This conference will now be recorded.
» Good afternoon everyone. Welcome. I'd like to call to order the city of Salmon
regular council meeting of Monday, August 24th. Welcome to you all. Welcome
to our staff, guests who are in the gallery and council members both who are
here virtually and in person. Councelor Lingurn, Councelor Cannon, Councelor
Wallace Richmond, Councelor Ganella, and myself are in the council chamber.
Councelor Lavy, good afternoon. Nice to see you.
Councilors, we have a uh agenda to consider. I will check with our CEO to
see if there are any um changes to the agenda.
» Yes, your worship. Um there's an addition of an in camera session as item
four and the following late submissions letter dated August 20th 2026 related to
item 22.1 uh VP627
as well as item 14.1 emails of August 23rd and 22nd um from Armore and a group
and uh that's it. >> Great. Thank you. If I could have a
motion to adopt that agenda as uh adjusted. Thank you, Councelor Wallace
Richmond. Okay, I can get that question after I
get a seconder. Councelor Ganella, councelor Canon,
» please go ahead. >> Was there also a change in the agenda of
how two things line up the order? >> I through your worship to councelor
Cannon. Yes, that was also contemplated. Um item
10 10.11
and 10.10 will be switched. Thank you for that.
» Thank you councelor Can for cashing. I'll check with her mover and seconder.
Make sure you're comfortable with that. Yes. Okay. Um any other input to that
motion? Call a question. All those in favor?
Thank you very much. Um I'd like to acknowledge our traditional territory.
We acknowledge we're gathering here on the traditional territory of the
Shaquetmik people with whom we share these lands where we live and we work
together. Council, as uh you heard, we're going to
move in uh in camera. Um we have a motion for consideration and I'll ask
our CEO to read that motion. >> That pursuant to section 91 of the
community charter, council moving camera.
» Thank you. Is there a mover and a seconder? Councelor Lingren, councelor
Cannon. Thank you. Just before I call the uh vote on it, um for members of the
public who might be with us um at this time, uh our regular session will
reconvene at 100 p.m. Any input to the motion?
Call a question. All those in favor
that passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll just give a minute to adjust uh
before we go into our camera session.
just check with our corporate officer. Um we're okay to uh continue with the
virtual um session that's on the screen now.
This conference will now be recorded.
I'd like to resume the city of Salmon regular council meeting of Monday,
August the 24th. Um for those who are with us virtually, welcome to you all. I
see that we have uh our media with us as well as some members of the public.
Councelor Lavy is also with us virtually. Councelor Lingren, councelor
Cannon, councelor Walls Richmond, councelor Canella and myself are in the
council chamber along with our staff. So, welcome everyone. We have read the
acknowledgement of traditional territory and we've adopted our agenda. I'm going
to ask councilors if there is any disclosure of interest that you have
over any of the items in the regular council meeting today. Councelor
Ganella. >> Thank you, your worship. In
correspondence 14.1.9, um the letter from the Trail Alliance,
um I have declared a conflict that my employer has sponsored the Trail
Alliance event each year. Um item 141.15
um the Shishwap Agricultural Association's request for road closure.
Uh my organization I work for has rents the property the south fairgrounds from
this organization. >> Thank you councelor Ganell. When we get
there we'll deal with those two first and then you'll be able to return for
the rest. >> Appreciate it. Thank you.
» Any other disclosure of interest from any counselor at this time?
Okay. Seeing none, we'll uh continue with our business then. Um the first is
confirmation of minutes of the regular council meeting of August the 10th. We
have a proposed motion. If I could have a mover and a seconder, councelor
Wallace Richmond and councelor Lingren. Thank you very much. Is there any
additions deletions to those minutes? Seeing none, I'll call a question. All
those in favor? That passes unanimously? Any business
arising? Council. Okay. We have one committee report which
says development planning services committee meeting minutes of August the
17th. Is there any business arising from those minutes?
[clears throat] Seeing none, we'll move to the Columbia
Shushwap Regional District update. We don't have a written update today, but
perhaps one of our reps wishes to uh speak to any happenings in the CSRD as
would be welcome if you do.
Seeing none, we will move forward. Um, we don't have any presentations today,
so we'll go to tab 10, which is the staff reports. The first one is the
corporate officer's uh report on the deputy chief financial officer
appointment. We do have a proposed motion. Um, councelor Canam will move
that motion. Councelor Wallace Richmond will second. And I'll ask Miss West if
she would speak to the report. Thank you, your worship and members of
council. The report before you seeks council's formal appointment of Chelsea
Vanderapel as deputy chief financial officer for the city of Salmon effective
August 24th, 2026. This is an administrative and statutory
appointment required under section 149 of the community charter and the city's
officers designation and establishment bylaw number 4267.
The community charter requires that a municipal officer be assigned
responsibility for financial administration and the city's bylaw
establishes both the chief financial officer and the deputy chief financial
officer roles and identifies the powers, duties, and functions associated with
those positions. If council supports the motion, Chelsea Vanderapel will be
formally appointed as deputy chief financial officer and an oath of office
will be sworn following the appointment. There are no financial implications
identified, but with the appointment of Miss Vanderapel, adding her to the
financial department will definitely be an asset.
» Thank you very much. and I'm available for questions. [snorts]
» Counselors, any questions or comments that you have around this motion?
» Seeing none, I will call the question. All those in favor
that passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll move to 10 two, which is from the
manager of engineering and planks here today on the Claire's Cove lift station
upgrade award of contract. There is a proposed motion. Um, councelor Lavy, are
you uh comfortable moving it? Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?
Councelor Ganella, and I'll ask uh Blank if she would speak to the report. Good
afternoon. Nice to have you here. >> Thank you, your worship.
» In 2025, the city issued a request for proposals for the full replacement of
the Claris Cove lift station. The procurement process did not proceed as
the pricing received at that time exceeded the approved project budget.
In 2026, the city revised the project scope and issued a new request for
proposals for the Claris Cove lift station upgrades. The revised scope
focuses on priority improvements to the existing facility, including replacement
of pumps and associated components, installation of a spray-on liner, force
main works, and related site improvements. These upgrades are
required to maintain the reliable operation of the lift station and ensure
the continued provision of sanitary sewer service. The request for proposals
for the Claire's Cove lift station upgrades closed on July 16th, 2026. One
proposal was received by the closing deadline from Spark Industries and
Automation with a proposed price of $272,947.89
89 plus applicable taxes. The proposal was reviewed by the project coordinator,
capital works supervisor, loss and engineering, and the utilities manager.
Although the submitted price exceeds the engineering estimate of $245,600,
staff are satisfied that that the proposal meets the project requirements
and represents fair value for the proposed scope of work. It is also
within the approved project budget of $490,000.
Based on the evaluation, staff recommend that council select Spark Industries and
Automation as the preferred proponent and authorize staff to negotiate and
finalize a construction contract in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the request for proposals. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.
» Great. Thank you very much. I'll open it up to council if you have questions or
have comments. We'll start with councelor Cannon. So I just had a
question in regards to the project budget is 490
but this is just a portion that we're allotting or did we downsize uh what
this project was going to be cuz of the the bids that came over the 245 that
Lawson had uh uh did the estimate on. So you're
referring to under financial considerations where it says the
proposal submitted by Spark with 272 plus applicable taxes is within the
available project budget at 490,000. >> So did we budget 490 for this project
and we're just doing a portion of it is my question.
» Thank you. Um Miss Plank, could you answer that question
» through your worship? My understanding was that the original project scope that
went out um the bids that came in exceeded the project budget of uh
490,000 and then the scope was adjusted and sent
out and we received the one bid from Spark. So their bid uh with within the
revised scope um does fall within the project budget and the remainder of that
will be to do some other site works. So, I understand some of that will be done,
I believe, by city staff. >> Miss C. Uh, councelor Cannon, do you
have any followup? >> Yeah. So, just so I understand, Spark
was awarded with the 272 947.
Uh, but the budget project or the project budget is 490. So, the rest of
the works to bring it up to that will get done by city staff.
M >> plank
» for your worship. Our project coordinator who was part of the
evaluation process is here. So perhaps he can answer those questions in more
detail. >> Good afternoon,
» Mr. Daf. It's so pleasant to see you. >> Thank you very much. Your worship. Uh
yeah so the uh the original uh uh scope of the project when we budgeted the 490
included a electrical work which is uh included a kiosk placement and it
included a grading of the work uh lock block fencing and side grading. Uh so
we're only awarding one portion of the work right now which is the the lining
and the replacement of the bump. Later on we are uh the the remaining of the
budget will be used to uh procure a kiosk as well as uh use the city staff
crew to uh uh grade the grade the site as well as put fencer around.
» So the remaining work to be done. >> Thank you. I'll just pass back to
councelor canon. See if you have any follow my question. Yeah.
» Thank you very much. >> Um is there any other questions or
comments counselors have?
I guess I would just I just comment. Um first of all, thank you for your work.
Um we know that the list station at uh Claire's Cove Marina pumps the sewage
from canoe to the treatment plant in Seminar. Um so it's a very important
project. The upgrade is essential to make sure it works. Um, and the cost is
about $27,000 over the budget, which is um, in a
budget this size, it's um, some money, but it's not um, I would say not
prohibitive. So, I certainly will uh, support the motion to move ahead.
See no other speakers, I will call a question. All those in favor?
That passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
Okay, we'll go to 10 three, which is a manager of engineering water meter
pressure response. There's no motion here. This is for information. Um, I'll
ask Miss Plank if she'd like to to summarize the report. Thank you for
doing the research. >> Thank you, your worship. Um, at the
regular council meeting of July 13th, council received correspondence from a
property owner expressing concerns about water pressure at their residence and
requesting that the city replace their existing meter with a larger meter. They
have an existing 3/4 in water meter and they were requesting that the city
replace it with a 1-in meter. So, analysis by staff indicated that the
pressure loss experienced at the residence is largely due to the length
of the service. So their service is about a thousand feet long and the
average length of a service in the city is closer to say anywhere from 30 to 65
ft long. So they have an excessively long um pipe going long service a 1-in
pipe going from the main in the street up to their residence. In addition,
their residence sits about 6 ft higher than the pipe in the street or 6 ft
above the elevation of the street. So that causes some loss of pressure about
uh the equivalent of about 2 pounds per square inch. Um there's there's a little
bit of loss across the meter, but that's less than 1 PSI. And the analysis
indicated that even replacing the 3/4in meter with a 1-in meter would not
materially affect the loss of pressure. Primarily, it's because of the length of
the service. Uh having said that, the pressure that they're experiencing at
their residence, they're indicating it's about 32 pounds per square inch, that
does meet the minimum pressure requirements in our subdivision
servicing standards. So they are receiving the pressure that's in align
um in alignment with our standards and uh I am available for any further
questions you may have. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much
for that uh report and for the summary. Counselors, I'll open it up to you if
you have any questions. Councelor Lingren, please go ahead.
» Thanks, Worship. Um, always interesting to learn something new about something
you never heard of before. So, um, I'm just curious about mitigation for this
um, household. Are there other things that they can do besides replacing the
meter? And is it worth our while or is it too expensive to replace the meter
just to show them that that's not where the issue is? Um could they for instance
have a pump on their property that increases water pressure?
» M plank >> through your worship that is exactly
what they could do to boost the pressure individually on their own uh on their
own service. They could install a pressure pump on their service. Okay.
Thanks. >> Thank you.
» As there's no motion, is there any other comment or question on this report?
» We appreciate staff bringing it to council. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll
go to 10.4 which is manage of engineering auto road connector Fordus
BC high-pressure gas mains. Um moved by councelor Lavy, seconded by councelor
Ganella. Miss plank, we're back to you. Thank you
very much. >> Thank you your worship. The proposed
autoroad connector crosses two Fordis BC high-pressure transmission pipelines and
in May of 2024, council approved Fordis BC to complete a class 4 estimate for
upgrading [clears throat and snorts] or replacement of these two mains. The
estimate package was received in July 2025 and this confirmed that due to
their age and their depth, the both pipelines would have to be replaced at a
lower depth for an estimated cost of $1,643,000.
However, the estimate that was provided at that time was valid for only 3 months
and had expired by the time that the 2026 budget was approved. A revised
estimate was received in July 2026 with an increase of $33,000
to $1,676,000.
An alternative option was considered and that was leaving the pipelines in place
and modifying the autoro connector design, but due to the shallow depth and
age of the mains and the steep topography, an alternative option was
not feasible. Fortis BC have proposed a schedule for
the works and provided that the city completes the cost letter agreement
during August 2026. Fortis will complete archaeological investigations and
material procurement in 2027 and commence construction in May of 2028.
This would allow the city to commence the construction of the auto road
connector in 2029 subject to available funds. And I'm available for any
questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much uh for the report. We'll turn
it over to council if they have questions or comments. Councelor
Lingram, we'll start with you. >> Thanks worship. I just a question about
why this is the city's cost to bear. If this belongs to Foris and the age of and
the depth of the pipes make them high risk for whatever reason,
why isn't Foris having to pay to have them moved and replaced?
» Miss Plank, can you respond to that? uh through your worship. I don't know
the answer to that question. I believe it may have to do with the fact that the
city is um requesting to do some work to to account for or to accommodate our
auto road connector. I don't know if the timeline if Foris would have uh replace
them perhaps later, but I can certainly do some more investigation and find out
exactly why. And I also don't know if this cost that has been quoted is the
entire cost to replace those mains or whether that's just the city's portion,
but I can certainly find out some some answers for you.
