50:12] 4th, development planning services committee meeting. um you asked us to

[1:50:16] seek and coate last comments on on the plan which I will get to in a

[1:50:23] moment. So the plan itself it's both an adaptation and mitigation. Um so we're

[1:50:28] we're looking at reducing risks and vulnerabilities.

[1:50:31] I I'm before I start I'm not going to go through that whole presentation again

[1:50:35] that Miss Wilson went through so don't panic. Um so the there are adaptation

[1:50:40] elements to the plan. Uh there are mitigation so reducing greenhouse gas

[1:50:44] emissions that contribute to climate change.

[1:50:47] Um there are 44 actions identified under nine focus areas or nine categories

[1:50:55] um uh that are outlined in the plan. Um

[1:50:59] there are some key strategic actions whether or not it's um development of

[1:51:04] climate resilience resilience policy a climate development of a climate

[1:51:08] resilience community strategy um review and updating our emergency management

[1:51:13] plans particularly with respect to adaptation

[1:51:17] and establishing sustainable funding and staffing capacity to implement the CRP.

[1:51:23] Um in terms of the the comments that that we did receive um um following

[1:51:31] council's direction or committee's direction

[1:51:34] um I mean I I would categorize it typified as some general support

[1:51:39] comments on background um the comments from interior health um particularly

[1:51:45] around language I think we can address those on a go forward basis I'm not sure

[1:51:50] that going back through the and would involve

[1:51:53] a significant amount of editorial um that I don't know would add a terrible

[1:51:58] amount of I don't want to knock that but might not add a lot of value for the

[1:52:03] effort required but certainly um moving forwards um we can certainly

[1:52:09] take that on board um and address it as we move forward I mean if council wants

[1:52:16] any of that editorial directed then please let us know but we weren't

[1:52:20] planning to go back through the document

[1:52:24] um the climate action society um they made some interesting comments around

[1:52:29] the modeling um redoing that redoing the project. So we're not going to recommend

[1:52:34] that council step that far back um

[1:52:40] I mean in terms of the priorities council can take those up as part of

[1:52:44] future budget decisions and project decisions and strategy decisions going

[1:52:50] forward. So, um I don't plan on I say Mr. Mills and I

[1:52:56] are here to answer council's questions. Um but I say we

[1:53:02] um in terms of the feedback, council has seen it. I don't know that we need to

[1:53:06] make any amendments to the to the CRP unless specifically directed, but

[1:53:12] I would try and answer council's questions from this point forward.

[1:53:16] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckton. Um, I will open it up to counselors for

[1:53:20] any comments or questions that they might have.

[1:53:29] » Councelor Lingren, >> thanks worship. Uh, I want to start by

[1:53:32] saying thanks to staff for the work um that's gone into this. This report looks

[1:53:38] so different from uh I think back to the days when we did the C report and some

[1:53:44] of our disappointment in how general that was and how

[1:53:50] um just broad broad uh strokes rather than you know

[1:53:57] specific actions. This climate plan is specific. It's uh based on science. It's

[1:54:07] very adaptable. It's got real actions that we could implement, some of them

[1:54:14] very quickly. Um, [laughter]

[1:54:18] with political will. Um, and so I I I just want to express how appreciative I

[1:54:26] am of this kind of quality of report coming forward.

[1:54:32] Um, we know that the risks from climate change are going not what we're

[1:54:38] experiencing today is not what we're going to be experiencing in 20 years.

[1:54:41] It's going to be, you know, multiple times worse. This is the beginning of a

[1:54:47] long stretch of tough roads ahead. And so implementing some of these things

[1:54:54] now, I think, is a key piece. Um, adaptation is really important. I think

[1:55:02] that we know what some of the risks are with fire and flood and heat and drought

[1:55:06] and we know that um we need to prepare now because you know as I said things

[1:55:13] are going to get worse and we need to be ready when they do. I think that um you

[1:55:18] know drought and fire are probably the biggest risks that we face in Salmon Arm

[1:55:23] and I think that there are things that we will do uh moving forward or future

[1:55:28] councils will do moving forward. Um and staff seems to already be moving in that

[1:55:34] direction of you know working on building bylaws change mandating things

[1:55:39] like charging infrastructure and fire smart landscapes and uh solar readiness

[1:55:44] those types of things. um because our future is going to be

[1:55:48] electric and we know that uh those things are going to be important. Um I

[1:55:53] think water meters comes back to mind for me as a really important um

[1:56:00] mitigation strategy. How are we going to help people understand the water that

[1:56:05] they use and the effect it has? uh we need to be able to show every single

[1:56:10] homeowner what's happening in their own home and teach them how to work towards

[1:56:15] it. So um towards doing better. So I think one of the things that uh you I I

[1:56:22] can't see any reason we wouldn't adopt this today or endorse this today. I I

[1:56:27] will be endorsing it. Um uh and I I hope that the next step after this will be

[1:56:33] around um education, the education piece for our staff and for our uh community

[1:56:40] and for council. Um, one of the things that we saw in England

[1:56:45] a couple of years ago when we were traveling there was uh billboard type uh

[1:56:51] advertising for things like um uh trading in one trip in your car for a

[1:56:58] bicycle reduces greenhouse gases by x number of whatever. And so I I hope that

[1:57:04] in the not too distant future we're able to move into that phase and we can start

[1:57:08] educating people about how their decisions in their daily life can help

[1:57:13] um cumulatively make big changes for everybody.

[1:57:18] » Thank you councelor Lingren. Councelor Wallace Richmond.

[1:57:21] » No thanks. I just I had a question and then a comment. Um,

[1:57:27] in the report, uh, is there any reference to things that

[1:57:33] might be outside of our jurisdiction like provincial that would require

[1:57:37] provincial or federal funding? I mean, I I just see that things like investment

[1:57:42] can be sort of very high as opposed to low. But I'm assuming the very high ones

[1:57:47] like retrofitting our own buildings um would absolutely require uh provincial

[1:57:53] and federal support. I mean is that a fair statement? Cuz I'm okay with I this

[1:57:59] is a comprehensive plan. It's all tied together. It's very thoughtful.

[1:58:05] Completely happy to endorse it. I just think that we can't set an expectation

[1:58:09] where it means that we are going to pay for all of this all by ourselves. I I

[1:58:13] feel like that would be an important piece to put in there somewhere.

[1:58:16] » Mr. Buckton, can you respond? >> Yes, through the chair. Um I don't

[1:58:21] believe there's anything that's beyond our ability legislatively or

[1:58:25] jurisdictionally. Um funding. Yes, that that's an entirely different.

[1:58:30] Will it require funding from other sources? Inevitably.

