[0:02] This conference will now be recorded.
[0:08] » Good afternoon everyone. Welcome. I'd
like to call to order the city of Salmon
[0:13] regular council meeting of Monday,
August 24th. Welcome to you all. Welcome
[0:18] to our staff, guests who are in the
gallery and council members both who are
[0:24] here virtually and in person. Councelor
Lingurn, Councelor Cannon, Councelor
[0:28] Wallace Richmond, Councelor Ganella, and
myself are in the council chamber.
[0:32] Councelor Lavy, good afternoon. Nice to
see you.
[0:38] Councilors, we have a uh agenda to
consider. I will check with our CEO to
[0:43] see if there are any um changes to the
agenda.
[0:48] » Yes, your worship. Um there's an
addition of an in camera session as item
[0:53] four and the following late submissions
letter dated August 20th 2026 related to
[1:00] item 22.1
uh VP627
[1:05] as well as item 14.1 emails of August
23rd and 22nd um from Armore and a group
[1:14] and uh that's it.
>> Great. Thank you. If I could have a
[1:18] motion to adopt that agenda as uh
adjusted. Thank you, Councelor Wallace
[1:23] Richmond.
Okay, I can get that question after I
[1:26] get a seconder. Councelor Ganella,
councelor Canon,
[1:29] » please go ahead.
>> Was there also a change in the agenda of
[1:35] how two things line up the order?
>> I through your worship to councelor
[1:42] Cannon. Yes, that was also contemplated.
Um item
[1:48] 10
10.11
[1:52] and 10.10
will be switched. Thank you for that.
[1:56] » Thank you councelor Can for cashing.
I'll check with her mover and seconder.
[1:59] Make sure you're comfortable with that.
Yes. Okay. Um any other input to that
[2:04] motion?
Call a question. All those in favor?
[2:08] Thank you very much. Um I'd like to
acknowledge our traditional territory.
[2:13] We acknowledge we're gathering here on
the traditional territory of the
[2:16] Shaquetmik people with whom we share
these lands where we live and we work
[2:21] together.
Council, as uh you heard, we're going to
[2:24] move in uh in camera. Um we have a
motion for consideration and I'll ask
[2:29] our CEO to read that motion.
>> That pursuant to section 91 of the
[2:35] community charter, council moving
camera.
[2:38] » Thank you. Is there a mover and a
seconder? Councelor Lingren, councelor
[2:42] Cannon. Thank you. Just before I call
the uh vote on it, um for members of the
[2:46] public who might be with us um at this
time, uh our regular session will
[2:51] reconvene at 100 p.m. Any input to the
motion?
[2:57] Call a question. All those in favor
[3:02] that passes unanimously. Thank you.
We'll just give a minute to adjust uh
[3:09] before we go into our camera session.
[3:19] just check with our corporate officer.
Um we're okay to uh continue with the
[3:25] virtual
um session that's on the screen now.
[3:33] This conference will now be recorded.
[3:48] I'd like to resume the city of Salmon
regular council meeting of Monday,
[3:52] August the 24th. Um for those who are
with us virtually, welcome to you all. I
[3:57] see that we have uh our media with us as
well as some members of the public.
[4:01] Councelor Lavy is also with us
virtually. Councelor Lingren, councelor
[4:05] Cannon, councelor Walls Richmond,
councelor Canella and myself are in the
[4:09] council chamber along with our staff.
So, welcome everyone. We have read the
[4:14] acknowledgement of traditional territory
and we've adopted our agenda. I'm going
[4:18] to ask councilors if there is any
disclosure of interest that you have
[4:22] over any of the items in the regular
council meeting today. Councelor
[4:32] Ganella.
>> Thank you, your worship. In
[4:35] correspondence 14.1.9,
um the letter from the Trail Alliance,
[4:41] um I have declared a conflict that my
employer has sponsored the Trail
[4:46] Alliance event each year. Um item 141.15
[4:52] um the Shishwap Agricultural
Association's request for road closure.
[4:57] Uh my organization I work for has rents
the property the south fairgrounds from
[5:03] this organization.
>> Thank you councelor Ganell. When we get
[5:06] there we'll deal with those two first
and then you'll be able to return for
[5:09] the rest.
>> Appreciate it. Thank you.
[5:10] » Any other disclosure of interest from
any counselor at this time?
[5:16] Okay. Seeing none, we'll uh continue
with our business then. Um the first is
[5:21] confirmation of minutes of the regular
council meeting of August the 10th. We
[5:25] have a proposed motion. If I could have
a mover and a seconder, councelor
[5:28] Wallace Richmond and councelor Lingren.
Thank you very much. Is there any
[5:34] additions deletions to those minutes?
Seeing none, I'll call a question. All
[5:40] those in favor?
That passes unanimously? Any business
[5:44] arising? Council.
Okay. We have one committee report which
[5:49] says development planning services
committee meeting minutes of August the
[5:52] 17th. Is there any business arising from
those minutes?
[5:58] [clears throat]
Seeing none, we'll move to the Columbia
[6:02] Shushwap Regional District update. We
don't have a written update today, but
[6:05] perhaps one of our reps wishes to uh
speak to any happenings in the CSRD as
[6:11] would be welcome if you do.
[6:17] Seeing none, we will move forward. Um,
we don't have any presentations today,
[6:21] so we'll go to tab 10, which is the
staff reports. The first one is the
[6:26] corporate officer's uh report on the
deputy chief financial officer
[6:31] appointment. We do have a proposed
motion. Um, councelor Canam will move
[6:36] that motion. Councelor Wallace Richmond
will second. And I'll ask Miss West if
[6:40] she would speak to the report.
Thank you, your worship and members of
[6:46] council. The report before you seeks
council's formal appointment of Chelsea
[6:51] Vanderapel as deputy chief financial
officer for the city of Salmon effective
[6:56] August 24th, 2026.
This is an administrative and statutory
[7:02] appointment required under section 149
of the community charter and the city's
[7:08] officers designation and establishment
bylaw number 4267.
[7:13] The community charter requires that a
municipal officer be assigned
[7:17] responsibility for financial
administration and the city's bylaw
[7:22] establishes both the chief financial
officer and the deputy chief financial
[7:26] officer roles and identifies the powers,
duties, and functions associated with
[7:31] those positions. If council supports the
motion, Chelsea Vanderapel will be
[7:37] formally appointed as deputy chief
financial officer and an oath of office
[7:42] will be sworn following the appointment.
There are no financial implications
[7:48] identified, but with the appointment of
Miss Vanderapel, adding her to the
[7:55] financial department will definitely be
an asset.
[7:58] » Thank you very much. and I'm available
for questions. [snorts]
[8:02] » Counselors, any questions or comments
that you have around this motion?
[8:10] » Seeing none, I will call the question.
All those in favor
[8:14] that passes unanimously. Thank you.
We'll move to 10 two, which is from the
[8:20] manager of engineering and planks here
today on the Claire's Cove lift station
[8:24] upgrade award of contract. There is a
proposed motion. Um, councelor Lavy, are
[8:29] you uh comfortable moving it? Thank you.