» Yeah, I think I'd like to know if that's a cost share then because that would
make a lot of sense actually if that's the if that's the case. Thanks.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Um, are there other comments um from council?
Councelor Lavy. >> Yeah, thanks Mayor Harrison. Uh just a
question through you the finance staff. I think I'm not sure who's in the
gallery, but I think we have some potential candidates for council online
here. Um >> we do we have an expert out there.
» There uh is so the the proposal of taking almost $1.7 million out of the uh
reserve fund, the auto road extension reserve fund through you to I think
finance staff. Um could they generally describe
how that reserve account is funded? >> Mr. Graniac.
» Uh thank you your worship and through to councelor Lavy. We fund it um every
year. We throw some money in every year and then it accumulates interest and I
don't know when the fund started but I can I can look back on that and we
continue to fund it through taxation every year. Thank you,
» Councelor Lavy. >> Yeah, thanks. Thanks for that
information. It certainly confirms my understanding. So, general comments
worship fully support this. This is important news. Um, this is key road
infrastructure. It's been long needed. Um, it's important, I think, for
residents to understand that these things happen step by step, phase by
phase. And I'm glad to hear the using words like 2028 and 2029, all of it
contingent on available funding, but this is how local governments do it. I
would just note that one about $1.7 million is the equivalent if it was to
be done right off the bat out of taxation almost a 7% tax increase. So to
get these important, highly prioritized items underway, it takes time. Not only
for design, not only for working with other agencies like we have here, it
takes time to save the money so that the project moves forward. residents aren't
hit with a huge tax bill and that we squirrel money away in the reserve
responsibly to get to these high uh high highly
needed infrastructure. Uh kudos to staff for uh guiding this and I look forward
to it being done. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments or
questions from council? Councelor Lingren.
» Uh thanks worship. Just a question about the auto road connector. Do we have a
ballpark figure of what that project will cost one day if say we were to be
able to do it in 2029? We'd have to save a lot of money I imagine.
» Um not sure who to ask that perhaps Miss
Plank. >> Thank you through your worship. The uh I
believe there is 3.4 million in the current reserve account and what I noted
from looking at this project is in the 20-year plan. There's another I believe
it's 4 million allocated for 2029. So, um those are the two numbers that I
have available right now. >> Okay. But we don't know if that
4 million plus whatever's left here, 1.7 million that's left over is going to be
enough to do the um actual work. I guess >> that's through your worship. That's a
very good question. there are factors that could um in the subsequent years
there could be changes to the costs of materials that kind of thing. Um but at
at this point that's what we have allocated and because it's kind of a I
mean that's that's several years out so as we get closer to doing things like
the detail design we'll have more refined cost estimates.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you confident.
Um the question that I had is the revised estimate was received in July
and it was an increase of 33,000. So if we go along this route and we're
looking at uh a letter agreement August 2026
uh material procurement 2027 construction May 2028. Does this
agreement lock us in to this price or are we looking at possibly 33,000 plus
added on each year that we have? >> Miss blank.
» Uh through your worship. Um my understanding based on the history of
this is that initially the um there was a cost estimate of 1,643,000
that was valid for three months. And the cost um the reason this item is coming
forward again is because there was an increase from that time of 33,000 to so
it's now uh 1,676,000. Um I don't know what factors influence
that cost but it is it is possible that um if if um this agreement does not take
place that again the cost will be adjusted. I don't know um if this I'm
assuming that this agreement similarly has a kind of a cuto off date that says
it's valid for this period of time. It could be similar to the previous one
that says this amount this agreement is valid for 3 months and then another
estimate would have to be created. I that would be my that would be my guess.
So here worship three. So my question is forest BC have proposed a schedule for
the works similar to the three-month one which expired. So if we go into this
agreement, is this pricing locked in on these timelines?
Miss Blank, uh, >> through your worship, I I would make the
assumption, yes, I can find out for sure, but I believe once the agreement
is signed that says this is the price for the work, um, that would be the
price for the work, but I can certainly find out if that's the case.
» Thank you. I I support this. I think that's a important uh connection in our
roads. >> Thank you, Councelor Cannon.
Any other speakers to the motion? Okay, I'll just summarize my thoughts.
Um, this is part of our long-term strategic plan and the reason it is such
an important connector is because of the densification that's happened up in the
Hillrest area and what happens presently is the traffic gets funneled down 10th
down fifth um through the residential areas um even
if it's not heading in that way. So this is a long had been a long planned uh
connector road to move the traffic so that it uh does not have to go in that
direction. The
land acquisition piece um took some time and we have always known that the fortis
gas mains are there. Um for is not going to replace or move those gas mains and
they wouldn't if we didn't do our project. Um so I think it really is
important for us to lock in at this price as we can see if we don't the
increases will continue to happen. We do have the money to do the project and
when you work with fordis foris um does the procurement um of the project we
supply the money and that is how it works um when you work with uh when you
work with a utility like foris. So, I I really appreciate this uh piece, this
report, and the fact that we're moving forward on the project, and I know the
residents that live down in that area certainly will be happy to see um this
progress being made, and especially as councelor Lavy said, with the dates that
are there. Um this is very promising. So, um major project um very important
project, I'll certainly support this step.
See no other speakers. So I will call a motion. All those in favor
that passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
Okay, let's talk about washrooms. We have a report from the director of
operations. Um there isn't a motion yet. Um but there may well be. But how about
if we hear from Mr. JRo about Blackburn Park offseason washroom options and then
see if council wishes to make a motion. Thank you for your report.
» Thank you. Good afternoon worship members of council. So way back when
January 26 regular council meeting uh we received correspondence from Shishwap
youth soccer association requesting that washroom facilities be made available um
for the newly built uh synthetic turf fields.
Um staff brought back a report in February with options for these washroom
facilities to remain open. It outlined uh options um through discussions it was
determined that utilizing the existing washroom facility while protecting for
the winter weather would be the best option. Uh should be noted that staff
have received feedback over the years um from a variety of non-sock and non-sport
users um including playground visitors, walkers throughout the year requesting
that this washroom remain open for longer portions of the year.
uh including throughout winter months. So we've identified the work required
and prepared cost estimates which you can see in the the graph in the or table
in the report. Um for purpose of these estimates it was assumed that the
washrooms would remain open for the period where they are typically closed
which is approximately from October 31st to March 19th. This resulted in 140
additional days um of maintenance and operations if open each and every one of
these days. Um it would be anticipated that they would remain open, but the
hours could be varied um based on bookings and and use of the park.
Uh it should also be noted that other yearround public washrooms uh like Ross
Street Plaza, they typically don't receive uh weekend maintenance during
the fall and winter months. When we have staff on weekends during the winter,
they will uh tend to them. However, they typically do go the weekends without
maintenance and typically is not an issue. However, there's been vandalism
and graffiti um where it may lead to temporary closures until they can be
repaired. Um staff reviewed available funding
sources. Um we are quite confident that the replacement of the Meguire Lake
Fountain um is not required now um thanks to the repairs been completed on
that. There was a total of $100,000 budgeted um for that project within the
2026 budget and only a small portion of those funds have been allocated for the
repairs. So that leaves uh approximately $80,000. Alternatively, council could
fund through allocation from the Black Park Reserve Fund estimated to have a
year-end balance of approximately $210,000.
And if approved, uh staff would include funding required for ongoing operations
and maintenance within the 2027 parks operations maintenance budget. Um,
however, we're quite confident that the the hours um for maintaining for the
remainder of 2026 can be covered in this year's budget.
Um, I'm open to any questions you may have.
» Great. Thank you. Uh, I'm wondering if there's a counselor that would like to
make a motion that we allocate $5,750 from the Maguire Lake Fountain Fund um
for this project. Councelor Wallace Richmond. Councelor Cannon, thank you
for getting the motion on the floor. I'll go to councelor Wallace Richmond
next. >> Yes, thank you. Happy to move the
motion. Thank you to staff for um looking into it. Seems a very reasonable
solution and I will um 100% support it. >> Thank you councelor Wallace Richmond.
Councelor Cannon. >> Thank you worship. I too will support
this. Um I think as uh director of
I always forget your title operations. [laughter]
» I was going to say SRS. got a lot of hats, so I get it.
» Saw a different hat this morning. Um, we know that even before the youth
soccer approached us, um, in the past, especially early spring, uh, I always
fielded a lot of phone calls from moms and dads down there playing at the park
with their kids and, you know, having to use a tree and they really wanted to see
year round uh, use of the washrooms down there. And I know it comes at a cost,
but I think our taxpayers will really appreciate having a washroom to use year
round. >> Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Councelor
Lingren, >> thanks for worship. I too will support
this moving forward. I think we're um probably a little bit late coming to the
table with year round washrooms people. We've seen many instances across town. I
think we need more of these actually. Um uh my I've I've been inundated since um
whatever the last conference we went to was at UBCM. Um not UBCM
» FCM FCM in Edmonton. Um I've been inundated with uh emails from Urban
Blue, which is a company out of Quebec that um designs and builds uh
self-cleaning winterized type, you know, these magical washrooms that lock
themselves up at night. And I'm just thinking now this is a timely thing
because maybe as we move forward with new washrooms and more washrooms that
are open 24/7 that and and particularly with um you know uh vandalism and people
attempting to sleep in washrooms, that sort of thing. Um we might want to start
looking at some company that's providing kind of smart washrooms. Um apparently
Summerland has one that is, you know, close enough for us to go and tour if we
wanted to. So anyway, just a thought for moving forward.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Any other speakers to the motion?
Seeing none, I'll call a question. All those in favor?
That passes unanimously. Thank you for the report and for the funding options.
Okay, we're at uh 10.6. Director of Plan and Community Services, Street Cafe
Policy Amendments. There is a motion for consideration. Um, is there a mover and
a second or councelor Lingren will move? Councelor Ganella will second. I'll ask
Mr. Buckston if you would speak to the report.
» Thank you, worship, members of council. Absolutely. Um, dating back to June of
this year, um, council did receive some correspondence. We did report back in
July um with respect to that correspondence leading to a motion
um on July 27th from council asking us to review this policy based on the the
feedback that we provided in the letters that we
um that we got and council was looking for accessibility and barrier free
access requirements for street cafes and referring to building code requirements.
So we've done that. Um the amended uh street cafe policy that is in front of
you. Um the primary amendment is in section 4.7D. Previously
um it was stated that patio should be accessible and strongly encouraged.
We've simply changed the the words in that section to read shall and required.
So it is now mandatory. Um, we also did look into the the
building code requirements and that led to a building accessibility
accessibility handbook, which is a um, if any of you have ever read the BC
building code and fallen asleep doing so, um, this is a much more user
friendly way of getting to the relevant provisions that deal with it. So, we've
referred to that. Um, and it makes reference to ramps with a grade of no
more than one in 12 or 5 degrees. Um, wheelchair access to all seating. um
with widths of no less than 1.5 meters and turnaround areas for wheelchairs of
no less than 1.5 meters. Those are the bare minimums that I sort of pulled out
of that um that handbook. Um while we were into reviewing the
policy um the people that administer this made a couple of recommendations
that we've noted to sections 4 I 4 I uh 48 and 75 that are sort of
clarification amendments. They we're bringing those along. They're unrelated
really. Those just add clarity about uh certain issues.
Um those are just ad I would consider administrative amendments. Um we did
also refer the the policy changes to downtown salmon arm. Um and as you can
see in their correspondence, they have some concerns that the se that the
references in sections 43 and 47 with respect to uh wheelchair access widths
and turning radi um are a little too restrictive due to the limited
dimensions that occur on some of the patios. So um their their recommendation
is to limit the changes to the ramp being provided and to remove the other
references. um staff didn't make those changes
because those contradict the the reference in the motion to building code
requirements. So I felt that the the motion was quite specific. Um but if
council wanted to make those changes, I would recommend you refer it back to us
then rather than trying to maneuver through a motion this afternoon that
that picks apart certain sections. So um that that's a summary of the changes
that we've made. Um literally the the principal section changes from um should
to shall um strongly suggested to required so
that um they are now required to produce the ramps that were currently previously
just suggested. >> Thank you very much Mr. Buckston. Um we
will turn it over to council to see if they have any questions or comments.
Start with councelor Cannon. >> Thank you. Um, I really appreciate that
we took it to the DSA. Um, and I think that, you know, they really represent
people that have the patios and
definitely, uh, Jennifer brought up some good, you know, some good thoughts. And
I think the do we have to do it exactly like the building code or can we am I
hearing that we can make changes to it to accommodate uh what
they're possibly recommending that we do.
» Mr. Buckton to the chair. If council wished to simply have the the motion
refer to ramps then we can make those changes. Let's say I didn't because I
felt that council's council's motion was very clear [laughter] about what it
wanted to see in the in the amendments. But if council wanted to make that
recommendation, I can take it back, pull those things out um and bring it back
for for council to reconsider. I I think it, you know, is all about
accessibility and I think that if a ramp gives the accessibility that we're
looking for rather than restricting and taking up lots of more space of the
small patio already. Um I would like to see us just do ramps and accommodate
this suggestion from the DSA. >> Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Uh we'll
see how this discussion goes. I may come back for a deferral motion if if you
feel that's necessary. But >> so deferral is how we would handle it.