[1:58:33] » Yeah, most plans do. Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:58:36] Well, I just I always think it's important to set expectations and the

[1:58:41] truth is um as you know, as we learned in the um PowerPoint around this um we

[1:58:50] know that our our biggest vulnerability is actually buildings, our own buildings

[1:58:54] and the community's biggest vulnerability is transportation. So one

[1:58:58] of those things means transit which we share with the province and the other

[1:59:02] thing other thing means very expensive retrofits of older community facilities

[1:59:08] which also need um senior orders of government to help fund. So let's just

[1:59:13] be clear as we move forward that we're going to have to do this in partnership.

[1:59:17] Thank you. >> Thank you. Councelor Wallace Richmond.

[1:59:21] Um councelor Lavy please go ahead. >> Yeah thanks your worship. Um I to a lot

[1:59:27] of this is a good document. I want to thank uh city staff um the engagement

[1:59:33] with organizations, experts, residents, the uh steering group committees, the

[1:59:39] work that has been done in terms of getting feedback loop and the broad

[1:59:44] community participation. I think it's been quite remarkable and I think it is

[1:59:48] the document for for the future. Um I'm wondering if we could get to page on the

[1:59:53] screen, page 139, please.

[1:59:59] part of the report. [clears throat]

[2:00:07] Thank you. And your worship, I'm going to hammer away hammer away at this.

[2:00:12] Under buildings, use policy tools to incentivize the

[2:00:16] adoption of green building infrastructure that enhances cooling,

[2:00:20] energy efficiency, water conservation, and overall climate resilience.

[2:00:25] Priority very high, investment low,

[2:00:33] and a a timeline.

[2:00:39] Buildings implement the zerocarbon step code by 2030.

[2:00:44] priority very high, investment very low

[2:00:53] by 2030. your worship. I accept but I disagree profoundly with our last

[2:01:01] decision on zero carbon step code. But I would urge the upcoming council

[2:01:10] to put in definitive to review to put in definitive timelines of what actually

[2:01:17] short and medium is. both are talking about 2027 2030 and in

[2:01:26] my view short and medium doesn't say okay we're going to do it in 202720 2030

[2:01:32] I think it'll be a challenge there may not be the political will there I think

[2:01:36] that there should be and I think that uh and I'm hoping that the next council

[2:01:41] will pick up this ball um in my view your worship that's been dropped but

[2:01:46] that not to taint what is the good document here thank

[2:01:52] Thank you, Councelor Lavy. Are there any other comments from council or questions

[2:01:57] at this time? Councelor Lingren, is there anyone else

[2:02:01] want to speak that hasn't had a chance? Okay, councelor Lingram, please go

[2:02:05] ahead. >> Thanks, Worship. Uh just wanted to

[2:02:08] comment on partnerships and how uh well done that was in this document actually.

[2:02:14] uh partnerships with groups like forest or [clears throat] industries like

[2:02:18] forestry and agriculture. Those are going to be so important moving forward.

[2:02:22] They have such a huge effect on how things happen. Really happy to see uh

[2:02:28] the city looking at ways that we can collaborate.

[2:02:32] If we lose the funding for firesmarting our community, can we partner with

[2:02:37] forestry to do selective logging in those areas? like those are natural fits

[2:02:42] and I think they're things that we haven't really explored in detail before

[2:02:46] and I'm really happy to see those coming forward. Um the other thing that I hope

[2:02:50] that we look at in the not too distant future is some kind of I I saw one of

[2:02:55] the things for 2027 was um CRP funding and staffing. And I don't know what

[2:03:01] staff is thinking about um uh as far as staffing what that will look like or but

[2:03:08] I'm imagining some kind of CRP coordinator position working with the

[2:03:13] Zero Home Collective to help citizens um connect with the services they need if

[2:03:19] they want to retrofit their home. um connecting with forestry, connecting

[2:03:23] with uh interior health, those types of agriculture, those types of things to

[2:03:27] help move the city's um objectives forward and using those partnerships to

[2:03:33] uh get them done at a reasonable cost or no cost to the city um because there's a

[2:03:40] partnership in place where somebody is going to benefit from that. So again,

[2:03:44] just thank you for the good work done. >> Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Are there

[2:03:49] any further comments or questions from council?

[2:03:56] Okay, seeing none, um I'd also like to thank staff and not just staff, but

[2:04:01] there was many many groups involved in helping provide information for input.

[2:04:06] the steering committee um had members from from all kinds of groups within

[2:04:13] within salmon arm and uh and they provided that the information they

[2:04:17] provided is included in this document. I think one of the really important pieces

[2:04:23] in this document is it's it brings together um city departments because

[2:04:30] with regards to to this kind of change we we need to make sure that uh that all

[2:04:38] of the departments are considering and working together and sharing and we've

[2:04:43] seen that progression happen. I think this this document really spells it out.

[2:04:50] um have to agree the education piece is is really large um um for for us to get

[2:04:57] out to the community um details of the of the plan and we certainly will do

[2:05:01] that. Um and there is a number of major components that we we need to continue

[2:05:07] to to educate on. um water metering metering which was mentioned and which

[2:05:13] we're piloting now is is one that's quite significant and uh and one that we

[2:05:19] need to talk about more with our community. Uh

[2:05:23] the transportation component and getting people out of their cars. Um we're we're

[2:05:28] doing it a piece at a time through through electric bikes and active

[2:05:32] transportation networks. Um I'm seeing more and more of it and I'm a personal

[2:05:37] example. Um and so that is that is a a reasonably easy way that that uh

[2:05:43] community members can contribute. So also like to thank we we ask um a

[2:05:51] number of groups to comment on the draft uh and appreciate those comments but I

[2:05:58] don't want to hold up this resiliency plan by going back and adjusting. I

[2:06:04] think those comments are useful be useful for the future. I think it's

[2:06:08] important that we pass it today. So, I certainly will vote uh to uh in favor of

[2:06:14] um of accepting this uh document. Seeing no other speakers, I will call a

[2:06:19] question. All those in favor? That passes unanimously.

[2:06:25] Thank you very much. Okay, we are going to move in camera.

[2:06:32] Um, I'll just check with uh our chief uh administrative officer if she

[2:06:39] could read the uh motion for consideration

[2:06:44] » that pursuant to section 91D and 92B of the community charter.

[2:06:50] Council moving camera. >> Could I have a mover and a seconder?

[2:06:54] Councelor Canella, councelor Wallace Richmond. Thank you. All those in favor?

[2:07:00] That passes unanimously. Thank you. I think uh for members of the public,

[2:07:04] we'll probably be about 45 minutes. So, I'm thinking 4:00. We should come back

[2:07:09] to regular session at 4:00. So, if you're interested in coming back on, um

[2:07:13] come back on at that time. Council will take a short little break.

[2:07:22] This conference will now be recorded.