Is there a second to the motion?
[8:33] Councelor Ganella, and I'll ask uh Blank
if she would speak to the report. Good
[8:37] afternoon. Nice to have you here.
>> Thank you, your worship.
[8:43] » In 2025, the city issued a request for
proposals for the full replacement of
[8:48] the Claris Cove lift station. The
procurement process did not proceed as
[8:53] the pricing received at that time
exceeded the approved project budget.
[8:58] In 2026, the city revised the project
scope and issued a new request for
[9:03] proposals for the Claris Cove lift
station upgrades. The revised scope
[9:08] focuses on priority improvements to the
existing facility, including replacement
[9:13] of pumps and associated components,
installation of a spray-on liner, force
[9:19] main works, and related site
improvements. These upgrades are
[9:23] required to maintain the reliable
operation of the lift station and ensure
[9:27] the continued provision of sanitary
sewer service. The request for proposals
[9:32] for the Claire's Cove lift station
upgrades closed on July 16th, 2026. One
[9:38] proposal was received by the closing
deadline from Spark Industries and
[9:42] Automation with a proposed price of
$272,947.89
[9:49] 89 plus applicable taxes. The proposal
was reviewed by the project coordinator,
[9:56] capital works supervisor, loss and
engineering, and the utilities manager.
[10:01] Although the submitted price exceeds the
engineering estimate of $245,600,
[10:08] staff are satisfied that that the
proposal meets the project requirements
[10:13] and represents fair value for the
proposed scope of work. It is also
[10:17] within the approved project budget of
$490,000.
[10:22] Based on the evaluation, staff recommend
that council select Spark Industries and
[10:26] Automation as the preferred proponent
and authorize staff to negotiate and
[10:31] finalize a construction contract in
accordance with the terms and conditions
[10:35] of the request for proposals. I'm
available for any questions. Thank you.
[10:38] » Great. Thank you very much. I'll open it
up to council if you have questions or
[10:42] have comments. We'll start with
councelor Cannon. So I just had a
[10:46] question in regards to the project
budget is 490
[10:53] but this is just a portion that we're
allotting or did we downsize uh what
[10:58] this project was going to be cuz of the
the bids that came over the 245 that
[11:05] Lawson
had uh uh did the estimate on. So you're
[11:11] referring to under financial
considerations where it says the
[11:14] proposal submitted by Spark with 272
plus applicable taxes is within the
[11:21] available project budget at 490,000.
>> So did we budget 490 for this project
[11:26] and we're just doing a portion of it is
my question.
[11:29] » Thank you. Um Miss Plank, could you
answer that question
[11:33] » through your worship? My understanding
was that the original project scope that
[11:37] went out um the bids that came in
exceeded the project budget of uh
[11:43] 490,000
and then the scope was adjusted and sent
[11:47] out and we received the one bid from
Spark. So their bid uh with within the
[11:53] revised scope um does fall within the
project budget and the remainder of that
[11:58] will be to do some other site works. So,
I understand some of that will be done,
[12:03] I believe, by city staff.
>> Miss C. Uh, councelor Cannon, do you
[12:08] have any followup?
>> Yeah. So, just so I understand, Spark
[12:12] was awarded with the 272
947.
[12:18] Uh, but the budget project or the
project budget is 490. So, the rest of
[12:25] the works to bring it up to that will
get done by city staff.
[12:30] M
>> plank
[12:31] » for your worship. Our project
coordinator who was part of the
[12:35] evaluation process is here. So perhaps
he can answer those questions in more
[12:38] detail.
>> Good afternoon,
[12:40] » Mr. Daf. It's so pleasant to see you.
>> Thank you very much. Your worship. Uh
[12:44] yeah so the uh the original uh uh scope
of the project when we budgeted the 490
[12:50] included a electrical work which is uh
included a kiosk placement and it
[12:55] included a grading of the work uh lock
block fencing and side grading. Uh so
[13:01] we're only awarding one portion of the
work right now which is the the lining
[13:05] and the replacement of the bump. Later
on we are uh the the remaining of the
[13:09] budget will be used to uh procure a
kiosk as well as uh use the city staff
[13:15] crew to uh uh grade the grade the site
as well as put fencer around.
[13:20] » So the remaining work to be done.
>> Thank you. I'll just pass back to
[13:23] councelor canon. See if you have any
follow my question. Yeah.
[13:26] » Thank you very much.
>> Um is there any other questions or
[13:30] comments counselors have?
[13:35] I guess I would just I just comment. Um
first of all, thank you for your work.
[13:40] Um we know that the list station at uh
Claire's Cove Marina pumps the sewage
[13:46] from canoe to the treatment plant in
Seminar. Um so it's a very important
[13:51] project. The upgrade is essential to
make sure it works. Um, and the cost is
[13:57] about $27,000
over the budget, which is um, in a
[14:03] budget this size, it's um, some money,
but it's not um, I would say not
[14:08] prohibitive. So, I certainly will uh,
support the motion to move ahead.
[14:15] See no other speakers, I will call a
question. All those in favor?
[14:20] That passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
[14:23] Okay, we'll go to 10 three, which is a
manager of engineering water meter
[14:28] pressure response. There's no motion
here. This is for information. Um, I'll
[14:32] ask Miss Plank if she'd like to to
summarize the report. Thank you for
[14:36] doing the research.
>> Thank you, your worship. Um, at the
[14:41] regular council meeting of July 13th,
council received correspondence from a
[14:46] property owner expressing concerns about
water pressure at their residence and
[14:50] requesting that the city replace their
existing meter with a larger meter. They
[14:54] have an existing 3/4 in water meter and
they were requesting that the city
[14:59] replace it with a 1-in meter. So,
analysis by staff indicated that the
[15:04] pressure loss experienced at the
residence is largely due to the length
[15:08] of the service. So their service is
about a thousand feet long and the
[15:14] average length of a service in the city
is closer to say anywhere from 30 to 65
[15:20] ft long. So they have an excessively
long um pipe going long service a 1-in
[15:26] pipe going from the main in the street
up to their residence. In addition,
[15:31] their residence sits about 6 ft higher
than the pipe in the street or 6 ft
[15:37] above the elevation of the street. So
that causes some loss of pressure about
[15:41] uh the equivalent of about 2 pounds per
square inch. Um there's there's a little
[15:46] bit of loss across the meter, but that's
less than 1 PSI. And the analysis
[15:51] indicated that even replacing the 3/4in
meter with a 1-in meter would not
[15:57] materially affect the loss of pressure.
Primarily, it's because of the length of
[16:01] the service. Uh having said that, the
pressure that they're experiencing at
[16:06] their residence, they're indicating it's
about 32 pounds per square inch, that
[16:10] does meet the minimum pressure
requirements in our subdivision
[16:15] servicing standards. So they are
receiving the pressure that's in align
[16:19] um in alignment with our standards
and uh I am available for any further
[16:26] questions you may have.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you very much
[16:29] for that uh report and for the summary.
Counselors, I'll open it up to you if
[16:34] you have any questions. Councelor
Lingren, please go ahead.