» Um I I'll just I don't want to talk about deferral right this minute because
we can't talk about it. But that would be an option.
» And the other option wouldn't be to make the motion do this.
» Yeah. I think Mr. Buckton was suggesting we send it back to staff. Mr. Buckton,
do you wish to comment? I think I if if council has the wish to
change it, my recommendation is to refer it refer it back to staff. Not defer,
but refer back. >> Yeah,
» that's an R and not a D. Correct. >> Got it.
» Okay, you're on it. That was my error. >> Um, councelor Cannon, you're you're
complete for now. >> Yeah.
» Okay, then we'll go to councelor Lingren next.
» Thanks, Worship. Um, so I feel a bit differently about this. I'm in favor of
approving this the way it's written. Um there are some pretty easy creative ways
to create that 1.5 or whatever it is 4T um space for a wheelchair to turn around
in. It can be that once you're on the ramp, the wheelchair accessible seating
is the first space. A table can be on a hinge so it can be lifted out of the way
to create the space and then put the table down when the wheelchair is
parked. I don't think this is a complicated thing to solve. Um, and I I
would be fine with it going ahead just the way it is.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Um, we'll go to Councelor Lavy next.
» Thanks, Mayor Harrison. And, uh, thanks to staff for the work that they've done
on this. I really appreciate it. U, my first question is just a confirmatory
one. Um, with the, uh, proposals, it says the ramp has to be fixed to the
patio. And I I think it's pretty straightforward, but I'm want to confirm
for anybody who's watching that means no temporary wrap. Is that correct,
» Mr. Buckton? >> That's correct. That language was very
specific to that intent. >> Thank you very much,
» Council Lavin. Continue. >> Yeah. And I I have some of the same um
ponderings about uh especially with the turning radi.
Um, I think it can be done, but I'm comfortable your worship um sending this
back to staff uh to fine-tune that. I think it's uh
it's important I the the crux of this is that the policy now says
will shall be and required in terms of the access to that. So, I I um we've
come a ways here. Um we're talking of a policy that would not take in effect
until the next patio season that would give owners time to adjust. And I think
this benefits from uh I and I see all all the points that are being made here,
but I think uh that gives staff to come back with a proposal. on the whole if
there's a way of not uh uh codifying the turning radi I'd like to hear staff's
input on that. So I will uh support what might be upcoming. Thank you.
» Thank you councelor Lavy. Are there other speakers?
Maybe I'll just say my part then and others might chime in. Um I'm I agree
with councelor Cannon and the input from downtown Salmon. Um I I think um
everybody loves patios um for sure and they're a very important part of our
downtown and as we know they really became established uh during the
pandemic to to help out restaurants be able to make their businesses work um so
that people could go outdoors and I guess it was a a positive uh thing that
happened um despite despite that pandemic. the I think what we asked was
um that we wanted those patios to be accessible by ramp um and a
permanent ramp and councelor Lavy has confirmed that. So I I want to see that
change for 2027. So you must have a permanent ramp on the patios. Um, but I
don't want to overregulate it because the
amount of room is like a parking space and it's not very large. And so, um, we
want to have patios and we want them people to be able to get on them. I
think there are ways, um, for people to maneuver on them without having to
follow the the large, um, areas that are described in this, uh, draft. So, um I
would support referring it back to staff to bring it back to us with the ramp
piece in but without the other parts.
Any other speakers? Councelor Canon, if you're wanting to
make that amendment, now would be the time.
» I would like to refer I'll defer this back to staff to make those changes.
» Okay. Is there a seconder to that amendment? Councelor Ganella.
Speaking to the amendment, councelor Canon, do you have further input to the
amendment? >> I just think that uh of all things that
uh worship you touched on limited space. I mean,
» really, we want ramps and we want them to be fixed so
that uh wheelchairs and it's accessible to everyone. So, see what staff comes up
with. >> Thank you. Any other speakers to the
amendment? >> We'll call a question on the amendment.
All those in favor.
Now, we'll talk about the motion as amended. Is there any speakers to the
motion as amended? >> Councelor Lingren,
» I'm confused, your worship. I think we're just referring it back to staff.
We're not amending it. They're going to uh revamp it and bring it back to
council and we're going to vote on it as amended once it's been brought back by
staff. >> That's correct.
Any other comments? Call a question. All those in favor?
That passes unanimously. So, we'll look forward to it coming back from staff.
Okay. We're on to items 107 which is the chief financial officer July 2026
supplier payment transparency report. Chief financial officer I'll have you
speak to that if you wish. Thank you. >> Uh thank you worship. This is the
monthly report to u for July supplier payment transparency report as provided.
Um, it lists all payments over 100,000 in accordance with the purchasing policy
7.13 and all the payments are within the approved budget and authorities. And of
course, I'm here for any questions for the uh five payments that are listed.
» Thank you very much for supplying that to us. Counselors, there's no motion
attached. This is for your information. Any questions or comments anyone would
like to make?
» Councelor Cannon. I just want to say that uh so glad that the lighting is in
Rogers rink so you'll be able to play better hockey your worship.
[laughter] >> I I like your your faith that you have
in me. Um thank you very much.
Any other comments or questions? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to
10.8. Thank you so much to our chief financial officer. This is chief
financial officer regarding reserve consolidation. It's an update. Um if we
could have a a mover and a second or for the motion which is really to defer it.
So mover councelor Ganella councelor Cannon. Thank you. Um I'll have uh the
chief financial officer speak to his report and I'll go to speakers.
» Thank you worship and members of council. The recommendation before you
is to defer the consideration of the reserve account consolidation to the
September 28th, 2026 regular council meeting. Staff have continued to work on
validating reserve purposes, confirming service area input, and completing the
supporting schedules and future reporting frameworks. uh rather than
bring forward an incomplete package for final decision, staff are requesting
additional time to ensure the recommend recommendations are fully supported and
resulting reserve structure is clear, accurate and administratively sound. Uh
there is no immediate financial impact associ associated with this deferral and
I'm here for any questions you worship and members of council.
» Okay, thank you. So basically you need some more time. Okay, fair enough. Um,
any questions or comments on the motion?
I'll call a question and all those in favor.
That passes unanimously. Council, we agreed we would do 101 first
and 10:10. We're going to take a five minute comfort break and then we are
going to deal with those two items. >> Oh,
thank you. You guys are really on the ball here. There's two of you brought
that to my attention and the others were thinking about it. 10 nine, sorry. Uh,
director of engineering sustainability, airport industrial special development
area.
There's no motion attached. This is for information and there's a lot of
information there, but we'll pass it over to uh to um Mr. JRO.
» Oh, Miss Plank's going to speak to it. Okay, you're quick to point that
direction, Miss Plank. Thank you, your worship and members of
council. I'd like to invite one of our engineering assistants, Nathan Johnson,
to come up and present this report to council. Thank you,
» Mr. Johnson. Welcome to council. It's nice to have you here. I know that
you've been working on this, so please go ahead.
» Yeah, happy to be here. Uh before you today is an information only report
related to the airport industrial special development area. This area
covers roughly 60 hectares of light industrial land located between 10th
Avenue Southeast and 20th Avenue Southeast next to the airport. Purpose
today is to introduce an updated practical servicing framework before we
bring these concepts to land owners themselves and the broader public for
feedback. An initial conceptual servicing plan was completed for this
area in 2009. And while it was or while it provided a useful starting point,
certain elements like roads bicting private properties, costly road
crosssections, and heavy reliance on centralized infrastructure proved
impractical for owner-driven developments.
The updated layout within the report addresses certain issues by aligning the
proposed internal roads along existing property lines. This would protect
long-term connectivity while allowing dedication and construction to happen.
parcel by parcel using financial tools like latecomers agreements would also
assist in the first for the first stage developers
to facilitate community and council feedback. The report evaluates two
servicing philosophies alongside a recommended hybrid approach. Option one
is a minimum servicing strategy with lowerc cost rural road crosssections,
roadside ditches, private groundwater wells, and on-site septic systems.
Option two is the enhanced servicing strategy with curb, gutter, dry wells,
and full municipal water and sanitary sewer. And then the recommended hybrid
approach kind of marries the two a bit with the lower rural cross rural road
crosssection uh ditches throughout removing the need
for curbon gutter and pond infrastructure. It would install water
manes throughout all the internal road networks ensuring full fire protection.
And while primarily relying on private septic systems, gravity or gravity
sanitary sewer in the northwest quadrant could be installed where the topography
commits. Looking ahead, public and stakeholder
consultation is the next step. Staff has tenatively scheduled a public open house
for September 9th. Uh we hope to colllocate it with the liquid waste
management plan and the community wildfire protection plan to maximize
turnout. Uh we'll be reaching out directly to all affected property
owners, advertising in the newspaper and launching an online feedback portal
through the city's website for those who can't attend. And then all this feedback
will be incorporated into the final plan before we return to council for formal
endorsement. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for uh
summarizing that report. Council, this is for our information, but I certainly
open it up to you for any questions or comments you might like to make.
Councelor Wallace Richmond. >> Yeah, thank you for for the report. Um,
council, this is a important and ambitious uh project and there's a great
deal of interest in the airport. Um, if council were willing, could we at the
very least approve the public um, uh, consultation plan so that it
continue it can continue to move ahead because um, we need to hear from the
public uh, u, you know, it's a primary concern to make sure that if we were to
do this project, it would be done uh, properly and uh, would meet the needs of
uh, of those that will serve. Thank you for that question. I'll just
check with our CEO. Do we need a motion to ensure that the public consultation
that Mr. Johnson's talked about um will take place or does uh his report bring
it to us assume that that will happen? >> Your worship, if council has any
objections to moving forward, certainly um please do raise them, but staff are
planning to move forward with consultation as contemplated by Mr.
Johnson's report and as he stated, we are looking to um have all three of
those engagements happen simultaneously um to generate additional interest.
» Councelor Wallman, I'll go back to you. >> Yeah, through you. Thank you uh for that
answer. Well, I I have absolutely no objection. So, I'm happy to see this
move forward and I appreciate the report.
» Thank you. Other comments or questions from council?
Okay, I'll just maybe make my comments. First of all, thank you very much for
the report and uh yeah, I don't want to uh um bias with my views, but I think
it's great that we're going to the public with options so that they can
look at them because I know there's been some concerns about um you know the um
the initial planning. So going to the public is a great idea so we can get
their feedback and uh grouping together those three things I think's very smart
move. we'll get a we'll get a better turnout. So, I uh I have no objections
as well. I see no other speakers. So, thank you
very much uh for coming and reporting to us and we'll look forward to seeing the
results of uh the input from the public. Okay. Now, now have I got it? Yes. So we
will take a 5m minute comfort break um and then we will come back and do 10 11
and then 10 10
We are on to item 1011, Director of Planning Community Services,
building bylaw number 4725, zero carbon step code. There is a motion for
consideration that was uh deferred from our May 11th meeting. And so I maybe
just ask the corporate officer to read that motion out for us. It was moved by
councelor Lingren and seconded by councelor Ganella and then we'll have
staff do their report. Thank you your worship. As indicated
from the regular council meeting of May 11th, 2026,
it was moved by councelor Lingren, seconded by councelor Ganella, that
council direct staff to prepare amendments to building bylaw number 4725
to require that building permits submitted to the city need to meet the
following zerocarbon step code requirements of the BC building code on
the following schedule. EL-2 June 1st 2027 EL-3
June 1st 2029 and EL-4 as required by the province.
» Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckston. I'll pass it to you to see if
there's any further information you would like to share with council at this
time. >> Thank you, Worship. Um I will focus on
the new information because council has seen this issue uh a number of times
before. Um so just starting with the the new information from the CRP I mean
there was substantial public engagement um as part of that process and a clear
public expectation that we were going to use um policies to drive meaningful
emissions reductions as noted in section 5.2. The vast
majority of emissions related to buildings result from natural gas and
space heating and water heating in buildings.
Um table 51 the the emissions reductions targets um there's a significant
reduction that's modeled there um that requires a significant reduction in the
use of natural gas in buildings. The only way to reduce that is to
uh limit the use of natural gas in both new buildings and retrofit existing
buildings. the emissions projections um do include adoption of the or
effective adoption of the zero carbon step code to reach those those
projections. Um the actions identified one of the
very high priority high priority action items um in section 635 of the C CP
identifies specifically implementation of the zerocarbon step code that's
directly targeted at emissions reductions.
Um so the regulations of building and construction are one of the few areas
that is that municipalities have direct authority. So it's one of the very
limited areas where we have direct agency over the um trying to achieve
those OCP emissions reductions targets. Very often the regulatory authorities
shared with other jurisdictions.
Um so public engagement with both the OCP and the CRP has identified
greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a community priority.
Um I say we've we've identified uh sorry the um we have identified some options
here in terms of new information. Um one of the options would be to
separate the um the adoption of of the zerocarbon step code between part three
which are the complex buildings and part nine which are the simple buildings.
um that would allow um that's a more pra that's a practical path for
implementation. We've in we've had some indication in uh from the industry
through the survey that um and through some of our monitoring that some of the
more complex buildings are already meeting the higher level EL2 EL3.
So there might be greater industry willingness and ability to um
undertake the zero carbon step code in part nine buildings.