[2:08:08] We will reconvene the city of Salmon regular council meeting of Monday,

[2:08:12] August 24th. Welcome back. Uh councelor Labry is with us virtually as some staff

[2:08:18] members um and the rest of council here in the council chamber with our staff.

[2:08:24] Council, we have uh moved to item or tab 12 now, which is the introduction of

[2:08:30] bylaws. And the first one is a fee for services amendment bylaw 4761. It's

[2:08:35] water and sewer rates. There is a motion for consideration. I can have a mover in

[2:08:39] a seconder to get that on the floor. Councelor Cannon, Councelor Lingren.

[2:08:43] Thank you. I'll pass it over to Mr. JRO to speak to us about the report.

[2:08:53] or will the chief financial officer Oh, Mr. Buckton's gonna speak to this. Okay,

[2:08:57] Mr. Buckton, I'm sorry. Please go ahead. [laughter]

[2:08:59] » Thank you, worship, members of council. Um, bylaw 4761 is is essentially an

[2:09:04] attempt to harmonize the utility rate categories

[2:09:08] with the land use categories that have developed through the the zoning bylaw

[2:09:12] and the schmoo legislation. So, we're starting to see these accessory dwelling

[2:09:16] units of various sizes that don't really fit into the existing categories in the

[2:09:21] current FIFA services bio agency, private dwellings, apartments, and

[2:09:25] suites, boarding and lodging. Um, a freestanding suite that we're seeing,

[2:09:29] these carriage homes, garage homes, granny suite, um, they're not really a

[2:09:35] suite as the current bylaw anticipates it. Um and the current size limit

[2:09:40] potentially on these accessory dwelling units is quite large. Um so it it just

[2:09:45] doesn't fit into the categories that we have

[2:09:49] um in the current fee for services spiral. So what we're proposing is to

[2:09:52] move from the first the first four private dwellings, apartments and

[2:09:56] residents combined with the new categories we would propose are

[2:10:01] residential dwelling apartments and secondary suites and then accessory

[2:10:05] dwelling units below that threshold which is 104 square meters and there is

[2:10:08] some rationale for that and then ADUs or accessory dwelling units above that 104

[2:10:14] square meters. Residential dwellings the new category is essentially the same as

[2:10:19] private dwellings previously. um that would capture single family homes,

[2:10:23] duplexes, triplexes, and grand oriented town homes definitions contained in the

[2:10:28] new bylaw to cover that off. Same definitions as we have in the zoning

[2:10:32] bylaw. So, we've got consistency across those bylaws.

[2:10:36] The rates would stay unchanged for that category of of dwelling unit. Um

[2:10:40] apartments and secondary suites would capture apartments and suites within

[2:10:44] homes as those currently what we understand as secondary suites.

[2:10:48] um the rate is assigned the same rate that it currently is. So it's it's that

[2:10:53] much lower rate. The smaller accessory dwelling units

[2:10:57] would be given the same rate as suites. That's the two 211 for water and 205 for

[2:11:02] sewer. And larger accessory dwelling units, that's above the 104.1 m get the

[2:11:09] higher rate. Um the rationale being that those are the larger units. The 104

[2:11:15] 104.1 m actually has a bit of thought behind it. It's 75% of the um average

[2:11:21] single family home size and we had Patrick pull the the assessment records.

[2:11:25] So there is some math and some rationale behind picking picking that number. Um

[2:11:31] so that the larger units get assigned to larger utility rate. They say the rates

[2:11:36] remain the same. We haven't changed the rates. It's just what we put into those

[2:11:39] categories is a little clearer. and the these ADUs that we're seeing which don't

[2:11:44] fit anywhere right now have a home to go to. It's clear everyone can see what it

[2:11:49] is when we're assigning the utility rates. Um it's very clear about where to

[2:11:54] put that. Um the note sections been amended um so we've got the necessary um

[2:12:00] definitions um or we're cross referencing to

[2:12:04] definitions from the zoning bio [snorts] so it's clear about what is what.

[2:12:08] um we don't intend to look at the existing utility accounts. That work of

[2:12:13] trolling through manually through each of those records would be a massive

[2:12:16] piece of work. So as those accounts change, we can reassess, but we're not

[2:12:21] going to go back in and change those. Um at this point in time, we don't

[2:12:27] anticipate this will have any impact on revenue. Um I say as an administrative

[2:12:33] classification of utility accounts, we don't feel there's a need for public

[2:12:36] communication. So, as noted, we're just trying to make sure that what we're

[2:12:41] seeing through the zoning ble has a place to go in the utility account

[2:12:44] classifications. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for that

[2:12:48] explanation and for the report, counselors, I'll open it up to you if

[2:12:52] you have any questions or any comments that you wish to make.

[2:12:57] » Councelor Lingren, >> thanks for worship. Um, so I'm in

[2:13:01] generally support in support of this. I see the rationale I think for you know I

[2:13:07] think what the push is is more people more wear and tear more use of utilities

[2:13:12] therefore higher rates is that correct that's why we charge more

[2:13:16] » Mr. Braxton. Yes, we're using the size and size of

[2:13:21] the unit as a proxy for uh impact on utilities. The larger the

[2:13:26] unit, the more likely to have larger fixtures. It's the best short counting

[2:13:29] fixtures. It's the best proxy we have. >> Great. Councelor Lingren.

[2:13:33] » Yeah. So, I assume that it's too hard to it's probably not possible to

[2:13:40] assess based on the number of people actually living there. And here's my

[2:13:44] thought process. Um, if [clears throat] you live in a

[2:13:47] house that has a thousand square ft on each of two floors and it's got three or

[2:13:52] four bed, say four bedrooms, two up, two down, with a wreck room uh, in the

[2:13:57] basement and you raise a family with four kids, that's a pretty realistic

[2:14:03] Yikes. Go away. Oh, I don't have a touchcreen. Sorry.

[2:14:08] Um, so if you raise a family with four kids, that's a pretty realistic number

[2:14:12] of people to be in that house. Then your kids grow up and leave home. Uh you've

[2:14:17] had four basically uh six basically six adults in the house for a number of

[2:14:21] years. And then your kids all leave home and you think, you know, this space in

[2:14:26] the basement would be much better used. Let's put in a suite down there. So you

[2:14:29] put in a a two-bedroom suite and you rent it out, but there might just be one

[2:14:33] person living there. And so you have two people upstairs and one person

[2:14:38] downstairs and you now have half as many people, but you're going to pay one and

[2:14:41] a half times as much for utilities. And I'm wondering whether or not it's a

[2:14:45] deterrent for people to sweep their place and whether or not we might be if

[2:14:50] we're trying to incentivize housing more housing and incentivize adding a suite

[2:14:55] to your home if you're not using that space if it would be smart for us to not

[2:15:00] charge if the suite is within the home. Is that a possibility?