[16:36] » Thanks, Worship. Um, always interesting
to learn something new about something
[16:40] you never heard of before. So, um, I'm
just curious about mitigation for this
[16:45] um, household. Are there other things
that they can do besides replacing the
[16:50] meter? And is it worth our while or is
it too expensive to replace the meter
[16:54] just to show them that that's not where
the issue is? Um could they for instance
[16:58] have a pump on their property that
increases water pressure?
[17:02] » M plank
>> through your worship that is exactly
[17:05] what they could do to boost the pressure
individually on their own uh on their
[17:09] own service. They could install a
pressure pump on their service. Okay.
[17:13] Thanks.
>> Thank you.
[17:16] » As there's no motion, is there any other
comment or question on this report?
[17:24] » We appreciate staff bringing it to
council. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll
[17:27] go to 10.4 which is manage of
engineering auto road connector Fordus
[17:31] BC high-pressure gas mains. Um moved by
councelor Lavy, seconded by councelor
[17:36] Ganella.
Miss plank, we're back to you. Thank you
[17:40] very much.
>> Thank you your worship. The proposed
[17:44] autoroad connector crosses two Fordis BC
high-pressure transmission pipelines and
[17:51] in May of 2024, council approved Fordis
BC to complete a class 4 estimate for
[17:58] upgrading [clears throat and snorts] or
replacement of these two mains. The
[18:01] estimate package was received in July
2025 and this confirmed that due to
[18:06] their age and their depth, the both
pipelines would have to be replaced at a
[18:11] lower depth for an estimated cost of
$1,643,000.
[18:17] However, the estimate that was provided
at that time was valid for only 3 months
[18:21] and had expired by the time that the
2026 budget was approved. A revised
[18:27] estimate was received in July 2026 with
an increase of $33,000
[18:32] to $1,676,000.
[18:36] An alternative option was considered and
that was leaving the pipelines in place
[18:41] and modifying the autoro connector
design, but due to the shallow depth and
[18:46] age of the mains and the steep
topography, an alternative option was
[18:50] not feasible.
Fortis BC have proposed a schedule for
[18:54] the works and provided that the city
completes the cost letter agreement
[18:58] during August 2026. Fortis will complete
archaeological investigations and
[19:04] material procurement in 2027 and
commence construction in May of 2028.
[19:10] This would allow the city to commence
the construction of the auto road
[19:14] connector in 2029 subject to available
funds. And I'm available for any
[19:20] questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you
very much uh for the report. We'll turn
[19:24] it over to council if they have
questions or comments. Councelor
[19:26] Lingram, we'll start with you.
>> Thanks worship. I just a question about
[19:30] why this is the city's cost to bear. If
this belongs to Foris and the age of and
[19:36] the depth of the pipes
make them high risk for whatever reason,
[19:41] why isn't Foris having to pay to have
them moved and replaced?
[19:47] » Miss Plank, can you respond to that?
uh through your worship. I don't know
[19:52] the answer to that question. I believe
it may have to do with the fact that the
[19:56] city is um requesting to do some work to
to account for or to accommodate our
[20:04] auto road connector. I don't know if the
timeline if Foris would have uh replace
[20:10] them perhaps later, but I can certainly
do some more investigation and find out
[20:15] exactly why. And I also don't know if
this cost that has been quoted is the
[20:20] entire cost to replace those mains or
whether that's just the city's portion,
[20:24] but I can certainly find out some some
answers for you.
[20:27] » Yeah, I think I'd like to know if that's
a cost share then because that would
[20:30] make a lot of sense actually if that's
the if that's the case. Thanks.
[20:34] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Um, are
there other comments um from council?
[20:41] Councelor Lavy.
>> Yeah, thanks Mayor Harrison. Uh just a
[20:45] question through you the finance staff.
I think I'm not sure who's in the
[20:49] gallery, but I think we have some
potential candidates for council online
[20:53] here. Um
>> we do we have an expert out there.
[20:57] » There uh is so the the proposal of
taking almost $1.7 million out of the uh
[21:04] reserve fund, the auto road extension
reserve fund through you to I think
[21:09] finance staff. Um could they generally
describe
[21:14] how that reserve account is funded?
>> Mr. Graniac.
[21:20] » Uh thank you your worship and through to
councelor Lavy. We fund it um every
[21:27] year. We throw some money in every year
and then it accumulates interest and I
[21:31] don't know when the fund started but I
can I can look back on that and we
[21:35] continue to fund it through taxation
every year. Thank you,
[21:39] » Councelor Lavy.
>> Yeah, thanks. Thanks for that
[21:42] information. It certainly confirms my
understanding. So, general comments
[21:45] worship fully support this. This is
important news. Um, this is key road
[21:50] infrastructure. It's been long needed.
Um, it's important, I think, for
[21:56] residents to understand that these
things happen step by step, phase by
[22:03] phase. And I'm glad to hear the using
words like 2028 and 2029, all of it
[22:08] contingent on available funding, but
this is how local governments do it. I
[22:15] would just note that one about $1.7
million is the equivalent if it was to
[22:22] be done right off the bat out of
taxation almost a 7% tax increase. So to
[22:28] get these important, highly prioritized
items underway, it takes time. Not only
[22:34] for design, not only for working with
other agencies like we have here, it
[22:38] takes time to save the money so that the
project moves forward. residents aren't
[22:45] hit with a huge tax bill and that we
squirrel money away in the reserve
[22:51] responsibly
to get to these high uh high highly
[22:56] needed infrastructure. Uh kudos to staff
for uh guiding this and I look forward
[23:02] to it being done. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other comments or
[23:07] questions from council? Councelor
Lingren.
[23:09] » Uh thanks worship. Just a question about
the auto road connector. Do we have a
[23:13] ballpark figure of what that project
will cost one day if say we were to be
[23:18] able to do it in 2029? We'd have to save
a lot of money I imagine.
[23:22] » Um
not sure who to ask that perhaps Miss
[23:26] Plank.
>> Thank you through your worship. The uh I
[23:31] believe there is 3.4 million in the
current reserve account and what I noted
[23:36] from looking at this project is in the
20-year plan. There's another I believe
[23:40] it's 4 million allocated for 2029.
So, um those are the two numbers that I
[23:47] have available right now.
>> Okay. But we don't know if that
[23:53] 4 million plus whatever's left here, 1.7
million that's left over is going to be
[23:57] enough to do the um actual work. I guess
>> that's through your worship. That's a
[24:03] very good question. there are factors
that could um in the subsequent years
[24:07] there could be changes to the costs of
materials that kind of thing. Um but at
[24:12] at this point that's what we have
allocated and because it's kind of a I
[24:16] mean that's that's several years out so
as we get closer to doing things like
[24:20] the detail design we'll have more
refined cost estimates.
[24:24] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you confident.
[24:27] Um the question that I had is the
revised estimate was received in July
[24:34] and it was an increase of 33,000.