Um so we've offered a proposed option there that um
um the council could if they wanted to separate between part three and part 9
buildings. One of the other options might be given that we're going to need
to do some form of public engagement no matter what we do um is to delay the EL2
into 2028 and that would give us more time to budget and do that engagement
work through 2027 because if we start in if there's an EL
bump in June of 2027 and the budget isn't adopted until early in Q1 that
doesn't give staff a lot of time to design implement ment and administer
that that engagement program. So that that's another option. But I say as
noted um really the the only financial consideration is that we're going to
have to do some form of public engagement um and a budget for
consulting services that the the expertise and the time and the resources
are simply not here in our department to be able to pull this thing off. And the
survey is clearly indicative that there's there is some reluctance amongst
some in industry to move on this initiative. So we would need to inform,
educate and encourage through that engagement process. Um that project can
be scaled up and scaled down to be as big and as large as or as small as it
needs to be. So that would be a decision that council would make in the 2027
budget. There's nothing in the 2026 budget unless we reallocate something.
Um but that would be the only financial implication.
So, I think I've covered all the new information
that's in this report that council hasn't previously seen. So,
um I can certainly try and answer your questions.
» Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckton. I'll open it up to council for any
comments or questions they may wish to ask.
» Starting with councelor Lingren. >> Thanks, your worship. I'm happy to see
this back at the table uh and connected with our climate resiliency plan. Um I
had a couple questions about uh things that were just presented by the director
of planning that I just need some clarification on. One was um the budget
piece. Can you sorry can you just say again if we were to defer until 2028
that would be because we needed a budget to do what
» Mr. Buckston >> through the chat. I'm strongly
suggesting that there's a need for for budget for consulting services to to
move a consultation program through. If if we were to choose the June 2027 date
for EL2, um but the budget isn't approved till,
let's say, until January or February of 2027. That gives staff 3 to four months
to design, implement, and administer a program. The timeline just gets a little
tight. It's not undoable. Just wanted to flag that issue is
because of the budgeting, the timing of the budget. Um I believe that's
scheduled for early in the year, the new year with the new council. So I'm just
saying that um if that is a problem then moving the
EL2 to 2028 would give us more time to develop the budget through 2027 and then
administer that early in 2028 or start in 2027 and move through 27 2027 2028.
It's just a scheduling issue on that particular start date
» clarification. Can you just clarify? >> Thanks. Uh, who are we consulting with
and in what regard? >> Mr.
Through the chair. It would be through with the construction industry builders
» as as a followup. >> Yeah. Is that uh an uh effort on the
city's part to educate the builders about what EL2 looks like?
» Mr. Buckton. >> Educate. Yes. Through the chair.
educate, inform and how what you would need to do, what it means. I mean there
is obviously some based on the survey some
misunderstanding about what this means. So yes, getting getting the industry to
the point that adoption isn't problematic for them.
» Right. Okay. >> Yeah. So just some comments about that.
Um, so I think that the province has done an exceptional job of putting out
information about what the steps are and how to access that information. There
are webinars. There are um public like uh townhouse type online things where
people can go to get the information they need. Um, but I think the reality
is is that the vast majority of developers uh builders doing multif
family homes already understand this very well. They're already building to
this um new standard and have been for you know decades already. Um it's very
rare actually in the last 20 years to find an apartment building that's
running on gas anything. Um they don't they might bring in gas because the
client wants a fireplace in their um two-bedroom condo. Um, but the reality
is is gas furnaces don't heat multif family buildings because everybody needs
to set their heat at a different level unless you had a furnace and a system
for each apartment itself. Um, that would not be very practical. Um, so
electric heat has been the standard for a very long time. Electric hot water
tanks have been the standard for a very long time. So I'm less concerned about
uh developers building multif family uh buildings because they're already well
informed. Several of them are coming from out of town to build here. They're
already building like this and have been mandated to build like this in Vancouver
Island and the Lower Mainland and a number of other areas including the
Coupney. So, I don't think that that's um a worry that the city needs to take
on. Um I think that um every um HVAC and plumbing company in Salmon Arm is
already wellversed in how to install an electric hot water tank and how to
install a uh heat pump system whether that's integrated with um the gas
furnace such as we're putting in at the RCMP station or if we're talking about
mini splits and um room individual systems that type of thing. So I don't
think we need to educate them either. They're already doing the work and
they're doing a great job. Um, I think that the only reason I could think of to
def defer implementation of this uh might be to educate the consumer um not
the developers themselves or the builders themselves. We've heard from uh
the Zero Home Collective. We've heard from other developers that have written
us letters this week that they they've been doing this already and that they're
finding that it's cost-effective for them and very cost effective for the
buyer. Uh once they own the home, the costs of running the home are
substantially lower. Um I think that deferring this to 2028 would be a
mistake. I think we uh are obligated by our uh knowledge of what I mean climate
change has been all around us this summer and um the longer we defer the
longer these effects will accumulate and um multiply and 20 years from now I
don't want a council sitting at this table trying to find ways to mitigate
things that we should have done today. So, um, yeah, at this point, I'm I mean,
obviously everybody in this room already knows that I would have this instituted
yesterday if we had the option. Um, if going slower is uh the will of the
council, then I I I understand that. Um, but I would not be in favor of deferring
past this this lengthy deferral we've already got set up.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Councelor Cannon.
» Thank you, Worship. Um, as far as consultation,
did we not already take this to skip and get uh some feedback on that or am I
remembering that correctly, >> Mr. Bton?
» Through through the chair, no, we we've simply raised the issue with skip. They
asked us they asked us to produce the survey. We did that. So, that that's the
only engagement that we >> So, we got a survey from them from
» Councelor Cannon. Go ahead. We got a survey that we did and Skip
filled it out. >> No, Mr.
» Buckton, >> that was the survey responses that would
that were outlined in prior >> Okay.
» prior reports. >> Council Cannon. Now, when I look at
this, um, I see the motion would put it in
effect March 1st, 2028 for EL2,
EL3, June 1st, 2029, and then EL4 as required by the province.
But what the province has is EL2
March 1st 2028, EL3 June 1st 2029 and EL4 as required by the province. That's
what the province has suggested. Is that correct?
» Mr. Beckton, can you comment >> through the chair? I'm I'm not aware
that unless new information that that I'm not aware of. I'm not aware of any
schedule for EL2 or EL3 that the province has. Now, I may have missed
that. I don't know where you got that from, but no, the only information I
have is that the province will require EL4 by 2030.
» And then the other ones are just grad can be gradual whatever anyone decides.
» Mr. each authority having jurisdiction can
set a time at which those are required to come in or not
» council >> like when I look at this even before we
deferred it but now it's not deferred anymore um I think putting I feel
strongly putting it uh in place of different dates
I don't support that I think the we're hearing already that a lot of
developments especially multif family ones are already doing
uh developments that are probably EL4 or EL3
and I think by putting that limit you know it has to be on this date and and
uh EL3 on this date uh I don't support that I don't think that we need to do
that and Yes, we have have been inundated with different people. A lot
of people that don't even live in our community. Builders that don't live in
our community have sent us letters saying that they're already doing this.
You know, it's something that we should look at. But I don't agree with that
because I think builders and the consumers are the ones that are going to
control how they want a house built, how a multif family house is built. And I
think just keeping it status quo and we know that EL4 is going to be we have to
have it by a certain date. We're going to be at EL4.
So, I don't support this motion. I think that we need to keep it status quo and
let the the market dictate how they want their house built.
» Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Is there other speakers? Councelor Lingren for a
second time. >> Nobody else wants to go. Um,
» there's no one else up yet. >> Okay. So I'm just I'm concerned about if
we just uh ignore this issue and we leave it say and 2030 comes around and
suddenly EL4 is the mandated uh state of affairs uh people won't be ready because
they haven't been moving towards that um on their own and as far as allowing the
market to regulate this as we go you know let the consumer decide I mean if
we went by that in every industry. We would have cars that didn't have seat
belts or emissions control. We would have um you know food that wasn't
inspected and kept safe. Nobody wants to spend extra money on these issues if
they don't have to, which is the point of government regulation. But I think
the the key piece for us as a municipality is that we have a
responsibility to help our uh residents make choices that make things safer. And
uh we do that by putting sidewalks in. We do that by cleaning our water before
it arrives in their house. We do that in a multitude of ways. And one of the
things we can do and is of zero cost to the um city which is always one of our
concerns is can the city afford to implement this. This is one that's free.
This is really lowhanging fruit with a huge impact. So when EL4 becomes the
standard, we may then move into the next phase which may be to and this I mean
the province is already um incentivizing retrofitting your home. So you can get
grants right now for installing solar panels. You can get grants for
installing heat pumps. You can get grants for replacing and upgrading
windows. You can get grants for um updating your insulation so that your
house is uh easier to heat and cool. And the cost of those retrofits is
astronomical. It's far better to build it right the
first time than to have to go back. And I don't want to see more and more and
more people building things that they will later uh need to retrofit in order
to survive the climate changes that are coming.
Thank you, councelor Lingren. We'll go to councelor G or councelor Lavy next.
Councelor Lavy, please go ahead. >> Uh yes, thanks your worship. Um I want
to start off by thanking staff um not only for the reports and the providing
of information and we'll refer to in a bit, but providing other options to
consider about tiering this aspect. Um but I also like to mainly thank them for
the patience you've you've done your work. Um and uh this table we've been
split on it and uh this has been deferred not because we wanted to avoid
it in my view but just wanted to make sure we had a full table for the uh
further discussion. Your worship um this is good and I I'm hoping that we will
decide this here now today. Um, I'm not going to deliver any of my points here
uh as an attempt to persuade anyone because I think we've been around this
circle. I uh rather what I'm going to say here is what I firmly believe is
what a reasonable way forward is. And so you got four or five talking points
quickly summarize them about the survey. Um, and I want to be direct here. We had
there was some initial delays about this because and I was one of them to said we
need to hear from Skip. The reality is we didn't hear much from
Skip. There was little quantitative response from Skip about feedback. Maybe
others should it. I certainly didn't didn't. staff put out a uh a survey
that was led to a a big wave of opposition but that survey was tainted
in my view your worship really clearly. I believe it was stacked by uh who knows
unknown parties coming from the same IP address to try to influence this and it
is very difficult for me and this is unfortunate
that there has not been a clear voice from local land builders land developers
and I think they missed an opportunity and I don't um personally
uh don't subscribe subscribe to the idea of uh what our local developers are
capable of or need to do. They haven't really spoken up and I actually have
faith in their ability to adapt. Um it's been pointed out both by staff and
councelor Lingren and others. Um multif family developers right now in our
community are already doing EL3. It's part of their business model. They know
how to do it. I personally don't think and I want to thank staff for the option
of saying okay split this into multi-development versus single family.
Um I don't see the need for that. I think that this is uh that's already
happening. They know how to do it and they are doing it. I think the crux is
in single family uh developments. I think it mainly lies with local
builders. We have lots and unfortunately not a lot
of feedback from local developers but lots of feedback from elsewhere that
this is doable that it makes sense. And so I don't begrudge that feedback coming
in uh from those who are not in the community because we did not hear from
and there's a theme here. We did not hear clearly in my view from our local
builders. the motion in front of us about
what essentially ex a defined a timeline for EL2 and EL3
uh which is accelerated from no language from the province um is not as fast as
advocates have been calling for and and in reality worship that I would like to
see accelerated. It's not going to please everyone. Um,
but I supported I spoke in favor of this motion before it was deferred. Um, I
remain in favor of it now because at a minimum I I see this as a a reasonable
compromise to actually move this forward. I think this is within our pure
purview. It's low cost as referenced in our CRP that we're
going to talk about next to be fully electrified by 2030. Not that far away.
it's identified as a high priority and it's been identified that meaningful
change has to come from these sort of actions. So your worship um
I council Linguin referred to it a little bit again I'd like to see this
accelerated more but the motion in front of us does give some time for local
builders to get up to snuff and I don't think that's hard to do and I've got
confidence that they can do it. I think it permits uh uh suppliers, equipment,
retailers and suppliers time to gauge uh the supply of their equipment going
forward and those are reasonable amounts of time
probably more than reasonable amount of time to do it. So I fully support this
your worship even though that I would uh see I'd like to see personally something
more stringent but I think this is a compromise that we need to make to move
forward. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Councelor Lavy. Um, councelor
Ganella, >> [clears throat]
» uh, thank you, your worship. I also want to echo um, councelor Lavy's comments
about thanking staff through this process. It's quite complicated. Um,
and I too will also echo that I'd like to see this accelerated, but I also
understand why we need to find a um, a start to this u solution. And I believe
this motion here today in front of us is that solution. I think it's important
that um after this summer that we've gone through with the this um the smoke
um that is it's affecting our everyone who's working outside in a real critical
way and um I myself have you know family who worked outside and it was and you
could see how brutal it is and it's not going to get better until we start
making these steps that are going to be very difficult and not just difficult
for the building community it's going to be difficult for all of us because we're
all going going to own this solution. Um, and that solution is not going to be
easy. Um, we've gotten ourselves to this point where we know that the solutions
we make today will have a mitigating effect on the impacts going forward, but
even then there's this echo effect with the the climate that we have with where
it is now that it's going to take time even if we make all the changes you want
today in an accelerated rate. So, I believe that we need to start making
steps now. And it comes right back to if we're going to do anything, why not now?