[2:15:04] » Mr. Buckton, can you uh comment? the chair. I believe it's been practiced

[2:15:10] for many years to charge for that secondary suite. So that would be a

[2:15:16] reversal of um long-standing practice at the city.

[2:15:23] » Councelor Lingren, >> yeah, it has been a practice. Um but we

[2:15:27] have not had a push like we have now to increase housing and uh density and uh

[2:15:33] provincial rules have changed, municipal bylaws are changing. Um, you know, there

[2:15:38] are lots of reasons to be increasing incentives for people to put sweets in.

[2:15:43] So, it I'm for me it feels like it's an appropriate time to rethink that

[2:15:49] philosophy that it may not be that there are more people living in that house and

[2:15:52] that there are not there's not a higher use of utilities and the chances are

[2:15:57] that there's actually fewer people living in the house than there was when

[2:16:00] it was a four-bedroom home uh single family home.

[2:16:04] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Are there other speakers to the motion?

[2:16:12] I see none. I will call the question. All those in favor?

[2:16:17] Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. We

[2:16:21] will go to reconsideration of bylaws, which is tab 13.

[2:16:26] First one is zoning a bylaw 4759, civic address 3851th Avenue Southeast. The

[2:16:32] owner is Little Mountain Ridge Developments. agent is uh Dave McHugh.

[2:16:37] There's a motion for consideration for this final reading. If I have a mover in

[2:16:40] a seconder, councelor Canam will move. Councelor Wallace Richmond will second.

[2:16:46] I'll pass it over to Mr. Buckton just to review briefly this final reading.

[2:16:50] » Thank you. Worship members of council. Um this is the reszoning just west of

[2:16:55] Little Mountain Park. It's going from A2 to R10. It's consistent with the OCP. No

[2:17:00] changes or issues since um council last considered this.

[2:17:05] » Thank you. Councilors, any questions or comments?

[2:17:11] » I will call a question. All those in favor?

[2:17:15] That passes unanimously. Thank you. The next one 13.2. Again, final reading is

[2:17:21] traffic bylaw, ticket information utilization bylaw, and fee for service

[2:17:25] bylaw amendments 4773,74 and 75. There is a motion for

[2:17:29] consideration. Um, councelor Lavy, if you were interested in moving or

[2:17:33] seconding, I take move here. Thank you. Moved by councelor Lavy, second by

[2:17:38] councelor Cannon. >> I'll pass that over to Mr. Buckton.

[2:17:43] » Thank you, worship, members of council. Again, um these three bylaws of council

[2:17:47] recollects are a suite of bylaws to the three separate bylaws that deal with um

[2:17:53] enforcement and trying to align all of our bylaws so that we can undertake

[2:17:58] digital um ticketing. >> Thank you. Thanks for that summary.

[2:18:03] Counselors, any questions or comments? Councelor Lingren,

[2:18:07] » maybe you already know what I'm going to say. Um, I noticed in the traffic bylaw

[2:18:13] that people can be ticketed for using their engine retarder brakes and I

[2:18:18] wondered if we could start maybe implementing more tickets for that to

[2:18:22] see if that stops people from using them on Tank Hill.

[2:18:26] » Mr. Bson, can you respond? >> Certainly something that if it's in the

[2:18:31] bylaw, we can do that.

[2:18:35] » Thank you. Councelor Lingren, any further comments? I'll start calling

[2:18:38] bylaw instead of the RCMP then. Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other comments or

[2:18:43] questions? I'll call a question and all those in

[2:18:47] favor

[2:18:50] that passes unanimously. Council, we're into correspondence and

[2:18:55] councelor Ganell, I think um if it's okay with you, we'll deal with the two

[2:19:00] items that um you made a de declaration in 1419 and one and 15. So I will call

[2:19:08] you back after council's had an opportunity to work on those two. So I

[2:19:13] would call on a counselor who's willing to um speak to those items.

[2:19:22] Councelor Wallace Richmond, please go ahead.

[2:19:24] » Yeah. 1419 Trail Alliance request

[2:19:29] to host their spring trail celebration at the South Canoe. Um they're always

[2:19:34] well ahead of time planning for June 5th, a very popular event. I would move

[2:19:39] that uh we ask staff to work with the Trail Alliance uh to put in place

[2:19:45] whatever is needed to done to accommodate this request.

[2:19:49] » Thank you. Seconder councelor Cannon. Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your

[2:19:53] motion, Councelor Wallace Richmond? >> Uh, no. Um, yes. Would be the fourth

[2:19:58] year, I think, of this uh event. It's an important one for the Trail Alliance and

[2:20:03] uh I hope council will support. >> Thank you. Any other speakers to that

[2:20:08] motion? I'll call a question and all those in

[2:20:12] favor that passes unanimously.

[2:20:17] Um, would someone like to bring up 14.15?

[2:20:21] Thank you, Councelor Canon. Please go ahead.

[2:20:23] » So, this is a request, but I'm just kind of thinking that this

[2:20:29] request is coming in the final hour. Uh I don't know. I'm sure this is on the

[2:20:38] radar of our staff because uh the parade is this this weekend. So,

[2:20:46] um, but this is the closure for the fall fair which starts on the Thursday, the

[2:20:51] road closure. So, make a motion that staff work with the fall fair.

[2:20:58] » Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Councelor Lingren,

[2:21:03] should we check in with our staff and just see how

[2:21:05] » I just wanted to just say to staff, is this too short a notice or was it on

[2:21:11] your radar screen? >> Mr.

[2:21:13] Yeah, thank you through your worship. Uh it was on our radar. It was just uh an

[2:21:18] item that was missed previously in in their road closures and the parade route

[2:21:22] and it was a frantic phone call late last week in the evening. That's what I

[2:21:26] was wondering. >> And uh yeah, so we're all good. This is

[2:21:29] the same they've done for previous years. They'll also be utilizing the the

[2:21:33] the old memorial arena lot as a expansion of their fair as well. So no

[2:21:38] concerns. >> And we're able to provide barricades

[2:21:42] and certainly signs. Perfect. Thanks so much.

[2:21:45] » Thank you. Um, is there any comments or questions around that motion?

[2:21:53] Seeing none, I'll call a question. All those in favor?

[2:21:57] Thank you. And thank you for our staff for always uh being so willing to work

[2:22:02] with these groups. All right, we'll invite Councelor Ganella back.

[2:22:44] Welcome back, Councelor Canella. Um, we've dealt with those two items. So,

[2:22:48] counselors, I'll open it up to you for any of the other items that you might

[2:22:52] wish to speak to on theformational correspondence. Councelor Cannon.

[2:22:56] » Thank you, your worship. Oh, I just uh lost what number it was. Just a sec.