So if we go along this route and we're
[24:42] looking at uh a letter agreement August
2026
[24:48] uh material procurement 2027
construction May 2028. Does this
[24:55] agreement lock us in to this price or
are we looking at possibly 33,000 plus
[25:03] added on each year that we have?
>> Miss blank.
[25:08] » Uh through your worship. Um my
understanding based on the history of
[25:11] this is that initially the um there was
a cost estimate of 1,643,000
[25:17] that was valid for three months. And the
cost um the reason this item is coming
[25:24] forward again is because there was an
increase from that time of 33,000 to so
[25:30] it's now uh 1,676,000.
Um I don't know what factors influence
[25:36] that cost but it is it is possible that
um if if um this agreement does not take
[25:44] place that again the cost will be
adjusted. I don't know um if this I'm
[25:49] assuming that this agreement similarly
has a kind of a cuto off date that says
[25:54] it's valid for this period of time. It
could be similar to the previous one
[25:58] that says this amount this agreement is
valid for 3 months and then another
[26:04] estimate would have to be created. I
that would be my that would be my guess.
[26:09] So here worship three. So my question is
forest BC have proposed a schedule for
[26:14] the works similar to the three-month one
which expired. So if we go into this
[26:21] agreement, is this pricing locked in on
these timelines?
[26:27] Miss Blank, uh,
>> through your worship, I I would make the
[26:31] assumption, yes, I can find out for
sure, but I believe once the agreement
[26:35] is signed that says this is the price
for the work, um, that would be the
[26:41] price for the work, but I can certainly
find out if that's the case.
[26:44] » Thank you. I I support this. I think
that's a important uh connection in our
[26:49] roads.
>> Thank you, Councelor Cannon.
[26:53] Any other speakers to the motion?
Okay, I'll just summarize my thoughts.
[27:00] Um, this is part of our long-term
strategic plan and the reason it is such
[27:06] an important connector is because of the
densification that's happened up in the
[27:10] Hillrest area and what happens presently
is the traffic gets funneled down 10th
[27:16] down fifth
um through the residential areas um even
[27:22] if it's not heading in that way. So this
is a long had been a long planned uh
[27:28] connector road to move the traffic so
that it uh does not have to go in that
[27:32] direction.
The
[27:37] land acquisition piece um took some time
and we have always known that the fortis
[27:42] gas mains are there. Um for is not going
to replace or move those gas mains and
[27:51] they wouldn't if we didn't do our
project. Um so I think it really is
[27:56] important for us to lock in at this
price as we can see if we don't the
[28:00] increases will continue to happen. We do
have the money to do the project and
[28:06] when you work with fordis foris um does
the procurement um of the project we
[28:13] supply the money and that is how it
works um when you work with uh when you
[28:18] work with a utility like foris. So, I I
really appreciate this uh piece, this
[28:24] report, and the fact that we're moving
forward on the project, and I know the
[28:28] residents that live down in that area
certainly will be happy to see um this
[28:33] progress being made, and especially as
councelor Lavy said, with the dates that
[28:37] are there. Um this is very promising.
So, um major project um very important
[28:43] project, I'll certainly support this
step.
[28:48] See no other speakers. So I will call a
motion. All those in favor
[28:53] that passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
[28:57] Okay, let's talk about washrooms.
We have a report from the director of
[29:04] operations. Um there isn't a motion yet.
Um but there may well be. But how about
[29:11] if we hear from Mr. JRo about Blackburn
Park offseason washroom options and then
[29:17] see if council wishes to make a motion.
Thank you for your report.
[29:21] » Thank you. Good afternoon worship
members of council. So way back when
[29:24] January 26 regular council meeting uh we
received correspondence from Shishwap
[29:29] youth soccer association requesting that
washroom facilities be made available um
[29:33] for the newly built uh synthetic turf
fields.
[29:38] Um staff brought back a report in
February with options for these washroom
[29:42] facilities to remain open. It outlined
uh options um through discussions it was
[29:47] determined that utilizing the existing
washroom facility while protecting for
[29:51] the winter weather would be the best
option. Uh should be noted that staff
[29:56] have received feedback over the years um
from a variety of non-sock and non-sport
[30:00] users um including playground visitors,
walkers throughout the year requesting
[30:04] that this washroom remain open for
longer portions of the year.
[30:08] uh including throughout winter months.
So we've identified the work required
[30:12] and prepared cost estimates which you
can see in the the graph in the or table
[30:15] in the report. Um for purpose of these
estimates it was assumed that the
[30:19] washrooms would remain open for the
period where they are typically closed
[30:23] which is approximately from October 31st
to March 19th. This resulted in 140
[30:29] additional days um of maintenance and
operations if open each and every one of
[30:33] these days. Um it would be anticipated
that they would remain open, but the
[30:38] hours could be varied um based on
bookings and and use of the park.
[30:44] Uh it should also be noted that other
yearround public washrooms uh like Ross
[30:48] Street Plaza, they typically don't
receive uh weekend maintenance during
[30:52] the fall and winter months. When we have
staff on weekends during the winter,
[30:56] they will uh tend to them. However, they
typically do go the weekends without
[31:00] maintenance and typically is not an
issue. However, there's been vandalism
[31:04] and graffiti um where it may lead to
temporary closures until they can be
[31:09] repaired.
Um staff reviewed available funding
[31:12] sources. Um we are quite confident that
the replacement of the Meguire Lake
[31:16] Fountain um is not required now um
thanks to the repairs been completed on
[31:20] that. There was a total of $100,000
budgeted um for that project within the
[31:25] 2026 budget and only a small portion of
those funds have been allocated for the
[31:29] repairs. So that leaves uh approximately
$80,000. Alternatively, council could
[31:34] fund through allocation from the Black
Park Reserve Fund estimated to have a
[31:40] year-end balance of approximately
$210,000.
[31:44] And if approved, uh staff would include
funding required for ongoing operations
[31:48] and maintenance within the 2027 parks
operations maintenance budget. Um,
[31:53] however, we're quite confident that the
the hours um for maintaining for the
[31:58] remainder of 2026 can be covered in this
year's budget.
[32:03] Um, I'm open to any questions you may
have.
[32:05] » Great. Thank you. Uh, I'm wondering if
there's a counselor that would like to
[32:09] make a motion that we allocate $5,750
from the Maguire Lake Fountain Fund um
[32:15] for this project. Councelor Wallace
Richmond. Councelor Cannon, thank you
[32:19] for getting the motion on the floor.
I'll go to councelor Wallace Richmond
[32:23] next.
>> Yes, thank you. Happy to move the
[32:25] motion. Thank you to staff for um
looking into it. Seems a very reasonable
[32:29] solution and I will um 100% support it.
>> Thank you councelor Wallace Richmond.
[32:35] Councelor Cannon.
>> Thank you worship. I too will support
[32:38] this. Um I think
as uh director of
[32:45] I always forget your title operations.
[laughter]
[32:48] » I was going to say SRS. got a lot of
hats, so I get it.