I think we've used enough time to decide um what's best for um everyone. I think
we've put some time into this and thinking what's good for compromise to
our building community. But at the at the end of it, I represent the whole of
the city and I am hearing from a lot of people that they want this to be
accelerated. But I'm willing to work with our comm our industries to meet a
compromise and this motion is that compromise and I'm going to approve it.
» Thank you, councelor Ganella. Councelor Wallace Richmond.
» Y thanks your worship. Uh first one question uh through you to staff. Can
builders build to zero now? >> Mr. Bton,
» sorry. Build to zero >> to zero carbon now if they want if they
so choose. Okay. >> Um, so before I get into my comments,
for me, the conversation is around not whether or not people can build or
people want to build, but whether or not this is our decision to make. So, um, as
we've seen in the leadup to this, uh, one motion on one policy, um, to make
this decision, but we have to answer many, many questions in the leadup to
making this decision. So, uh, full transparency, I'm just going to share
with you some of the things I have been thinking about, some of the questions I
have been trying to answer, um, in addressing this. um
and it's a provincial policy with a municipal adoption to adopt early. So
the first question that came to my mind and I'm sure I hope some of you have
thought about that is isn't BC um actively developing
um LG facilities for export. We know the answer to that is yes. The
second question I always have on my mind is does the province have a serious
budget challenge? We also know the answer to that is yes.
And so I think part of the reason they're actively pursuing LG projects is
to bolster um u provincial coffers so they can pay for the things that we want
to be able to do. So this is a reality of the world that we live in. So, does
local government normally have the option to BC to vary the BC building
code? And the answer to that in my experience is no. This is very unusual
that the province would say, well, except for this thing, you could change
this thing if you wanted to. So, here's my sense. It's just me being
completely honest with everyone. My sense is there's a reason the province
hasn't been pushing this because I don't think they're there yet either. I think
they're actively developing now. They're talking about site C, site E. Um they're
working on uh energy opportunities. Um you know, so my sense is the urgency is
to build the electrical capacity right now. So the next question is have the
feds and the province been incentivizing lower emissions and higher efficiency
for decades in fact and the answer of course to that is yes but all that takes
is that takes revenue to accomplish. So um given that builders can now build to
zero already um the question is are they and the answer is mostly yes especially
multif family right um however the caveat is you have to have BC Hydro
approve your proposal so we don't even control that part so we could say yes
zero carbon today and we leave our builders um subject to
a regulation we have no control over, we have no budget for, right? And so just
from a policy, strategic strategy perspective, I have a a lot of concerns.
Um and here's my next t. I think we should all be asking this
question. Do multifamily um units use less energy than single
family units? And of course, the answer to that is yes. And it's pretty
considerable. It's like 30 to 50%. A multif family unit is 30 to 50% less
energy used than a single family home. So then if you ask yourself, will this
change be up and down the valley all over the southern interior? And we know
the answer to that is already no because we would be the first and the only.
Um so here's the big question. I have
wrestled with could this decision to accelerate uh zerocarbon uh step uh
could this influence the decision of multif family builders to build here and
it's reasonable to say that it could right um so they might decide not to
build here they might decide to go to Vernon because they're implementing it
more slowly than we are I mean the housing market is still at risk. We are
making progress. It's been very promising lately. We're ve we have a
very favorable status with multif family builds and we know that they're already
at EL3 or EL2 or even EL1. So another thing, we're going to consider
this in the next item, but according to our own climate resiliency plan, if you
asked um is community housing the largest risk factor for energy and
emissions in the community? No, it's
transportation. Then if you would ask if the city's
largest risk factor for energy efficiency and emissions is building the
answer is yes 60% that's our biggest risk
and so will this zerocarbon impact the city what's the city what the city is
doing now no and so to me and I'm telling you this from the bottom of my
heart um for me true leadership is not to ask the private sector to do as we
say but not as we do which is effectively what would be we would be
doing. So
uh so for the for these reasons the the
fact that this is normally not something that municipalities weigh into that
there's an uncertainty as to why the province is saying okay in this case you
can go ahead and change that part of the code. um that we don't control the grid
that BC Hydro plays a huge rule role in this and we have no control over it. So
am I ready to go alone risk the need to diversify our housing supply and signal
to our market that the rules are just a tiny bit different here? I don't think
um this is the right tool for the right challenge. So, and unless I were beyond
a reasonable doubt that it would in fact make a material impact um on GHG
emissions, there's no multif family and very little single family, then I can't
commit our community or our business community to it ahead of time. And I
have heard from business owners and I have heard from builders. Um, so you
know I am my preference would be I think I could live with 28 2930.
It would give us time to get everyone ready for the change. I would even
consider splitting single building versus complex building. But, you know,
this is going to have a big impact on a number of sectors in our community. And
I'm not feeling like we have um you know
I mean I know I understand a lot of people be disappointed in me and I
wanted to acknowledge that but the the knockoff effect
um of this decision um has to be considered and we have to thoroughly and
appropriately address all those concerns before we move it forward at this time.
Thank you. Thank you, councelor Wallace Richmond. Is there any other counselors
who wish to speak?
Seeing none, then I will just summarize with my comments and call a question.
So, first of all, thank you um to the public who um has responded to us and
thank you to staff um as we've deferred this along and to counselors and I a
conversation is always good and it's okay if everyone doesn't agree at the
end of the conversation. Um,
wouldn't it have been nice if the province would have said, "We're going
to go to EL4 in the end of 2026." We wouldn't be sitting here talking
about this right now if that was the case.
So, why didn't they? Councelor Wallace Richmond's actually
done a pretty good job outlining why they haven't.
Second thing the province said was we think that there should be regional
consideration for acceleration
of the zerocarbon step code.
So when you look at our region and I'll start in the south and I think what
these local governments are saying is we support the province. I do. I support
the province's plan with
acceleration or working through EL2, EL3 to EL4 and
2030. And I believe these local governments
are saying they're not saying no. They're not saying we don't believe in
climate change. They're not saying we need to reduce GHG emissions. That's not
what they're saying. They're saying this is the province's job and we agree with
it.
So, ause they agree with the province. Oliver, they agree with the province.
Regional district south of the Similcom, they agree with the province. City of
Pentictton, they agree with the province.
City of West Colona, they agree with the province. City of Colona, they agree
with the province. Peachland, they agree with the province. Summerland, they
agree with the province. Vernon, they agree with the province. Armstrong, they
agree with the province. Enderbe, Sycamoose, Revel Stoke, Cam Loops, RDCO,
CSRD, every local government within our regent
agrees with the province.
So, people have pointed out, well, what about Rossland and Nelson? Why are they
outliers? Well, there's some pretty big variables there. Actually,
Rossland, extremely small resort community. I was there recently.
The only building happening there is happening at Red Mountain.
Very expensive topline condos going in there.
City and Nelson, they don't even buy their hydro from BC
Hydro. They have their own hydro company. This is very good business for
them. If I was in Nelson, I would do the same.
The c the electricity used there goes back into the city coffers.
I don't begrudge them at all. I think they're making a good decision.
But no other local government within our region is making that decision.
There's a reason for that. So, we started this out by asking the
public and
we received 700 respondents. That's versus
140 for the CRP, which by the way assumes
that we're moving to EL4 in 2030. That's what the climate resiliency uh
report assumes. So, we asked the public and I know that
there was some uh people who were questionable about those respondents,
but no matter how you cut it, we asked staff to go back and look at the repeat
um number of people who filled in more than one form. So the difference
moves from 700 respondents to 596 and the percentage of support
the aggregate percentage of support for moving accelerating the EO4
zero step code is 1% from 26 to 27%.
We we said that skip has not responded or I've heard that today
23% of the respondents to that survey were skip
respondents. 77% were members of the public.
So 77% of the members of the public came forward on that survey and said we
want to follow the province and that's what Skip has said as well. They are not
saying we don't think it's a good idea. They're saying we agree and we agree
with the province's plan is what's being said.
So
2026 today, 2030 is not far away. And in between that time, provinces have said
they're going to accelerate to EL2 and EL3. They haven't given a date, but
they've said that they're going to do it.
And so I trust their word.
I'm not willing to put my foot into what is a provincial jurisdiction.
It's their job. And that's another reason why a lot of
the other local governments have not put their foot in there
because as soon as you take on one of their jobs,
more falls on it in every single case that's happened in the past with
different topics. So this is a provincial matter and they
have a plan. I support the plan. Obviously our residents do as well. The
majority of our residents do as well. And uh um you know to say that the
survey was tainted or stacked, I I have to disagree. I don't think it's
respectful of those people that filled in that survey. Um, so my conclusion is
we go along with the province's plan. I agree with it. And to go along with the
province's plan, we have to vote against this motion and that's what I intend on
doing. So I will give any other counselor one
opportunity, one more opportunity to speak if they wish and then we'll call a
question. >> Councelor Lingren,
» thanks your worship. Um, I'm going to speak again, but obviously it's not
going to change anybody's mind, but I need to go on record um for future
um residents reviewing this um that I disagree with most of what was just
said. So, the survey that went out was anonymous.
We have no idea where those people lived, whether they were residents of
Salmon Arm or residents of Atlanta, Georgia.
Uh some of the IP addresses were clearly not residences residents of Salmon Arm.
Um I disagree that they were in support of the province's plan. A number of
those surveys came back saying there's no need to do anything. Climate's not a
problem. So those were climate deniers. They had no uh interest in supporting
this plan or the province's plan or any other plan. They were happy to just go
along status quo. So those people I would discount as uninformed
um possibly um you know people that were targeting
whatever gas companies for all I know I don't know but people that had a stake
in continuing to burn fossil fuels or people that were uh completely
uninformed about um the effects that fossil fuels have on our climate.
Um there was a comment about it's not our within our jurisdiction to vary the
code. Implementing EL2 EL3 um on specific
dates in my view is not varying the code at all. The province has set the code at
EL4 for 2030 and us we are not varying the code. We
are complying with the code by implementing steps to get us to the
point the provin province has required us to be at.
As far as being the first in our region, that's just bravery. That's not a valid
argument. We talk about this all the time. Uh why would we put a sidewalk
there? It's the sidewalk to nowhere. And the comment at this table is always we
have to start somewhere. Why would we bury the overhead lines on that one
frontage when the rest of the ones on the street are above ground? Well,
because we have to start somewhere. And we talk about this every single meeting
about having to start somewhere. This could be us starting somewhere. The
letter from the writer in Chase specifically noted that uh that Chase
has not implemented this, but to have Salmon Arm, a nearby community,
institute it would give them the courage to also step forward. And maybe it just
takes one community to implement this plan and the rest of the communities
would get on board, which is what we've seen across regions around BC.
Um, why would uh there was a comment that uh you know
builders might not build here. They might go build in Vernon instead. Well,
I I disagree. The builders are already building above and beyond what we're
asking for in this uh motion. So, I don't believe that it would scare them
off at all. People are coming all the way from Naimo to build in Salmon Arm
because there's opportunity here. And this we've seen from multiple letters
from multiple developers who are building this way that this is actually
cheaper for the developer and for the builders that this saves them money. It
saves everybody money. So the argument that they might go somewhere else to
build that just doesn't sit right with me at all. Also the comment that LG is
being developed for export. Yes, maybe that's true. Maybe we sell a million
tons of LNG to other countries, but that doesn't mean that if we reduce our LNG
use in BC that we're going to just sell more. It means we'll probably still sell
a million tons of LNG to another country. It doesn't mean that we
shouldn't stop our own consumption. Again, we have to start somewhere.
CRP itself uh assumes that we're going to be EL4 by 2030. That's correct and
that is exactly what this motion asks us to do. But the CRP also states very
explicitly that they recommend early adoption which is also what we're asking
for in this motion. So I think we just have to be brave
enough. For me I mean it for me it doesn't even feel brave. It just feels
like the only choice there is actually. Um, but we need to try to work through
these issues and obviously this is going to fail today. I hope that future
councils after October will take a look at this video and we'll consider these
options and we'll reconsider this six months from now. I hope uh and bring it
back to the table and try to get it passed because I think that you know our
future depends on this kind of action. >> Thank you councelor Lingren. Are there
further speakers to the motion?
» I will call the question on the motion. All those in favor? Any opposed?
Councelor Cannon, myself, councelor Wallace Richmond opposed. Motion does
not pass. Councilors, we will move move forward to
what was 1010, which is director of engineering and
sustainability climate resiliency plan. There is a motion for consideration. If
we can have a mover in a second or to get that on the floor. Councelor
Canella. Thank you, Councelor Cannon.
Mr. Mills, are you speaking to us about this or is this Mr. Buckton?
» Mr. Buckton. >> Buckton.
» Okay. I just saw Mr. Mills there. >> Thank you.
» Mr. Buckton, please go ahead. >> Thank you. You worship it. Members of
council, um, as noted here, we're seeking council's endorsement of the
climate resiliency plan, which is a massive project that Miss Wilson, Mr.
Mills have been working on as project leads for quite some time. Um, August
4th, development planning services committee meeting. um you asked us to
seek and coate last comments on on the plan which I will get to in a
moment. So the plan itself it's both an adaptation and mitigation. Um so we're
we're looking at reducing risks and vulnerabilities.
I I'm before I start I'm not going to go through that whole presentation again
that Miss Wilson went through so don't panic. Um so the there are adaptation
elements to the plan. Uh there are mitigation so reducing greenhouse gas
emissions that contribute to climate change.