[2:23:03] 14.1.5 the letter from the SPCA.

[2:23:08] » Yes, please go ahead. >> I mean, this is uh I think an

[2:23:13] interesting opportunity. uh looking at the letter from them um

[2:23:21] leasing the land possibly from them. But I think this is something that we

[2:23:27] need to look at at budget time. >> So could I make a motion to put this on

[2:23:33] specific would it be specific referrals for worship?

[2:23:37] » Yes, please. And maybe we can even uh get staff to get us a bit more

[2:23:42] information on they say in here that they did some preliminary figuring and

[2:23:50] they figure it would be 100,000 plus volunteer time, but maybe we could have

[2:23:56] a little bit more information from staff if they could look at it.

[2:23:59] » Thank you for the motion. Is there a seconder? Councelor Ganella will second.

[2:24:04] Um did you wish to speak further to your motion, Councelor Can? I just think uh

[2:24:09] with it being right on 97 uh definitely fencing would be an issue and it would

[2:24:14] be interesting to see what kind of configuration to make this work for a

[2:24:18] dog park cuz the dog people are always looking for a dog park. So

[2:24:24] » thank you council Lingren. I see your buttons pressed. Is it for this item?

[2:24:28] Okay. I don't see other speakers for this item. And by putting on specific

[2:24:32] referrals, they also get an invitation to come speak to us. So that might be

[2:24:35] helpful as well. >> All right, I'll call a question. All

[2:24:38] those in favor? That passes unanimously. Thank you.

[2:24:46] Councelor Cannon, do you have any other ones that you'd like to speak to?

[2:24:50] » Well, no, that's good. >> Okay, I'll go to Councelor Lingren next

[2:24:54] then. Councelor Lingren, please go ahead.

[2:24:56] » Uh number eight and number 11, please. >> Okay, let's start with eight then.

[2:25:00] » Um just a letter a letter requesting licensing for cats. just want to keep

[2:25:05] this on the radar of staff that at some point I think this issue is going to

[2:25:09] boil over and we're going to have to address it, but I'm not [clears throat]

[2:25:13] prepared to make any motions at this time. The EAC made some recommendations

[2:25:17] around that and um maybe we should get back to this lady and let her know what

[2:25:22] the issues are around why we haven't instituted licensing for cats just yet.

[2:25:26] » Thank you. We will get back to Miss Tate and appreciate her her concern there.

[2:25:32] Um, and the other one you wanted to speak to was

[2:25:35] » 11. >> Okay. Yes, please go ahead.

[2:25:37] » Yeah. So, this is a letter from somebody asking us to ban fireworks. And I

[2:25:41] understand this concern completely. Last summer, there was somebody uh in the

[2:25:46] evening with a black pickup truck parked at, um, Safeway Field, I call it. I

[2:25:52] can't remember what it's really called. uh uh firing off fireworks randomly in

[2:25:57] the middle of a park or a green space in the middle of Salmon Arm and in the

[2:26:01] middle of fire season. It just seems really tonedeaf and I just wanted to

[2:26:05] know from staff what our legal parameters are around something like a

[2:26:11] fireworks band ban. >> Sure. Would you like to refer it to

[2:26:16] staff to get back to us or do you want to see if we can do it today? Uh if they

[2:26:22] have any information, I'd be happy to hear it. But if um we need some time to

[2:26:26] do some research and see what's possible, I'm happy with that, too.

[2:26:30] » Okay. My suggestion would be we might want to refer because I think the fire

[2:26:33] department might have some input perhaps. Um

[2:26:38] » sorry, I was just wondering if we have legal jurisdiction to ban fireworks

[2:26:42] within the city. >> All right, let's see if we can figure

[2:26:44] that out first. Um C >> your worship uh currently we do not have

[2:26:50] the jurisdiction to ban the sale of fireworks. Um there are some frameworks

[2:26:56] available to us including the fireworks act but um that would specifically

[2:27:02] um create a scenario where selling, giving or setting off fireworks would

[2:27:07] not be permitted except between October 24th and November 1st in any year. So

[2:27:12] very restrictive under the fireworks act. Um there are other means of dealing

[2:27:19] with this through us bylaw. So that would be the mechanism and the city does

[2:27:24] have that ability. >> Yeah, I appreciate that answer. I know

[2:27:29] it's a complicated one. Uh I think the biggest issue is that they're very hard

[2:27:33] to catch because they go down there and you see them and you call the RCMP and

[2:27:36] by the time they get there, these guys have packed up and gone somewhere else

[2:27:39] to do it. So, um, yeah, just anything we can do to mitigate that. I think there's

[2:27:45] a a fairly supportive group of residents in Salmon Arm that would be in favor of

[2:27:50] banning fireworks that are just random like that. I think they're dangerous.

[2:27:54] They're disruptive to um, pets and um, animals. And anyway, it's just a huge

[2:28:00] fire hazard and a nuisance and I don't think they should be allowed to do it.

[2:28:04] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. >> No other uh, items.

[2:28:07] » Okay. Um there is one other item that requires

[2:28:12] our it's around the Terry Fox run. Um if someone could bring that one up. They're

[2:28:18] asking to be able to Oh, Council Cannon probably knows. Councelor Cannon, go

[2:28:22] ahead. >> Okay. So, they are looking

[2:28:28] » it's 4.1.2. >> Yeah, I got it.

[2:28:31] » We've rented the gazebo at Blackburn Park for September. Proudly hosted.

[2:28:36] While reviewing the rental agreement, I noticed that amplification is not

[2:28:39] permitted and that access to power on site is restricted. I am writing the

[2:28:44] request special permission for the Terry Foxorn to use available power and

[2:28:50] limited amplification during the event. So,

[2:28:56] um I guess I would ask our director

[2:29:04] of public works if this is something that we could do. I guess I think it's

[2:29:09] through Shaw Recreation Society. They manage that. Correct.

[2:29:14] » Mr. Dro, can you comment? >> Yep. Thank you, your worship. Uh yeah,

[2:29:19] the gazebo can be booked through the Shrop Recreation Society. Um the

[2:29:22] amplification uh goes against the parks and open space bylaw where they just

[2:29:26] need council approval to have amplification. Otherwise the event no

[2:29:30] concerns you can move. >> So I'll make a motion uh that

[2:29:36] if council would accept them being able to have amplification.

[2:29:41] » Thank you. Seconded by councelor Wallace Richmond. Do you wish to speak to that

[2:29:46] motion? Councelor Cannon. >> Nope. Just want to thank our city

[2:29:50] manager for working with us. >> Okay. Thank you. And that uh Terry Fox

[2:29:55] run September 20th for those interested. I will call the question and all those

[2:29:59] in favor.

[2:30:03] That passes unanimously. Thank you. Councilors, uh councelor Canada, do you

[2:30:09] have any others that you want to talk to?