[32:52] » Saw a different hat this morning. Um,
we know that even before the youth
[32:59] soccer approached us, um, in the past,
especially early spring, uh, I always
[33:05] fielded a lot of phone calls from moms
and dads down there playing at the park
[33:10] with their kids and, you know, having to
use a tree and they really wanted to see
[33:16] year round uh, use of the washrooms down
there. And I know it comes at a cost,
[33:21] but I think our taxpayers will really
appreciate having a washroom to use year
[33:27] round.
>> Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Councelor
[33:30] Lingren,
>> thanks for worship. I too will support
[33:32] this moving forward. I think we're um
probably a little bit late coming to the
[33:36] table with year round washrooms people.
We've seen many instances across town. I
[33:42] think we need more of these actually. Um
uh my I've I've been inundated since um
[33:50] whatever the last conference we went to
was at UBCM. Um not UBCM
[33:56] » FCM FCM in Edmonton. Um I've been
inundated with uh emails from Urban
[34:02] Blue, which is a company out of Quebec
that um designs and builds uh
[34:07] self-cleaning winterized type, you know,
these magical washrooms that lock
[34:12] themselves up at night. And I'm just
thinking now this is a timely thing
[34:16] because maybe as we move forward with
new washrooms and more washrooms that
[34:20] are open 24/7 that and and particularly
with um you know uh vandalism and people
[34:27] attempting to sleep in washrooms, that
sort of thing. Um we might want to start
[34:31] looking at some company that's providing
kind of smart washrooms. Um apparently
[34:37] Summerland has one that is, you know,
close enough for us to go and tour if we
[34:42] wanted to. So anyway, just a thought for
moving forward.
[34:45] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Any other
speakers to the motion?
[34:50] Seeing none, I'll call a question. All
those in favor?
[34:54] That passes unanimously. Thank you for
the report and for the funding options.
[35:00] Okay, we're at uh 10.6. Director of Plan
and Community Services, Street Cafe
[35:06] Policy Amendments. There is a motion for
consideration. Um, is there a mover and
[35:11] a second or councelor Lingren will move?
Councelor Ganella will second. I'll ask
[35:16] Mr. Buckston if you would speak to the
report.
[35:18] » Thank you, worship, members of council.
Absolutely. Um, dating back to June of
[35:23] this year, um, council did receive some
correspondence. We did report back in
[35:26] July um with respect to that
correspondence leading to a motion
[35:32] um on July 27th from council asking us
to review this policy based on the the
[35:38] feedback that we provided in the letters
that we
[35:42] um that we got and council was looking
for accessibility and barrier free
[35:45] access requirements for street cafes and
referring to building code requirements.
[35:49] So we've done that. Um the amended uh
street cafe policy that is in front of
[35:56] you. Um the primary amendment is in
section 4.7D. Previously
[36:02] um it was stated that patio should be
accessible and strongly encouraged.
[36:06] We've simply changed the the words in
that section to read shall and required.
[36:11] So it is now mandatory.
Um, we also did look into the the
[36:17] building code requirements and that led
to a building accessibility
[36:21] accessibility handbook, which is a um,
if any of you have ever read the BC
[36:25] building code and fallen asleep doing
so, um, this is a much more user
[36:29] friendly way of getting to the relevant
provisions that deal with it. So, we've
[36:33] referred to that. Um, and it makes
reference to ramps with a grade of no
[36:38] more than one in 12 or 5 degrees. Um,
wheelchair access to all seating. um
[36:43] with widths of no less than 1.5 meters
and turnaround areas for wheelchairs of
[36:47] no less than 1.5 meters. Those are the
bare minimums that I sort of pulled out
[36:52] of that um that handbook.
Um while we were into reviewing the
[36:59] policy um the people that administer
this made a couple of recommendations
[37:02] that we've noted to sections 4
I 4 I uh 48 and 75 that are sort of
[37:09] clarification amendments. They we're
bringing those along. They're unrelated
[37:13] really. Those just add clarity about uh
certain issues.
[37:19] Um those are just ad I would consider
administrative amendments. Um we did
[37:23] also refer the the policy changes to
downtown salmon arm. Um and as you can
[37:29] see in their correspondence, they have
some concerns that the se that the
[37:32] references in sections 43 and 47 with
respect to uh wheelchair access widths
[37:39] and turning radi um are a little too
restrictive due to the limited
[37:44] dimensions that occur on some of the
patios. So um their their recommendation
[37:49] is to limit the changes to the ramp
being provided and to remove the other
[37:52] references.
um staff didn't make those changes
[37:57] because those contradict the the
reference in the motion to building code
[38:02] requirements. So I felt that the the
motion was quite specific. Um but if
[38:06] council wanted to make those changes, I
would recommend you refer it back to us
[38:10] then rather than trying to maneuver
through a motion this afternoon that
[38:13] that picks apart certain sections. So um
that that's a summary of the changes
[38:19] that we've made. Um literally the the
principal section changes from um should
[38:25] to shall
um strongly suggested to required so
[38:29] that um they are now required to produce
the ramps that were currently previously
[38:34] just suggested.
>> Thank you very much Mr. Buckston. Um we
[38:38] will turn it over to council to see if
they have any questions or comments.
[38:42] Start with councelor Cannon.
>> Thank you. Um, I really appreciate that
[38:46] we took it to the DSA. Um, and I think
that, you know, they really represent
[38:53] people that have the patios
and
[38:58] definitely, uh, Jennifer brought up some
good, you know, some good thoughts. And
[39:03] I think the do we have to do it exactly
like the building code or can we am I
[39:09] hearing that we can make
changes to it to accommodate uh what
[39:17] they're possibly recommending that we
do.
[39:19] » Mr. Buckton to the chair. If council
wished to simply have the the motion
[39:25] refer to ramps then we can make those
changes. Let's say I didn't because I
[39:30] felt that council's council's motion was
very clear [laughter] about what it
[39:34] wanted to see in the in the amendments.
But if council wanted to make that
[39:40] recommendation, I can take it back, pull
those things out um and bring it back
[39:45] for for council to reconsider.
I I think it, you know, is all about
[39:51] accessibility and I think that if a ramp
gives the accessibility that we're
[39:55] looking for rather than restricting and
taking up lots of more space of the
[40:01] small patio already. Um I would like to
see us just do ramps and accommodate
[40:07] this suggestion from the DSA.
>> Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Uh we'll
[40:12] see how this discussion goes. I may come
back for a deferral motion if if you
[40:17] feel that's necessary. But
>> so deferral is how we would handle it.
[40:20] » Um I I'll just I don't want to talk
about deferral right this minute because
[40:24] we can't talk about it. But that would
be an option.
[40:27] » And the other option wouldn't be to make
the motion do this.
[40:33] » Yeah. I think Mr. Buckton was suggesting
we send it back to staff. Mr. Buckton,
[40:36] do you wish to comment?
I think I if if council has the wish to
[40:42] change it, my recommendation is to refer
it refer it back to staff. Not defer,
[40:46] but refer back.
>> Yeah,
[40:49] » that's an R and not a D. Correct.
>> Got it.
[40:53] » Okay, you're on it. That was my error.
>> Um, councelor Cannon, you're you're
[40:57] complete for now.
>> Yeah.