Um there are 44 actions identified under nine focus areas or nine categories
um uh that are outlined in the plan. Um
there are some key strategic actions whether or not it's um development of
climate resilience resilience policy a climate development of a climate
resilience community strategy um review and updating our emergency management
plans particularly with respect to adaptation
and establishing sustainable funding and staffing capacity to implement the CRP.
Um in terms of the the comments that that we did receive um um following
council's direction or committee's direction
um I mean I I would categorize it typified as some general support
comments on background um the comments from interior health um particularly
around language I think we can address those on a go forward basis I'm not sure
that going back through the and would involve
a significant amount of editorial um that I don't know would add a terrible
amount of I don't want to knock that but might not add a lot of value for the
effort required but certainly um moving forwards um we can certainly
take that on board um and address it as we move forward I mean if council wants
any of that editorial directed then please let us know but we weren't
planning to go back through the document
um the climate action society um they made some interesting comments around
the modeling um redoing that redoing the project. So we're not going to recommend
that council step that far back um
I mean in terms of the priorities council can take those up as part of
future budget decisions and project decisions and strategy decisions going
forward. So, um I don't plan on I say Mr. Mills and I
are here to answer council's questions. Um but I say we
um in terms of the feedback, council has seen it. I don't know that we need to
make any amendments to the to the CRP unless specifically directed, but
I would try and answer council's questions from this point forward.
» Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckton. Um, I will open it up to counselors for
any comments or questions that they might have.
» Councelor Lingren, >> thanks worship. Uh, I want to start by
saying thanks to staff for the work um that's gone into this. This report looks
so different from uh I think back to the days when we did the C report and some
of our disappointment in how general that was and how
um just broad broad uh strokes rather than you know
specific actions. This climate plan is specific. It's uh based on science. It's
very adaptable. It's got real actions that we could implement, some of them
very quickly. Um, [laughter]
with political will. Um, and so I I I just want to express how appreciative I
am of this kind of quality of report coming forward.
Um, we know that the risks from climate change are going not what we're
experiencing today is not what we're going to be experiencing in 20 years.
It's going to be, you know, multiple times worse. This is the beginning of a
long stretch of tough roads ahead. And so implementing some of these things
now, I think, is a key piece. Um, adaptation is really important. I think
that we know what some of the risks are with fire and flood and heat and drought
and we know that um we need to prepare now because you know as I said things
are going to get worse and we need to be ready when they do. I think that um you
know drought and fire are probably the biggest risks that we face in Salmon Arm
and I think that there are things that we will do uh moving forward or future
councils will do moving forward. Um and staff seems to already be moving in that
direction of you know working on building bylaws change mandating things
like charging infrastructure and fire smart landscapes and uh solar readiness
those types of things. um because our future is going to be
electric and we know that uh those things are going to be important. Um I
think water meters comes back to mind for me as a really important um
mitigation strategy. How are we going to help people understand the water that
they use and the effect it has? uh we need to be able to show every single
homeowner what's happening in their own home and teach them how to work towards
it. So um towards doing better. So I think one of the things that uh you I I
can't see any reason we wouldn't adopt this today or endorse this today. I I
will be endorsing it. Um uh and I I hope that the next step after this will be
around um education, the education piece for our staff and for our uh community
and for council. Um, one of the things that we saw in England
a couple of years ago when we were traveling there was uh billboard type uh
advertising for things like um uh trading in one trip in your car for a
bicycle reduces greenhouse gases by x number of whatever. And so I I hope that
in the not too distant future we're able to move into that phase and we can start
educating people about how their decisions in their daily life can help
um cumulatively make big changes for everybody.
» Thank you councelor Lingren. Councelor Wallace Richmond.
» No thanks. I just I had a question and then a comment. Um,
in the report, uh, is there any reference to things that
might be outside of our jurisdiction like provincial that would require
provincial or federal funding? I mean, I I just see that things like investment
can be sort of very high as opposed to low. But I'm assuming the very high ones
like retrofitting our own buildings um would absolutely require uh provincial
and federal support. I mean is that a fair statement? Cuz I'm okay with I this
is a comprehensive plan. It's all tied together. It's very thoughtful.
Completely happy to endorse it. I just think that we can't set an expectation
where it means that we are going to pay for all of this all by ourselves. I I
feel like that would be an important piece to put in there somewhere.
» Mr. Buckton, can you respond? >> Yes, through the chair. Um I don't
believe there's anything that's beyond our ability legislatively or
jurisdictionally. Um funding. Yes, that that's an entirely different.
Will it require funding from other sources? Inevitably.
» Yeah, most plans do. Yeah. >> Okay.
Well, I just I always think it's important to set expectations and the
truth is um as you know, as we learned in the um PowerPoint around this um we
know that our our biggest vulnerability is actually buildings, our own buildings
and the community's biggest vulnerability is transportation. So one
of those things means transit which we share with the province and the other
thing other thing means very expensive retrofits of older community facilities
which also need um senior orders of government to help fund. So let's just
be clear as we move forward that we're going to have to do this in partnership.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Councelor Wallace Richmond.
Um councelor Lavy please go ahead. >> Yeah thanks your worship. Um I to a lot
of this is a good document. I want to thank uh city staff um the engagement
with organizations, experts, residents, the uh steering group committees, the
work that has been done in terms of getting feedback loop and the broad
community participation. I think it's been quite remarkable and I think it is
the document for for the future. Um I'm wondering if we could get to page on the
screen, page 139, please.
part of the report. [clears throat]
Thank you. And your worship, I'm going to hammer away hammer away at this.
Under buildings, use policy tools to incentivize the
adoption of green building infrastructure that enhances cooling,
energy efficiency, water conservation, and overall climate resilience.
Priority very high, investment low,
and a a timeline.
Buildings implement the zerocarbon step code by 2030.
priority very high, investment very low
by 2030. your worship. I accept but I disagree profoundly with our last
decision on zero carbon step code. But I would urge the upcoming council
to put in definitive to review to put in definitive timelines of what actually
short and medium is. both are talking about 2027 2030 and in
my view short and medium doesn't say okay we're going to do it in 202720 2030
I think it'll be a challenge there may not be the political will there I think
that there should be and I think that uh and I'm hoping that the next council
will pick up this ball um in my view your worship that's been dropped but
that not to taint what is the good document here thank
Thank you, Councelor Lavy. Are there any other comments from council or questions
at this time? Councelor Lingren, is there anyone else
want to speak that hasn't had a chance? Okay, councelor Lingram, please go
ahead. >> Thanks, Worship. Uh just wanted to
comment on partnerships and how uh well done that was in this document actually.
uh partnerships with groups like forest or [clears throat] industries like
forestry and agriculture. Those are going to be so important moving forward.
They have such a huge effect on how things happen. Really happy to see uh
the city looking at ways that we can collaborate.
If we lose the funding for firesmarting our community, can we partner with
forestry to do selective logging in those areas? like those are natural fits
and I think they're things that we haven't really explored in detail before
and I'm really happy to see those coming forward. Um the other thing that I hope
that we look at in the not too distant future is some kind of I I saw one of
the things for 2027 was um CRP funding and staffing. And I don't know what
staff is thinking about um uh as far as staffing what that will look like or but
I'm imagining some kind of CRP coordinator position working with the
Zero Home Collective to help citizens um connect with the services they need if
they want to retrofit their home. um connecting with forestry, connecting
with uh interior health, those types of agriculture, those types of things to
help move the city's um objectives forward and using those partnerships to
uh get them done at a reasonable cost or no cost to the city um because there's a
partnership in place where somebody is going to benefit from that. So again,
just thank you for the good work done. >> Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Are there
any further comments or questions from council?
Okay, seeing none, um I'd also like to thank staff and not just staff, but
there was many many groups involved in helping provide information for input.
the steering committee um had members from from all kinds of groups within
within salmon arm and uh and they provided that the information they
provided is included in this document. I think one of the really important pieces
in this document is it's it brings together um city departments because
with regards to to this kind of change we we need to make sure that uh that all
of the departments are considering and working together and sharing and we've
seen that progression happen. I think this this document really spells it out.
um have to agree the education piece is is really large um um for for us to get
out to the community um details of the of the plan and we certainly will do
that. Um and there is a number of major components that we we need to continue
to to educate on. um water metering metering which was mentioned and which
we're piloting now is is one that's quite significant and uh and one that we
need to talk about more with our community. Uh
the transportation component and getting people out of their cars. Um we're we're
doing it a piece at a time through through electric bikes and active
transportation networks. Um I'm seeing more and more of it and I'm a personal
example. Um and so that is that is a a reasonably easy way that that uh
community members can contribute. So also like to thank we we ask um a
number of groups to comment on the draft uh and appreciate those comments but I
don't want to hold up this resiliency plan by going back and adjusting. I
think those comments are useful be useful for the future. I think it's
important that we pass it today. So, I certainly will vote uh to uh in favor of
um of accepting this uh document. Seeing no other speakers, I will call a
question. All those in favor? That passes unanimously.
Thank you very much. Okay, we are going to move in camera.
Um, I'll just check with uh our chief uh administrative officer if she
could read the uh motion for consideration
» that pursuant to section 91D and 92B of the community charter.
Council moving camera. >> Could I have a mover and a seconder?
Councelor Canella, councelor Wallace Richmond. Thank you. All those in favor?
That passes unanimously. Thank you. I think uh for members of the public,
we'll probably be about 45 minutes. So, I'm thinking 4:00. We should come back
to regular session at 4:00. So, if you're interested in coming back on, um
come back on at that time. Council will take a short little break.
This conference will now be recorded.
We will reconvene the city of Salmon regular council meeting of Monday,
August 24th. Welcome back. Uh councelor Labry is with us virtually as some staff
members um and the rest of council here in the council chamber with our staff.
Council, we have uh moved to item or tab 12 now, which is the introduction of
bylaws. And the first one is a fee for services amendment bylaw 4761. It's
water and sewer rates. There is a motion for consideration. I can have a mover in
a seconder to get that on the floor. Councelor Cannon, Councelor Lingren.
Thank you. I'll pass it over to Mr. JRO to speak to us about the report.
or will the chief financial officer Oh, Mr. Buckton's gonna speak to this. Okay,
Mr. Buckton, I'm sorry. Please go ahead. [laughter]
» Thank you, worship, members of council. Um, bylaw 4761 is is essentially an
attempt to harmonize the utility rate categories
with the land use categories that have developed through the the zoning bylaw
and the schmoo legislation. So, we're starting to see these accessory dwelling
units of various sizes that don't really fit into the existing categories in the
current FIFA services bio agency, private dwellings, apartments, and
suites, boarding and lodging. Um, a freestanding suite that we're seeing,
these carriage homes, garage homes, granny suite, um, they're not really a
suite as the current bylaw anticipates it. Um and the current size limit
potentially on these accessory dwelling units is quite large. Um so it it just
doesn't fit into the categories that we have
um in the current fee for services spiral. So what we're proposing is to
move from the first the first four private dwellings, apartments and
residents combined with the new categories we would propose are
residential dwelling apartments and secondary suites and then accessory
dwelling units below that threshold which is 104 square meters and there is
some rationale for that and then ADUs or accessory dwelling units above that 104
square meters. Residential dwellings the new category is essentially the same as
private dwellings previously. um that would capture single family homes,
duplexes, triplexes, and grand oriented town homes definitions contained in the
new bylaw to cover that off. Same definitions as we have in the zoning
bylaw. So, we've got consistency across those bylaws.
The rates would stay unchanged for that category of of dwelling unit. Um
apartments and secondary suites would capture apartments and suites within
homes as those currently what we understand as secondary suites.
um the rate is assigned the same rate that it currently is. So it's it's that
much lower rate. The smaller accessory dwelling units
would be given the same rate as suites. That's the two 211 for water and 205 for
sewer. And larger accessory dwelling units, that's above the 104.1 m get the
higher rate. Um the rationale being that those are the larger units. The 104
104.1 m actually has a bit of thought behind it. It's 75% of the um average
single family home size and we had Patrick pull the the assessment records.
So there is some math and some rationale behind picking picking that number. Um
so that the larger units get assigned to larger utility rate. They say the rates
remain the same. We haven't changed the rates. It's just what we put into those
categories is a little clearer. and the these ADUs that we're seeing which don't
fit anywhere right now have a home to go to. It's clear everyone can see what it
is when we're assigning the utility rates. Um it's very clear about where to
put that. Um the note sections been amended um so we've got the necessary um
definitions um or we're cross referencing to
definitions from the zoning bio [snorts] so it's clear about what is what.
um we don't intend to look at the existing utility accounts. That work of
trolling through manually through each of those records would be a massive
piece of work. So as those accounts change, we can reassess, but we're not
going to go back in and change those. Um at this point in time, we don't
anticipate this will have any impact on revenue. Um I say as an administrative
classification of utility accounts, we don't feel there's a need for public
communication. So, as noted, we're just trying to make sure that what we're
seeing through the zoning ble has a place to go in the utility account
classifications. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for that
explanation and for the report, counselors, I'll open it up to you if
you have any questions or any comments that you wish to make.