[2:30:11] » No. >> No. Okay. Then councelor Lingren, then

[2:30:13] councelor Wallace Richmond. >> Uh thanks worship. I wasn't going to

[2:30:17] bring this one up, but number six, I think I just want to comment on.

[2:30:21] » Sure. Go ahead and make your comment. >> I don't [clears throat] know who this um

[2:30:25] writer is or what neighborhood they live in. Um but it seems that they are

[2:30:31] requesting that the city um institute or build or I'm not sure

[2:30:37] exactly how they would do this, but the estab they want us to establish

[2:30:40] neighborhood level fence dog runs. And I just want to comment on how unrealistic

[2:30:44] that would be. First of all, the city doesn't own land in every neighborhood.

[2:30:48] Uh second of all, the cost of either buying land, turning it into dog parks,

[2:30:54] maintaining it, running water, um all the things that would have to happen for

[2:30:58] a dog park is completely off the charts, unrealistic.

[2:31:02] Um there is a ton of places in the air in all of our city, all over the city,

[2:31:08] where you can walk your dog on leash and off leash, including one designated dog

[2:31:13] park. And while I support her idea that more dog parks are uh uh

[2:31:20] favorable, like we need more of them, um having a neighborhood level fence dog

[2:31:26] run in every neighborhood is just never going to happen. Um, so I

[2:31:32] [clears throat] I I also need to comment again that uh um Blackburn Field,

[2:31:38] Blackburn Park is not a dog park. And I know the whole community thinks that it

[2:31:44] is and I'm going to keep saying this until I'm done in October. [laughter] It

[2:31:48] the fairgrounds is not a dog park. The fairgrounds is a place that the board

[2:31:53] allows people to take their dogs because it's a lot of the time unused for other

[2:31:58] things. Um, but it is not a designated dog park. It is not run by the city. Um,

[2:32:03] yeah, we got to stop calling it that. So, we're lucky to have that extra

[2:32:08] space. Khani is the only dog park that I'm aware of. Um, and do we need another

[2:32:13] one, a bigger one with some trails and trees? Yes, of course we do. And, you

[2:32:18] know, just tonight we were or just today we were even just talking about that.

[2:32:22] Um, but yeah, this is a completely unrealistic ask and I don't know if

[2:32:27] staff can >> [laughter]

[2:32:29] » tell her that in a much more measured way than I would be able to. Um but

[2:32:34] yeah, I think that that is off the table.

[2:32:37] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Councelor Wallace Richmond.

[2:32:40] » Yeah. On um item 14.1.7 regarding improvements to the boat

[2:32:45] launch. >> Yes.

[2:32:47] Um,

[2:32:50] [clears throat] can we confirm that those kind of uh

[2:32:57] improvements in water would not be our decision to make and in fact dredging

[2:33:03] isn't really allowed anymore. >> Um, CAO, I know there's three requests

[2:33:09] there. Concrete ramp extensions, dredging, launch basins, lowwater market

[2:33:13] signage. We could ask staff to get back to us on on that information or would

[2:33:17] you like to try to? [laughter] >> No, I'm happy for staff to get back to

[2:33:22] us. [clears throat] I guess if I could add one question and also if if we

[2:33:25] dredged, wouldn't it just fill up with silt all over again? So, I know this is

[2:33:30] a a problem all over the Shushwap and um other boat launches have had to close.

[2:33:36] So um it would be good to have clarity around this answer without making any uh

[2:33:43] suggesting in what a way am I prepared to move ahead on this. I just think we

[2:33:48] as a community we need to understand what the regulations around that kind of

[2:33:51] work is. Would you like to craft a motion to staff walls Richmond or uh

[2:33:58] that council uh refer this letter to staff to get clarification around our

[2:34:05] jurisdiction in terms of uh boat rent boat launch improvements and um dredging

[2:34:14] and building in the lake. >> Okay. Thank you. Second to that motion.

[2:34:18] Councelor Cannon. Thank you. You wish to speak to your motion? Uh, no. I already

[2:34:22] did. Thank you. >> Okay. Are there other speakers to the

[2:34:25] motion? Okay. I I appreciate the motion. The one

[2:34:30] piece of the motion that I think I'll be especially interested in is the concrete

[2:34:35] ramp extensions because that could be if we can if we're

[2:34:42] permitted to do it um could be a way to extend the use of the boat launch at uh

[2:34:51] Marine Park because I know that's one of the problems. So, look forward to

[2:34:55] hearing back from staff on that. Any other comments on the motion? Uh,

[2:35:00] councelor Lingren. Yes. >> Yes. Uh, I just find it ironic that this

[2:35:05] uh request or this letter came up on the same day that we're talking about

[2:35:08] climate change and a climate resiliency plan because part of the reason that the

[2:35:14] lake is lower every year is due to climate change. We're in drought

[2:35:18] conditions and they're getting worse all the time. and the idea that we have to

[2:35:21] do anything um to make it easier for people to take their fossil fuel burning

[2:35:27] toys out on the lake uh while that's happening. It seems a bit tonedeaf. So,

[2:35:33] I I wouldn't be in favor of extending them uh the the boat launches. I think

[2:35:38] that we need to be more cognizant of the effect that we're having when we do

[2:35:42] these types of activities. >> Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Is there

[2:35:46] any other speakers to the motion? I will call a question on the motion.

[2:35:50] All those in favor? Any opposed?

[2:35:55] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, any other items? Councelor Wallace

[2:35:59] Richmond, please go ahead. >> On the 14.1.10

[2:36:06] is both a compliment on the soontobe complete roundabout, but also a concern

[2:36:11] around use of staff time. I think it's important that the letter writer

[2:36:17] understand that these were contracts agreed to without overages and it's

[2:36:23] really um important that we recognize um that a biz was bid was placed and

[2:36:29] accepted and how they manage their staff is purely a private matter for them to

[2:36:35] deal with. So I don't think any comment in this case would be appropriate.

[2:36:40] Thank you, Councelor Walter. And we we will let um Miss Vander Clark know um th

[2:36:47] those uh those facts. Appreciate her input because this is an opportunity to

[2:36:51] to uh educate. Right. So, thank you very much for that. Is there any other um

[2:36:57] pieces of information that uh council may wish to bring up at this time?

[2:37:03] Councelor Lavy, please go ahead. >> Yeah, thanks for worship. Uh so 14.1.3

[2:37:10] um I think we'll be doing social media. We have done social media stuff but a

[2:37:14] note to everybody there's a candidate information session if you're thinking

[2:37:18] of running for local government. It's this coming Wednesday two days from now

[2:37:22] 5:00 pm council chambers and there's a way of attending virtually. Thank you.