[40:58] » Okay, then we'll go to councelor Lingren
next.
[41:02] » Thanks, Worship. Um, so I feel a bit
differently about this. I'm in favor of
[41:06] approving this the way it's written. Um
there are some pretty easy creative ways
[41:11] to create that 1.5 or whatever it is 4T
um space for a wheelchair to turn around
[41:18] in. It can be that once you're on the
ramp, the wheelchair accessible seating
[41:22] is the first space. A table can be on a
hinge so it can be lifted out of the way
[41:26] to create the space and then put the
table down when the wheelchair is
[41:29] parked. I don't think this is a
complicated thing to solve. Um, and I I
[41:34] would be fine with it going ahead just
the way it is.
[41:37] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Um, we'll
go to Councelor Lavy next.
[41:41] » Thanks, Mayor Harrison. And, uh, thanks
to staff for the work that they've done
[41:46] on this. I really appreciate it. U, my
first question is just a confirmatory
[41:51] one. Um, with the, uh, proposals, it
says the ramp has to be fixed to the
[41:59] patio. And I I think it's pretty
straightforward, but I'm want to confirm
[42:03] for anybody who's watching that means no
temporary wrap. Is that correct,
[42:09] » Mr. Buckton?
>> That's correct. That language was very
[42:11] specific to that intent.
>> Thank you very much,
[42:14] » Council Lavin. Continue.
>> Yeah. And I I have some of the same um
[42:18] ponderings about uh especially with the
turning radi.
[42:25] Um, I think it can be done, but I'm
comfortable your worship um sending this
[42:32] back to staff
uh to fine-tune that. I think it's uh
[42:39] it's important I the the crux of this is
that the policy now says
[42:47] will shall be and required in terms of
the access to that. So, I I um we've
[42:53] come a ways here. Um we're talking of a
policy that would not take in effect
[42:58] until the next patio season that would
give owners time to adjust. And I think
[43:04] this benefits from uh I and I see all
all the points that are being made here,
[43:09] but I think uh that gives staff to come
back with a proposal. on the whole if
[43:14] there's a way of not uh uh codifying the
turning radi I'd like to hear staff's
[43:22] input on that. So I will uh support what
might be upcoming. Thank you.
[43:27] » Thank you councelor Lavy. Are there
other speakers?
[43:32] Maybe I'll just say my part then and
others might chime in. Um I'm I agree
[43:37] with councelor Cannon and the input from
downtown Salmon. Um I I think um
[43:44] everybody loves patios um for sure and
they're a very important part of our
[43:48] downtown and as we know they really
became established uh during the
[43:53] pandemic to to help out restaurants be
able to make their businesses work um so
[43:58] that people could go outdoors and I
guess it was a a positive uh thing that
[44:03] happened um despite despite that
pandemic. the I think what we asked was
[44:09] um that we wanted those
patios to be accessible by ramp um and a
[44:18] permanent ramp and councelor Lavy has
confirmed that. So I I want to see that
[44:24] change for 2027. So you must have a
permanent ramp on the patios. Um, but I
[44:29] don't want to overregulate it because
the
[44:34] amount of room is like a parking space
and it's not very large. And so, um, we
[44:41] want to have patios and we want them
people to be able to get on them. I
[44:44] think there are ways, um, for people to
maneuver on them without having to
[44:50] follow the the large, um, areas that are
described in this, uh, draft. So, um I
[44:58] would support referring it back to staff
to bring it back to us with the ramp
[45:04] piece in but without the other parts.
[45:10] Any other speakers?
Councelor Canon, if you're wanting to
[45:13] make that amendment, now would be the
time.
[45:18] » I would like to refer I'll defer this
back to staff to make those changes.
[45:24] » Okay. Is there a seconder to that
amendment? Councelor Ganella.
[45:30] Speaking to the amendment, councelor
Canon, do you have further input to the
[45:34] amendment?
>> I just think that uh of all things that
[45:39] uh worship you touched on limited space.
I mean,
[45:44] » really, we want
ramps and we want them to be fixed so
[45:49] that uh wheelchairs and it's accessible
to everyone. So, see what staff comes up
[45:55] with.
>> Thank you. Any other speakers to the
[45:58] amendment?
>> We'll call a question on the amendment.
[46:02] All those in favor.
[46:08] Now, we'll talk about the motion as
amended. Is there any speakers to the
[46:11] motion as amended?
>> Councelor Lingren,
[46:14] » I'm confused, your worship. I think
we're just referring it back to staff.
[46:18] We're not amending it. They're going to
uh revamp it and bring it back to
[46:22] council and we're going to vote on it as
amended once it's been brought back by
[46:26] staff.
>> That's correct.
[46:30] Any other comments?
Call a question. All those in favor?
[46:36] That passes unanimously. So, we'll look
forward to it coming back from staff.
[46:42] Okay. We're on to items 107 which is the
chief financial officer July 2026
[46:47] supplier payment transparency report.
Chief financial officer I'll have you
[46:53] speak to that if you wish. Thank you.
>> Uh thank you worship. This is the
[46:57] monthly report to u for July supplier
payment transparency report as provided.
[47:03] Um, it lists all payments over 100,000
in accordance with the purchasing policy
[47:07] 7.13 and all the payments are within the
approved budget and authorities. And of
[47:12] course, I'm here for any questions for
the uh five payments that are listed.
[47:17] » Thank you very much for supplying that
to us. Counselors, there's no motion
[47:21] attached. This is for your information.
Any questions or comments anyone would
[47:25] like to make?
[47:29] » Councelor Cannon. I just want to say
that uh so glad that the lighting is in
[47:34] Rogers rink so you'll be able to play
better hockey your worship.
[47:39] [laughter]
>> I I like your your faith that you have
[47:43] in me.
Um thank you very much.
[47:47] Any other comments or questions?
Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to
[47:54] 10.8. Thank you so much to our chief
financial officer. This is chief
[47:59] financial officer regarding reserve
consolidation. It's an update. Um if we
[48:04] could have a a mover and a second or for
the motion which is really to defer it.
[48:09] So mover councelor Ganella councelor
Cannon. Thank you. Um I'll have uh the
[48:17] chief financial officer speak to his
report and I'll go to speakers.
[48:21] » Thank you worship and members of
council. The recommendation before you
[48:24] is to defer the consideration of the
reserve account consolidation to the
[48:28] September 28th, 2026 regular council
meeting. Staff have continued to work on
[48:33] validating reserve purposes, confirming
service area input, and completing the
[48:37] supporting schedules and future
reporting frameworks. uh rather than
[48:40] bring forward an incomplete package for
final decision, staff are requesting
[48:44] additional time to ensure the recommend
recommendations are fully supported and
[48:48] resulting reserve structure is clear,
accurate and administratively sound. Uh
[48:53] there is no immediate financial impact
associ associated with this deferral and
[48:57] I'm here for any questions you worship
and members of council.
[49:01] » Okay, thank you. So basically you need
some more time. Okay, fair enough. Um,
[49:07] any questions or comments on the motion?
[49:13] I'll call a question and all those in
favor.