» Councelor Lingren, >> thanks for worship. Um, so I'm in
generally support in support of this. I see the rationale I think for you know I
think what the push is is more people more wear and tear more use of utilities
therefore higher rates is that correct that's why we charge more
» Mr. Braxton. Yes, we're using the size and size of
the unit as a proxy for uh impact on utilities. The larger the
unit, the more likely to have larger fixtures. It's the best short counting
fixtures. It's the best proxy we have. >> Great. Councelor Lingren.
» Yeah. So, I assume that it's too hard to it's probably not possible to
assess based on the number of people actually living there. And here's my
thought process. Um, if [clears throat] you live in a
house that has a thousand square ft on each of two floors and it's got three or
four bed, say four bedrooms, two up, two down, with a wreck room uh, in the
basement and you raise a family with four kids, that's a pretty realistic
Yikes. Go away. Oh, I don't have a touchcreen. Sorry.
Um, so if you raise a family with four kids, that's a pretty realistic number
of people to be in that house. Then your kids grow up and leave home. Uh you've
had four basically uh six basically six adults in the house for a number of
years. And then your kids all leave home and you think, you know, this space in
the basement would be much better used. Let's put in a suite down there. So you
put in a a two-bedroom suite and you rent it out, but there might just be one
person living there. And so you have two people upstairs and one person
downstairs and you now have half as many people, but you're going to pay one and
a half times as much for utilities. And I'm wondering whether or not it's a
deterrent for people to sweep their place and whether or not we might be if
we're trying to incentivize housing more housing and incentivize adding a suite
to your home if you're not using that space if it would be smart for us to not
charge if the suite is within the home. Is that a possibility?
» Mr. Buckton, can you uh comment? the chair. I believe it's been practiced
for many years to charge for that secondary suite. So that would be a
reversal of um long-standing practice at the city.
» Councelor Lingren, >> yeah, it has been a practice. Um but we
have not had a push like we have now to increase housing and uh density and uh
provincial rules have changed, municipal bylaws are changing. Um, you know, there
are lots of reasons to be increasing incentives for people to put sweets in.
So, it I'm for me it feels like it's an appropriate time to rethink that
philosophy that it may not be that there are more people living in that house and
that there are not there's not a higher use of utilities and the chances are
that there's actually fewer people living in the house than there was when
it was a four-bedroom home uh single family home.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Are there other speakers to the motion?
I see none. I will call the question. All those in favor?
Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. We
will go to reconsideration of bylaws, which is tab 13.
First one is zoning a bylaw 4759, civic address 3851th Avenue Southeast. The
owner is Little Mountain Ridge Developments. agent is uh Dave McHugh.
There's a motion for consideration for this final reading. If I have a mover in
a seconder, councelor Canam will move. Councelor Wallace Richmond will second.
I'll pass it over to Mr. Buckton just to review briefly this final reading.
» Thank you. Worship members of council. Um this is the reszoning just west of
Little Mountain Park. It's going from A2 to R10. It's consistent with the OCP. No
changes or issues since um council last considered this.
» Thank you. Councilors, any questions or comments?
» I will call a question. All those in favor?
That passes unanimously. Thank you. The next one 13.2. Again, final reading is
traffic bylaw, ticket information utilization bylaw, and fee for service
bylaw amendments 4773,74 and 75. There is a motion for
consideration. Um, councelor Lavy, if you were interested in moving or
seconding, I take move here. Thank you. Moved by councelor Lavy, second by
councelor Cannon. >> I'll pass that over to Mr. Buckton.
» Thank you, worship, members of council. Again, um these three bylaws of council
recollects are a suite of bylaws to the three separate bylaws that deal with um
enforcement and trying to align all of our bylaws so that we can undertake
digital um ticketing. >> Thank you. Thanks for that summary.
Counselors, any questions or comments? Councelor Lingren,
» maybe you already know what I'm going to say. Um, I noticed in the traffic bylaw
that people can be ticketed for using their engine retarder brakes and I
wondered if we could start maybe implementing more tickets for that to
see if that stops people from using them on Tank Hill.
» Mr. Bson, can you respond? >> Certainly something that if it's in the
bylaw, we can do that.
» Thank you. Councelor Lingren, any further comments? I'll start calling
bylaw instead of the RCMP then. Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other comments or
questions? I'll call a question and all those in
favor
that passes unanimously. Council, we're into correspondence and
councelor Ganell, I think um if it's okay with you, we'll deal with the two
items that um you made a de declaration in 1419 and one and 15. So I will call
you back after council's had an opportunity to work on those two. So I
would call on a counselor who's willing to um speak to those items.
Councelor Wallace Richmond, please go ahead.
» Yeah. 1419 Trail Alliance request
to host their spring trail celebration at the South Canoe. Um they're always
well ahead of time planning for June 5th, a very popular event. I would move
that uh we ask staff to work with the Trail Alliance uh to put in place
whatever is needed to done to accommodate this request.
» Thank you. Seconder councelor Cannon. Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your
motion, Councelor Wallace Richmond? >> Uh, no. Um, yes. Would be the fourth
year, I think, of this uh event. It's an important one for the Trail Alliance and
uh I hope council will support. >> Thank you. Any other speakers to that
motion? I'll call a question and all those in
favor that passes unanimously.
Um, would someone like to bring up 14.15?
Thank you, Councelor Canon. Please go ahead.
» So, this is a request, but I'm just kind of thinking that this
request is coming in the final hour. Uh I don't know. I'm sure this is on the
radar of our staff because uh the parade is this this weekend. So,
um, but this is the closure for the fall fair which starts on the Thursday, the
road closure. So, make a motion that staff work with the fall fair.
» Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Councelor Lingren,
should we check in with our staff and just see how
» I just wanted to just say to staff, is this too short a notice or was it on
your radar screen? >> Mr.
Yeah, thank you through your worship. Uh it was on our radar. It was just uh an
item that was missed previously in in their road closures and the parade route
and it was a frantic phone call late last week in the evening. That's what I
was wondering. >> And uh yeah, so we're all good. This is
the same they've done for previous years. They'll also be utilizing the the
the old memorial arena lot as a expansion of their fair as well. So no
concerns. >> And we're able to provide barricades
and certainly signs. Perfect. Thanks so much.
» Thank you. Um, is there any comments or questions around that motion?
Seeing none, I'll call a question. All those in favor?
Thank you. And thank you for our staff for always uh being so willing to work
with these groups. All right, we'll invite Councelor Ganella back.
Welcome back, Councelor Canella. Um, we've dealt with those two items. So,
counselors, I'll open it up to you for any of the other items that you might
wish to speak to on theformational correspondence. Councelor Cannon.
» Thank you, your worship. Oh, I just uh lost what number it was. Just a sec.
14.1.5 the letter from the SPCA.
» Yes, please go ahead. >> I mean, this is uh I think an
interesting opportunity. uh looking at the letter from them um
leasing the land possibly from them. But I think this is something that we
need to look at at budget time. >> So could I make a motion to put this on
specific would it be specific referrals for worship?
» Yes, please. And maybe we can even uh get staff to get us a bit more
information on they say in here that they did some preliminary figuring and
they figure it would be 100,000 plus volunteer time, but maybe we could have
a little bit more information from staff if they could look at it.
» Thank you for the motion. Is there a seconder? Councelor Ganella will second.
Um did you wish to speak further to your motion, Councelor Can? I just think uh
with it being right on 97 uh definitely fencing would be an issue and it would
be interesting to see what kind of configuration to make this work for a
dog park cuz the dog people are always looking for a dog park. So
» thank you council Lingren. I see your buttons pressed. Is it for this item?
Okay. I don't see other speakers for this item. And by putting on specific
referrals, they also get an invitation to come speak to us. So that might be
helpful as well. >> All right, I'll call a question. All
those in favor? That passes unanimously. Thank you.
Councelor Cannon, do you have any other ones that you'd like to speak to?
» Well, no, that's good. >> Okay, I'll go to Councelor Lingren next
then. Councelor Lingren, please go ahead.
» Uh number eight and number 11, please. >> Okay, let's start with eight then.
» Um just a letter a letter requesting licensing for cats. just want to keep
this on the radar of staff that at some point I think this issue is going to
boil over and we're going to have to address it, but I'm not [clears throat]
prepared to make any motions at this time. The EAC made some recommendations
around that and um maybe we should get back to this lady and let her know what
the issues are around why we haven't instituted licensing for cats just yet.
» Thank you. We will get back to Miss Tate and appreciate her her concern there.
Um, and the other one you wanted to speak to was
» 11. >> Okay. Yes, please go ahead.
» Yeah. So, this is a letter from somebody asking us to ban fireworks. And I
understand this concern completely. Last summer, there was somebody uh in the
evening with a black pickup truck parked at, um, Safeway Field, I call it. I
can't remember what it's really called. uh uh firing off fireworks randomly in
the middle of a park or a green space in the middle of Salmon Arm and in the
middle of fire season. It just seems really tonedeaf and I just wanted to
know from staff what our legal parameters are around something like a
fireworks band ban. >> Sure. Would you like to refer it to
staff to get back to us or do you want to see if we can do it today? Uh if they
have any information, I'd be happy to hear it. But if um we need some time to
do some research and see what's possible, I'm happy with that, too.
» Okay. My suggestion would be we might want to refer because I think the fire
department might have some input perhaps. Um
» sorry, I was just wondering if we have legal jurisdiction to ban fireworks
within the city. >> All right, let's see if we can figure
that out first. Um C >> your worship uh currently we do not have
the jurisdiction to ban the sale of fireworks. Um there are some frameworks
available to us including the fireworks act but um that would specifically
um create a scenario where selling, giving or setting off fireworks would
not be permitted except between October 24th and November 1st in any year. So
very restrictive under the fireworks act. Um there are other means of dealing
with this through us bylaw. So that would be the mechanism and the city does
have that ability. >> Yeah, I appreciate that answer. I know
it's a complicated one. Uh I think the biggest issue is that they're very hard
to catch because they go down there and you see them and you call the RCMP and
by the time they get there, these guys have packed up and gone somewhere else
to do it. So, um, yeah, just anything we can do to mitigate that. I think there's
a a fairly supportive group of residents in Salmon Arm that would be in favor of
banning fireworks that are just random like that. I think they're dangerous.
They're disruptive to um, pets and um, animals. And anyway, it's just a huge
fire hazard and a nuisance and I don't think they should be allowed to do it.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. >> No other uh, items.
» Okay. Um there is one other item that requires
our it's around the Terry Fox run. Um if someone could bring that one up. They're
asking to be able to Oh, Council Cannon probably knows. Councelor Cannon, go
ahead. >> Okay. So, they are looking
» it's 4.1.2. >> Yeah, I got it.
» We've rented the gazebo at Blackburn Park for September. Proudly hosted.
While reviewing the rental agreement, I noticed that amplification is not
permitted and that access to power on site is restricted. I am writing the
request special permission for the Terry Foxorn to use available power and
limited amplification during the event. So,
um I guess I would ask our director
of public works if this is something that we could do. I guess I think it's
through Shaw Recreation Society. They manage that. Correct.
» Mr. Dro, can you comment? >> Yep. Thank you, your worship. Uh yeah,
the gazebo can be booked through the Shrop Recreation Society. Um the
amplification uh goes against the parks and open space bylaw where they just
need council approval to have amplification. Otherwise the event no
concerns you can move. >> So I'll make a motion uh that
if council would accept them being able to have amplification.
» Thank you. Seconded by councelor Wallace Richmond. Do you wish to speak to that
motion? Councelor Cannon. >> Nope. Just want to thank our city
manager for working with us. >> Okay. Thank you. And that uh Terry Fox
run September 20th for those interested. I will call the question and all those
in favor.
That passes unanimously. Thank you. Councilors, uh councelor Canada, do you
have any others that you want to talk to?
» No. >> No. Okay. Then councelor Lingren, then
councelor Wallace Richmond. >> Uh thanks worship. I wasn't going to
bring this one up, but number six, I think I just want to comment on.
» Sure. Go ahead and make your comment. >> I don't [clears throat] know who this um
writer is or what neighborhood they live in. Um but it seems that they are
requesting that the city um institute or build or I'm not sure
exactly how they would do this, but the estab they want us to establish
neighborhood level fence dog runs. And I just want to comment on how unrealistic
that would be. First of all, the city doesn't own land in every neighborhood.
Uh second of all, the cost of either buying land, turning it into dog parks,
maintaining it, running water, um all the things that would have to happen for
a dog park is completely off the charts, unrealistic.
Um there is a ton of places in the air in all of our city, all over the city,
where you can walk your dog on leash and off leash, including one designated dog
park. And while I support her idea that more dog parks are uh uh
favorable, like we need more of them, um having a neighborhood level fence dog
run in every neighborhood is just never going to happen. Um, so I
[clears throat] I I also need to comment again that uh um Blackburn Field,
Blackburn Park is not a dog park. And I know the whole community thinks that it
is and I'm going to keep saying this until I'm done in October. [laughter] It
the fairgrounds is not a dog park. The fairgrounds is a place that the board
allows people to take their dogs because it's a lot of the time unused for other
things. Um, but it is not a designated dog park. It is not run by the city. Um,
yeah, we got to stop calling it that. So, we're lucky to have that extra
space. Khani is the only dog park that I'm aware of. Um, and do we need another
one, a bigger one with some trails and trees? Yes, of course we do. And, you
know, just tonight we were or just today we were even just talking about that.