[2:37:27] » Thank you very much councelor Labry. Thank you for uh for your advocacy of

[2:37:33] towards people learning all about it. Okay, I see no other uh um

[2:37:40] interest in any of the other items there. So, we'll go to council

[2:37:44] statements. Does any counselor have a statement they would like to make?

[2:37:48] Councelor Cannon, please go ahead. >> I'm just going to get to my statement.

[2:37:53] Okay. Um, I received a letter a few days ago from

[2:37:59] the vice president of the tennis salmon arm tennis club and she was just

[2:38:05] thanking on behalf of the Salmon Arm tennis club

[2:38:10] uh of the 55 plus legacy funds that we gave the tennis club for to upgrade

[2:38:18] their uh outdoor Wi-Fi system in the facility. So, she was they were very

[2:38:25] appreciative and it is all done. So, she just sent a thank you letter on behalf

[2:38:30] of the tennis club. So, I just wanted to pass that along.

[2:38:35] » Thank you, councelor Cannon. And you've probably seen they've been pouring the

[2:38:38] uh foundation for the lights. >> I know at the synthetic field, which is

[2:38:44] also part of that legacy. >> Yeah, the legacy funds paying for a

[2:38:48] portion of the lighting in the synthetic field. So, it was pretty exciting that

[2:38:52] the the cement is poured and it's hopefully soon we'll have spent all our

[2:38:58] money cuz it's sitting there. So, exciting times.

[2:39:02] » Thank you, councelor Cannon. Councelor Lingren,

[2:39:04] » thanks worship. [snorts] I just wanted to say thank you to councelor Lavy for

[2:39:08] um not being able to attend his sir meeting last Friday because that meant I

[2:39:13] got to go and it was really interesting the sterile insect re release. I I know

[2:39:18] I always ask questions about this and why is this important and how does this

[2:39:21] work uh at budget time? I think probably most of the last seven years I've asked

[2:39:26] that question and now I understand a lot better how it works and uh why it's

[2:39:31] important and it's an amazing um uh venture that they've got going there

[2:39:36] with like 60some staff and it's it's really incredible what they're doing and

[2:39:41] it's a cutting edge technology. So, it was really exciting to be there and uh a

[2:39:46] lot of the information was over my head, but if I get to go again in the next

[2:39:49] couple months, uh I'll probably understand more of it. So, thanks.

[2:39:53] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. I know you have the same enthusiasm that councelor

[2:39:58] Flynn and councelor Lavy have for that uh sir. So, there you go. We'll have to

[2:40:03] get more people to visit those meetings. So, thank you for attending. Councelor

[2:40:07] Wallace Richmond. >> Yeah, just a word about UBCM quickly on

[2:40:12] its way. held in Vancouver 13 to the 18th. Um

[2:40:18] while my term on the UBCM board is coming to a close, uh I did want to

[2:40:25] remind council and the community at large that the resolution book is out.

[2:40:29] Uh so um it's time to get your homework done. Take a look, see um where that

[2:40:37] sits with you and um looking forward to a resolution session at UBCM which will

[2:40:43] be a little bit different this year because it only deals with matters

[2:40:47] related to the province at large, not specific regions which will then fall to

[2:40:52] our area associations like Silka. So looking forward to it.

[2:40:56] » Great. Thank you very much for that. And we're expecting to hear um from the

[2:41:00] ministries shortly now about any meetings that we might uh um have been

[2:41:06] able to arrange. So our corporate officer will be keeping us um informed

[2:41:10] of that. Thank you for your work with UBCM Council Wallace Richmond.

[2:41:16] I'll just uh let you know and I think most of you were aware not all were able

[2:41:20] to attend uh our visit with uh um our sister city friends from Inishki. um

[2:41:26] council walls and I were here uh in the council chamber last Tuesday

[2:41:33] um when they uh sister city representatives were here

[2:41:38] and as most of you know part of that is that each of the students and there's

[2:41:42] eight of them this year much smaller group had their opportunity to come and

[2:41:46] speak to us uh in English on um without uh any translation and they were

[2:41:53] amazing. I think I think the best I've seen. They were so well practiced and uh

[2:42:00] they were seated. It was quite it was quite an a warm morning because they

[2:42:03] were seated with their uh with their um homeay uh student um and some of the

[2:42:10] families were here as well and you could just sort of see them just getting to

[2:42:13] know each other and cheering each other on. I know they had uh three really good

[2:42:17] days camping out at Harold Park. Um, as you know, we we certainly uh um scaled

[2:42:22] back the numbers and the activities. So, instead of a house boat, it was a tenth.

[2:42:26] Um, but it was very Canadian and I heard it went very well. um had opportunity to

[2:42:32] meet uh with the mayor and with the consulate uh general from uh um from

[2:42:37] Vancouver and uh you know the goodwill that that um that brings about um which

[2:42:45] is was demonstrated by the uh interpreter who's a Karen de Breeze a

[2:42:51] student who exchanged and I went lived in Japan and has come back. It's kind of

[2:42:55] the changing the guard where the um the teacher the new teachers are taking over

[2:42:59] and the younger interpreters. So I see I see a good uh a good um future for that

[2:43:05] program. Very very enjoyable and uh very worthwhile.

[2:43:10] Any other um council statements? Seeing none, um as you know that our

[2:43:16] question period has been suspended temporarily until after our election. So

[2:43:22] um I will recess this meeting. Thank you, Councelor Cannon, for chairing the

[2:43:27] evening meeting. As you know, I'm not able to be there this evening. Thank you

[2:43:30] to all of council for your input today. We dealt with some very interesting and

[2:43:35] uh challenging issues and I think we did it very professionally. Thank you and

[2:43:39] respectfully and thank you to staff as well.

[2:43:47] » This conference will now be recorded

[2:46:52] Could

[2:46:59] we do a sound check, please?

[2:49:43] Can you hear us now, Tim? >> I I can, Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

[2:49:57] hear any of the opening statements? >> Um, no, but I I understand the file, so

[2:50:04] I'm >> comfortable with us moving on. Thank

[2:50:06] you. >> Okay, so we'll move on to planning to

[2:50:10] finish. >> Um, yes, thank you. Um while we

[2:50:15] recognize that the improvements are insignificant uh not insignificant sorry

[2:50:21] uh due to the uh um double frontage um we would not recommend staff are not

[2:50:27] recommending that council wave the requirements. Um our alter staff's

[2:50:32] alternative alternative recommendation however is consistent with motion that

[2:50:36] council passed at the that the committee passed at the development planning

[2:50:40] services committee meeting. If council has any questions of of

[2:50:45] staff, we will try to answer them for you.

[2:50:49] » Okay. And I'll just mentioned that we did get a late item 22.1.

[2:50:56] Does everyone have a copy of that? I think it came in an email

[2:51:01] » from the engineer. >> From the engineer.