[49:17] That passes unanimously.
Council, we agreed we would do 101 first
[49:22] and 10:10. We're going to take a five
minute comfort break and then we are
[49:27] going to deal with those two items.
>> Oh,
[49:33] thank you. You guys are really on the
ball here. There's two of you brought
[49:36] that to my attention and the others were
thinking about it. 10 nine, sorry. Uh,
[49:41] director of engineering sustainability,
airport industrial special development
[49:45] area.
[49:49] There's no motion attached. This is for
information and there's a lot of
[49:52] information there, but we'll pass it
over to uh to um Mr. JRO.
[49:58] » Oh, Miss Plank's going to speak to it.
Okay, you're quick to point that
[50:02] direction, Miss Plank.
Thank you, your worship and members of
[50:06] council. I'd like to invite one of our
engineering assistants, Nathan Johnson,
[50:11] to come up and present this report to
council. Thank you,
[50:14] » Mr. Johnson. Welcome to council. It's
nice to have you here. I know that
[50:18] you've been working on this, so please
go ahead.
[50:20] » Yeah, happy to be here. Uh before you
today is an information only report
[50:25] related to the airport industrial
special development area. This area
[50:30] covers roughly 60 hectares of light
industrial land located between 10th
[50:33] Avenue Southeast and 20th Avenue
Southeast next to the airport. Purpose
[50:38] today is to introduce an updated
practical servicing framework before we
[50:42] bring these concepts to land owners
themselves and the broader public for
[50:46] feedback. An initial conceptual
servicing plan was completed for this
[50:50] area in 2009. And while it was or while
it provided a useful starting point,
[50:55] certain elements like roads bicting
private properties, costly road
[51:00] crosssections, and heavy reliance on
centralized infrastructure proved
[51:05] impractical for owner-driven
developments.
[51:08] The updated layout within the report
addresses certain issues by aligning the
[51:13] proposed internal roads along existing
property lines. This would protect
[51:18] long-term connectivity while allowing
dedication and construction to happen.
[51:21] parcel by parcel using financial tools
like latecomers agreements would also
[51:25] assist in the first for the first stage
developers
[51:29] to facilitate community and council
feedback. The report evaluates two
[51:33] servicing philosophies alongside a
recommended hybrid approach. Option one
[51:37] is a minimum servicing strategy with
lowerc cost rural road crosssections,
[51:42] roadside ditches, private groundwater
wells, and on-site septic systems.
[51:47] Option two is the enhanced servicing
strategy with curb, gutter, dry wells,
[51:52] and full municipal water and sanitary
sewer. And then the recommended hybrid
[51:56] approach kind of marries the two a bit
with the lower rural cross rural road
[52:02] crosssection
uh ditches throughout removing the need
[52:05] for curbon gutter and pond
infrastructure. It would install water
[52:08] manes throughout all the internal road
networks ensuring full fire protection.
[52:12] And while primarily relying on private
septic systems, gravity or gravity
[52:17] sanitary sewer in the northwest quadrant
could be installed where the topography
[52:21] commits.
Looking ahead, public and stakeholder
[52:26] consultation is the next step. Staff has
tenatively scheduled a public open house
[52:31] for September 9th. Uh we hope to
colllocate it with the liquid waste
[52:35] management plan and the community
wildfire protection plan to maximize
[52:39] turnout. Uh we'll be reaching out
directly to all affected property
[52:43] owners, advertising in the newspaper and
launching an online feedback portal
[52:48] through the city's website for those who
can't attend. And then all this feedback
[52:51] will be incorporated into the final plan
before we return to council for formal
[52:55] endorsement. Thank you.
>> Right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for uh
[53:00] summarizing that report. Council, this
is for our information, but I certainly
[53:04] open it up to you for any questions or
comments you might like to make.
[53:08] Councelor Wallace Richmond.
>> Yeah, thank you for for the report. Um,
[53:12] council, this is a important and
ambitious uh project and there's a great
[53:18] deal of interest in the airport. Um, if
council were willing, could we at the
[53:24] very least approve the public um,
uh, consultation plan so that it
[53:31] continue it can continue to move ahead
because um, we need to hear from the
[53:36] public uh, u, you know, it's a primary
concern to make sure that if we were to
[53:42] do this project, it would be done uh,
properly and uh, would meet the needs of
[53:48] uh, of those that will serve.
Thank you for that question. I'll just
[53:52] check with our CEO. Do we need a motion
to ensure that the public consultation
[53:57] that Mr. Johnson's talked about um will
take place or does uh his report bring
[54:04] it to us assume that that will happen?
>> Your worship, if council has any
[54:09] objections to moving forward, certainly
um please do raise them, but staff are
[54:14] planning to move forward with
consultation as contemplated by Mr.
[54:18] Johnson's report and as he stated, we
are looking to um have all three of
[54:24] those engagements happen simultaneously
um to generate additional interest.
[54:31] » Councelor Wallman, I'll go back to you.
>> Yeah, through you. Thank you uh for that
[54:34] answer. Well, I I have absolutely no
objection. So, I'm happy to see this
[54:39] move forward and I appreciate the
report.
[54:42] » Thank you. Other comments
or questions from council?
[54:49] Okay, I'll just maybe make my comments.
First of all, thank you very much for
[54:52] the report and uh yeah, I don't want to
uh um bias with my views, but I think
[54:58] it's great that we're going to the
public with options so that they can
[55:02] look at them because I know there's been
some concerns about um you know the um
[55:06] the initial planning. So going to the
public is a great idea so we can get
[55:11] their feedback and uh grouping together
those three things I think's very smart
[55:16] move. we'll get a we'll get a better
turnout. So, I uh I have no objections
[55:20] as well.
I see no other speakers. So, thank you
[55:24] very much uh for coming and reporting to
us and we'll look forward to seeing the
[55:29] results of uh the input from the public.
Okay. Now, now have I got it? Yes. So we
[55:36] will take a 5m minute comfort break um
and then we will come back and do 10 11
[55:42] and then 10 10
[1:02:26] We are on to item 1011,
Director of Planning Community Services,
[1:02:31] building bylaw number 4725, zero carbon
step code. There is a motion for
[1:02:37] consideration that was uh deferred from
our May 11th meeting. And so I maybe
[1:02:43] just ask the corporate officer to read
that motion out for us. It was moved by
[1:02:48] councelor Lingren and seconded by
councelor Ganella and then we'll have
[1:02:51] staff do their report.
Thank you your worship. As indicated
[1:02:57] from the regular council meeting of May
11th, 2026,
[1:03:01] it was moved by councelor Lingren,
seconded by councelor Ganella, that
[1:03:06] council direct staff to prepare
amendments to building bylaw number 4725
[1:03:12] to require that building permits
submitted to the city need to meet the
[1:03:16] following zerocarbon step code
requirements of the BC building code on
[1:03:20] the following schedule. EL-2
June 1st 2027 EL-3
[1:03:29] June 1st 2029 and EL-4 as required by
the province.
[1:03:35] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr.