Um, but yeah, this is a completely unrealistic ask and I don't know if
staff can >> [laughter]
» tell her that in a much more measured way than I would be able to. Um but
yeah, I think that that is off the table.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Councelor Wallace Richmond.
» Yeah. On um item 14.1.7 regarding improvements to the boat
launch. >> Yes.
Um,
[clears throat] can we confirm that those kind of uh
improvements in water would not be our decision to make and in fact dredging
isn't really allowed anymore. >> Um, CAO, I know there's three requests
there. Concrete ramp extensions, dredging, launch basins, lowwater market
signage. We could ask staff to get back to us on on that information or would
you like to try to? [laughter] >> No, I'm happy for staff to get back to
us. [clears throat] I guess if I could add one question and also if if we
dredged, wouldn't it just fill up with silt all over again? So, I know this is
a a problem all over the Shushwap and um other boat launches have had to close.
So um it would be good to have clarity around this answer without making any uh
suggesting in what a way am I prepared to move ahead on this. I just think we
as a community we need to understand what the regulations around that kind of
work is. Would you like to craft a motion to staff walls Richmond or uh
that council uh refer this letter to staff to get clarification around our
jurisdiction in terms of uh boat rent boat launch improvements and um dredging
and building in the lake. >> Okay. Thank you. Second to that motion.
Councelor Cannon. Thank you. You wish to speak to your motion? Uh, no. I already
did. Thank you. >> Okay. Are there other speakers to the
motion? Okay. I I appreciate the motion. The one
piece of the motion that I think I'll be especially interested in is the concrete
ramp extensions because that could be if we can if we're
permitted to do it um could be a way to extend the use of the boat launch at uh
Marine Park because I know that's one of the problems. So, look forward to
hearing back from staff on that. Any other comments on the motion? Uh,
councelor Lingren. Yes. >> Yes. Uh, I just find it ironic that this
uh request or this letter came up on the same day that we're talking about
climate change and a climate resiliency plan because part of the reason that the
lake is lower every year is due to climate change. We're in drought
conditions and they're getting worse all the time. and the idea that we have to
do anything um to make it easier for people to take their fossil fuel burning
toys out on the lake uh while that's happening. It seems a bit tonedeaf. So,
I I wouldn't be in favor of extending them uh the the boat launches. I think
that we need to be more cognizant of the effect that we're having when we do
these types of activities. >> Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Is there
any other speakers to the motion? I will call a question on the motion.
All those in favor? Any opposed?
Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, any other items? Councelor Wallace
Richmond, please go ahead. >> On the 14.1.10
is both a compliment on the soontobe complete roundabout, but also a concern
around use of staff time. I think it's important that the letter writer
understand that these were contracts agreed to without overages and it's
really um important that we recognize um that a biz was bid was placed and
accepted and how they manage their staff is purely a private matter for them to
deal with. So I don't think any comment in this case would be appropriate.
Thank you, Councelor Walter. And we we will let um Miss Vander Clark know um th
those uh those facts. Appreciate her input because this is an opportunity to
to uh educate. Right. So, thank you very much for that. Is there any other um
pieces of information that uh council may wish to bring up at this time?
Councelor Lavy, please go ahead. >> Yeah, thanks for worship. Uh so 14.1.3
um I think we'll be doing social media. We have done social media stuff but a
note to everybody there's a candidate information session if you're thinking
of running for local government. It's this coming Wednesday two days from now
5:00 pm council chambers and there's a way of attending virtually. Thank you.
» Thank you very much councelor Labry. Thank you for uh for your advocacy of
towards people learning all about it. Okay, I see no other uh um
interest in any of the other items there. So, we'll go to council
statements. Does any counselor have a statement they would like to make?
Councelor Cannon, please go ahead. >> I'm just going to get to my statement.
Okay. Um, I received a letter a few days ago from
the vice president of the tennis salmon arm tennis club and she was just
thanking on behalf of the Salmon Arm tennis club
uh of the 55 plus legacy funds that we gave the tennis club for to upgrade
their uh outdoor Wi-Fi system in the facility. So, she was they were very
appreciative and it is all done. So, she just sent a thank you letter on behalf
of the tennis club. So, I just wanted to pass that along.
» Thank you, councelor Cannon. And you've probably seen they've been pouring the
uh foundation for the lights. >> I know at the synthetic field, which is
also part of that legacy. >> Yeah, the legacy funds paying for a
portion of the lighting in the synthetic field. So, it was pretty exciting that
the the cement is poured and it's hopefully soon we'll have spent all our
money cuz it's sitting there. So, exciting times.
» Thank you, councelor Cannon. Councelor Lingren,
» thanks worship. [snorts] I just wanted to say thank you to councelor Lavy for
um not being able to attend his sir meeting last Friday because that meant I
got to go and it was really interesting the sterile insect re release. I I know
I always ask questions about this and why is this important and how does this
work uh at budget time? I think probably most of the last seven years I've asked
that question and now I understand a lot better how it works and uh why it's
important and it's an amazing um uh venture that they've got going there
with like 60some staff and it's it's really incredible what they're doing and
it's a cutting edge technology. So, it was really exciting to be there and uh a
lot of the information was over my head, but if I get to go again in the next
couple months, uh I'll probably understand more of it. So, thanks.
» Thank you, Councelor Lingren. I know you have the same enthusiasm that councelor
Flynn and councelor Lavy have for that uh sir. So, there you go. We'll have to
get more people to visit those meetings. So, thank you for attending. Councelor
Wallace Richmond. >> Yeah, just a word about UBCM quickly on
its way. held in Vancouver 13 to the 18th. Um
while my term on the UBCM board is coming to a close, uh I did want to
remind council and the community at large that the resolution book is out.
Uh so um it's time to get your homework done. Take a look, see um where that
sits with you and um looking forward to a resolution session at UBCM which will
be a little bit different this year because it only deals with matters
related to the province at large, not specific regions which will then fall to
our area associations like Silka. So looking forward to it.
» Great. Thank you very much for that. And we're expecting to hear um from the
ministries shortly now about any meetings that we might uh um have been
able to arrange. So our corporate officer will be keeping us um informed
of that. Thank you for your work with UBCM Council Wallace Richmond.
I'll just uh let you know and I think most of you were aware not all were able
to attend uh our visit with uh um our sister city friends from Inishki. um
council walls and I were here uh in the council chamber last Tuesday
um when they uh sister city representatives were here
and as most of you know part of that is that each of the students and there's
eight of them this year much smaller group had their opportunity to come and
speak to us uh in English on um without uh any translation and they were
amazing. I think I think the best I've seen. They were so well practiced and uh
they were seated. It was quite it was quite an a warm morning because they
were seated with their uh with their um homeay uh student um and some of the
families were here as well and you could just sort of see them just getting to
know each other and cheering each other on. I know they had uh three really good
days camping out at Harold Park. Um, as you know, we we certainly uh um scaled
back the numbers and the activities. So, instead of a house boat, it was a tenth.
Um, but it was very Canadian and I heard it went very well. um had opportunity to
meet uh with the mayor and with the consulate uh general from uh um from
Vancouver and uh you know the goodwill that that um that brings about um which
is was demonstrated by the uh interpreter who's a Karen de Breeze a
student who exchanged and I went lived in Japan and has come back. It's kind of
the changing the guard where the um the teacher the new teachers are taking over
and the younger interpreters. So I see I see a good uh a good um future for that
program. Very very enjoyable and uh very worthwhile.
Any other um council statements? Seeing none, um as you know that our
question period has been suspended temporarily until after our election. So
um I will recess this meeting. Thank you, Councelor Cannon, for chairing the
evening meeting. As you know, I'm not able to be there this evening. Thank you
to all of council for your input today. We dealt with some very interesting and
uh challenging issues and I think we did it very professionally. Thank you and
respectfully and thank you to staff as well.
» This conference will now be recorded
Could
we do a sound check, please?
Can you hear us now, Tim? >> I I can, Deputy Mayor. Thank you.
hear any of the opening statements? >> Um, no, but I I understand the file, so
I'm >> comfortable with us moving on. Thank
you. >> Okay, so we'll move on to planning to
finish. >> Um, yes, thank you. Um while we
recognize that the improvements are insignificant uh not insignificant sorry
uh due to the uh um double frontage um we would not recommend staff are not
recommending that council wave the requirements. Um our alter staff's
alternative alternative recommendation however is consistent with motion that
council passed at the that the committee passed at the development planning
services committee meeting. If council has any questions of of
staff, we will try to answer them for you.
» Okay. And I'll just mentioned that we did get a late item 22.1.
Does everyone have a copy of that? I think it came in an email
» from the engineer. >> From the engineer.
» Oh. [clears throat] Oh, yes.
Okay.
Does any counselors have any?
We don't have anyone here or online that would like to speak.
So I'll call the first time. Would anyone like to speak on this matter?
Calling a second time for submissions from the gallery or online.
Calling a third and final time.
Seeing and hearing. No one wants to speak. So we will close
this hearing.
And now we'll move on to the variance that's in front of us.
Councelor Wallace Richmond,
» what do I [clears throat] have to do to get your light to go on? Just
» um thanks your worship. Um and through you uh
did we want to move the original motion or the alternative?
» I would ask our CEO. >> My recommendation your worship is to
move the motion um as indicated in the staff report and then um make an
amendment similar to what you did at um the planning meeting.
» Okay. So then uh in that case I worship I would move uh the original motion
» the original motion or the staff recommendation.
» We move the original motion and if it's seconded I might uh make an
amendment. >> The original motion just for
clarification is the staff recommended motion. Oh in the report and then you
would do an amendment. >> Just wanting to make make sure that's
was your intent. Um
yeah well my intent is
well my interest here is to understand how we would go about um
advocating for uh the alternative motion or the alternative suggested in the
report. the one that we uh discussed at development of planning.
» Thank you, your worship. I would still recommend going with the the motion that
was requested by the applicant and then modifying it to what you want. Okay.
» Which is is how you um navigated that at the planning meeting.
» Okay. >> Okay.
» All right. So then we'll move the original motion.
» So councelor Wallace Richmond moves. Councelor Lingren seconds
» and then >> I'm just trying to get it on the floor.
» Yeah. >> Um
» so what I would say then speaking to the motion is understand the challenges with
double fronted properties um and the fact that this property is uh slightly
over what would qualify as infill. However, um I'm I'm interested in waving
that the sidewalk on 52nd, which was uh the amendment we made um at planning.
So, would now be a good time to make that amendment?
» So, it's waving the the sidewalk uh but not the the shoulder widening.
Correct.
» Oh, okay. Sorry, the the motion that was passed at
um committee >> is essentially item one only on the
» So, >> oh, sorry. Curb and gutter. My my
apologies. Curb and gutter. Sorry. Yeah. To remove item one
» would be my amendment >> to see if
» to leave that one in and remove the other four. So that would be the only
» only wave curve and gutter. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
» Of number one. >> Yeah.
» And two, three, four, five stay in the motion. Correct.
» No, those those would not be waved.
» Okay. Sorry for the confusion. To clarify my motion, the amendment I would
make is that we only wave curb and gutter on 52nd,
which would eliminate 2, three, four, and five from the motion on the table at
this time. >> Okay.
» And we have uh councelor Lind, do you second that?
» Okay. >> Okay. And so again, uh the logic being
for the amendment is while I understand the challenge of double fronted
property, um there could be a maximum of four units
of four um four lots with four units each at 16 lots. Um
typically you wouldn't get 16 lots on a single fronted property. Um, so I feel
like it is reasonable if um 52nd Street Northeast doesn't have any sidewalks, it
might need some ditching. So uh at at one point so and my assumption is and
through you maybe I can check with staff is that we would have a we have a right
of way to do that already. Do we not? Or do we have to get it if we need if and
when we need to ditch 50 seconds. >> Okay, chair. I believe that there are
some small road widening requirements, but those were not asked to be waved.
» Okay. All right. >> They're they're they're small in nature,
but they're they're not subject to the variance request.
» Okay. Perfect. So, as long as doing this uh agreeing to this being waved wouldn't
restrict the ability to ditch at a future point in time based on that canoe
overflow water plan. So, okay. >> So, that would be my motion to amend.
Okay. >> And my rationale for it.
» And would you like to speak to the motion that's been amended? Councelor
Linger. >> Sure.
» Thanks, uh, your acting worship. Um, just wanted to clarify this lot has been
proposed to be divided into four lots, not 16, but could have 16 units. So
there could be four um single family homes each having a suite and an ADU
with a suite or something along those lines. So that does um push them up to a
pretty high standard I think. And I'm fully in support of waving the curb and
gutter on 52nd for the rationale given by staff um but none of the others. So I
support the amendment. Okay.
» Any other speakers?
Seeing none, I'm going to call the motion as amended.
» The amendment of the motion first. >> Yeah. Vote on the amendment.
» All in favor of the amendment. That passes unanimously.
Now we will vote on the motion as amended.
All in favor? Oh, just that councelor Labry.
» Uh, yes. Thanks. I I I'm in support of the motion as amended. I just wanted uh
especially for the applicants to note that while I was not at planning, I
reviewed the documents, reviewed the recording and know uh know the property.
So I will support what's in front of us. Thank you.
» Thank you councelor Lavy. So we will call the the question on the
motion as amended. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
Okay, moving on to
we don't have anything else on the agenda and our question and answer
period has been suspended temporarily. So we are adjourned.
Thank you.