[2:51:03] » Oh. [clears throat] Oh, yes.

[2:51:07] Okay.

[2:51:16] Does any counselors have any?

[2:51:22] We don't have anyone here or online that would like to speak.

[2:51:31] So I'll call the first time. Would anyone like to speak on this matter?

[2:51:38] Calling a second time for submissions from the gallery or online.

[2:51:48] Calling a third and final time.

[2:51:54] Seeing and hearing. No one wants to speak. So we will close

[2:52:01] this hearing.

[2:52:06] And now we'll move on to the variance that's in front of us.

[2:52:18] Councelor Wallace Richmond,

[2:52:22] » what do I [clears throat] have to do to get your light to go on? Just

[2:52:27] » um thanks your worship. Um and through you uh

[2:52:34] did we want to move the original motion or the alternative?

[2:52:41] » I would ask our CEO. >> My recommendation your worship is to

[2:52:47] move the motion um as indicated in the staff report and then um make an

[2:52:52] amendment similar to what you did at um the planning meeting.

[2:52:56] » Okay. So then uh in that case I worship I would move uh the original motion

[2:53:04] » the original motion or the staff recommendation.

[2:53:06] » We move the original motion and if it's seconded I might uh make an

[2:53:13] amendment. >> The original motion just for

[2:53:16] clarification is the staff recommended motion. Oh in the report and then you

[2:53:20] would do an amendment. >> Just wanting to make make sure that's

[2:53:24] was your intent. Um

[2:53:30] yeah well my intent is

[2:53:36] well my interest here is to understand how we would go about um

[2:53:44] advocating for uh the alternative motion or the alternative suggested in the

[2:53:50] report. the one that we uh discussed at development of planning.

[2:53:57] » Thank you, your worship. I would still recommend going with the the motion that

[2:54:02] was requested by the applicant and then modifying it to what you want. Okay.

[2:54:07] » Which is is how you um navigated that at the planning meeting.

[2:54:11] » Okay. >> Okay.

[2:54:13] » All right. So then we'll move the original motion.

[2:54:16] » So councelor Wallace Richmond moves. Councelor Lingren seconds

[2:54:24] » and then >> I'm just trying to get it on the floor.

[2:54:27] » Yeah. >> Um

[2:54:30] » so what I would say then speaking to the motion is understand the challenges with

[2:54:35] double fronted properties um and the fact that this property is uh slightly

[2:54:41] over what would qualify as infill. However, um I'm I'm interested in waving

[2:54:50] that the sidewalk on 52nd, which was uh the amendment we made um at planning.

[2:54:57] So, would now be a good time to make that amendment?

[2:55:00] » So, it's waving the the sidewalk uh but not the the shoulder widening.

[2:55:08] Correct.

[2:55:13] » Oh, okay. Sorry, the the motion that was passed at

[2:55:20] um committee >> is essentially item one only on the

[2:55:26] » So, >> oh, sorry. Curb and gutter. My my

[2:55:28] apologies. Curb and gutter. Sorry. Yeah. To remove item one

[2:55:33] » would be my amendment >> to see if

[2:55:37] » to leave that one in and remove the other four. So that would be the only

[2:55:41] » only wave curve and gutter. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[2:55:45] » Of number one. >> Yeah.

[2:55:47] » And two, three, four, five stay in the motion. Correct.

[2:55:52] » No, those those would not be waved.

[2:55:58] » Okay. Sorry for the confusion. To clarify my motion, the amendment I would

[2:56:03] make is that we only wave curb and gutter on 52nd,

[2:56:08] which would eliminate 2, three, four, and five from the motion on the table at

[2:56:12] this time. >> Okay.

[2:56:15] » And we have uh councelor Lind, do you second that?

[2:56:19] » Okay. >> Okay. And so again, uh the logic being

[2:56:24] for the amendment is while I understand the challenge of double fronted

[2:56:29] property, um there could be a maximum of four units

[2:56:35] of four um four lots with four units each at 16 lots. Um

[2:56:44] typically you wouldn't get 16 lots on a single fronted property. Um, so I feel

[2:56:49] like it is reasonable if um 52nd Street Northeast doesn't have any sidewalks, it

[2:56:56] might need some ditching. So uh at at one point so and my assumption is and

[2:57:03] through you maybe I can check with staff is that we would have a we have a right

[2:57:08] of way to do that already. Do we not? Or do we have to get it if we need if and

[2:57:13] when we need to ditch 50 seconds. >> Okay, chair. I believe that there are

[2:57:18] some small road widening requirements, but those were not asked to be waved.

[2:57:22] » Okay. All right. >> They're they're they're small in nature,

[2:57:24] but they're they're not subject to the variance request.

[2:57:27] » Okay. Perfect. So, as long as doing this uh agreeing to this being waved wouldn't

[2:57:33] restrict the ability to ditch at a future point in time based on that canoe

[2:57:38] overflow water plan. So, okay. >> So, that would be my motion to amend.

[2:57:46] Okay. >> And my rationale for it.

[2:57:50] » And would you like to speak to the motion that's been amended? Councelor

[2:57:54] Linger. >> Sure.

[2:57:58] » Thanks, uh, your acting worship. Um, just wanted to clarify this lot has been

[2:58:05] proposed to be divided into four lots, not 16, but could have 16 units. So

[2:58:09] there could be four um single family homes each having a suite and an ADU

[2:58:16] with a suite or something along those lines. So that does um push them up to a

[2:58:20] pretty high standard I think. And I'm fully in support of waving the curb and

[2:58:24] gutter on 52nd for the rationale given by staff um but none of the others. So I

[2:58:29] support the amendment. Okay.

[2:58:34] » Any other speakers?

[2:58:39] Seeing none, I'm going to call the motion as amended.

[2:58:45] » The amendment of the motion first. >> Yeah. Vote on the amendment.

[2:58:49] » All in favor of the amendment. That passes unanimously.

[2:58:54] Now we will vote on the motion as amended.

[2:59:00] All in favor? Oh, just that councelor Labry.

[2:59:04] » Uh, yes. Thanks. I I I'm in support of the motion as amended. I just wanted uh

[2:59:09] especially for the applicants to note that while I was not at planning, I

[2:59:13] reviewed the documents, reviewed the recording and know uh know the property.

[2:59:19] So I will support what's in front of us. Thank you.

[2:59:22] » Thank you councelor Lavy. So we will call the the question on the

[2:59:28] motion as amended. All in favor? That passes unanimously.

[2:59:37] Okay, moving on to

[2:59:42] we don't have anything else on the agenda and our question and answer

[2:59:47] period has been suspended temporarily. So we are adjourned.

[2:59:54] Thank you.

Regular Council Meeting

Transcript