Buckston. I'll pass it to you to see if
[1:03:38] there's any further information you
would like to share with council at this
[1:03:42] time.
>> Thank you, Worship. Um I will focus on
[1:03:44] the new information because council has
seen this issue uh a number of times
[1:03:49] before. Um so just starting with the the
new information from the CRP I mean
[1:03:55] there was substantial public engagement
um as part of that process and a clear
[1:04:01] public expectation that we were going to
use um policies to drive meaningful
[1:04:06] emissions reductions
as noted in section 5.2. The vast
[1:04:11] majority of emissions related to
buildings result from natural gas and
[1:04:15] space heating and water heating in
buildings.
[1:04:19] Um table 51 the the emissions reductions
targets um there's a significant
[1:04:26] reduction that's modeled there um that
requires a significant reduction in the
[1:04:32] use of natural gas in buildings. The
only way to reduce that is to
[1:04:38] uh limit the use of natural gas in both
new buildings and retrofit existing
[1:04:42] buildings. the emissions projections
um do include adoption of the or
[1:04:49] effective adoption of the zero carbon
step code to reach those those
[1:04:52] projections.
Um the actions identified one of the
[1:04:57] very high priority high priority action
items um in section 635 of the C CP
[1:05:06] identifies specifically implementation
of the zerocarbon step code that's
[1:05:11] directly targeted at emissions
reductions.
[1:05:14] Um so the regulations of building and
construction are one of the few areas
[1:05:18] that is that municipalities have direct
authority. So it's one of the very
[1:05:22] limited areas where we have direct
agency over the um trying to achieve
[1:05:28] those OCP emissions reductions targets.
Very often the regulatory authorities
[1:05:34] shared with other jurisdictions.
[1:05:38] Um so public engagement with both the
OCP and the CRP has identified
[1:05:42] greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a
community priority.
[1:05:46] Um I say we've we've identified uh sorry
the um we have identified some options
[1:05:54] here in terms of new information.
Um one of the options would be to
[1:05:59] separate the um the adoption of of the
zerocarbon step code between part three
[1:06:06] which are the complex buildings and part
nine which are the simple buildings.
[1:06:11] um that would allow um that's a more pra
that's a practical path for
[1:06:16] implementation. We've in we've had some
indication in uh from the industry
[1:06:21] through the survey that um and through
some of our monitoring that some of the
[1:06:25] more complex buildings are already
meeting the higher level EL2 EL3.
[1:06:31] So there might be greater industry
willingness and ability to um
[1:06:38] undertake the zero carbon step code in
part nine buildings.
[1:06:44] Um so we've offered a proposed option
there that um
[1:06:51] um the council could if they wanted to
separate between part three and part 9
[1:06:56] buildings. One of the other options
might be given that we're going to need
[1:07:01] to do some form of public engagement no
matter what we do um is to delay the EL2
[1:07:08] into 2028 and that would give us more
time to budget and do that engagement
[1:07:12] work through 2027
because if we start in if there's an EL
[1:07:17] bump in June of 2027 and the budget
isn't adopted until early in Q1 that
[1:07:23] doesn't give staff a lot of time to
design implement ment and administer
[1:07:28] that that engagement program. So that
that's another option. But I say as
[1:07:33] noted um really the the only financial
consideration is that we're going to
[1:07:38] have to do some form of public
engagement um and a budget for
[1:07:42] consulting services that the the
expertise and the time and the resources
[1:07:46] are simply not here in our department to
be able to pull this thing off. And the
[1:07:50] survey is clearly indicative that
there's there is some reluctance amongst
[1:07:54] some in industry to move on this
initiative. So we would need to inform,
[1:07:59] educate and encourage through that
engagement process. Um that project can
[1:08:05] be scaled up and scaled down to be as
big and as large as or as small as it
[1:08:09] needs to be. So that would be a decision
that council would make in the 2027
[1:08:14] budget. There's nothing in the 2026
budget unless we reallocate something.
[1:08:19] Um but that would be the only financial
implication.
[1:08:22] So, I think I've covered all the new
information
[1:08:27] that's in this report that council
hasn't previously seen. So,
[1:08:32] um I can certainly try and answer your
questions.
[1:08:34] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckton.
I'll open it up to council for any
[1:08:38] comments or questions they may wish to
ask.
[1:08:42] » Starting with councelor Lingren.
>> Thanks, your worship. I'm happy to see
[1:08:46] this back at the table uh and connected
with our climate resiliency plan. Um I
[1:08:52] had a couple questions about uh things
that were just presented by the director
[1:08:56] of planning that I just need some
clarification on. One was um the budget
[1:09:02] piece. Can you sorry can you just say
again if we were to defer until 2028
[1:09:09] that would be because we needed a budget
to do what
[1:09:13] » Mr. Buckston
>> through the chat. I'm strongly
[1:09:16] suggesting that there's a need for for
budget for consulting services to to
[1:09:21] move a consultation program through. If
if we were to choose the June 2027 date
[1:09:27] for EL2,
um but the budget isn't approved till,
[1:09:32] let's say, until January or February of
2027. That gives staff 3 to four months
[1:09:37] to design, implement, and administer a
program. The timeline just gets a little
[1:09:42] tight. It's not undoable.
Just wanted to flag that issue is
[1:09:47] because of the budgeting, the timing of
the budget. Um I believe that's
[1:09:51] scheduled for early in the year, the new
year with the new council. So I'm just
[1:09:57] saying that
um if that is a problem then moving the
[1:10:05] EL2 to 2028 would give us more time to
develop the budget through 2027 and then
[1:10:10] administer that early in 2028 or start
in 2027 and move through 27 2027 2028.
[1:10:18] It's just a scheduling issue on that
particular start date
[1:10:22] » clarification. Can you just clarify?
>> Thanks. Uh, who are we consulting with
[1:10:27] and in what regard?
>> Mr.
[1:10:32] Through the chair. It would be through
with the construction industry builders
[1:10:37] » as as a followup.
>> Yeah. Is that uh an uh effort on the
[1:10:42] city's part to educate the builders
about what EL2 looks like?
[1:10:47] » Mr. Buckton.
>> Educate. Yes. Through the chair.
[1:10:49] educate, inform and how what you would
need to do, what it means. I mean there
[1:10:54] is obviously some
based on the survey some
[1:10:58] misunderstanding about what this means.
So yes, getting getting the industry to
[1:11:02] the point that adoption isn't
problematic for them.
[1:11:07] » Right. Okay.
>> Yeah. So just some comments about that.
[1:11:10] Um, so I think that the province has
done an exceptional job of putting out
[1:11:15] information about what the steps are and
how to access that information. There
[1:11:20] are webinars. There are um public like
uh townhouse type online things where
[1:11:27] people can go to get the information
they need. Um, but I think the reality
[1:11:31] is is that the vast majority of
developers uh builders doing multif
[1:11:36] family homes already understand this
very well. They're already building to
[1:11:40] this um new standard and have been for
you know decades already. Um it's very
[1:11:46] rare actually in the last 20 years to
find an apartment building that's
[1:11:50] running on gas anything. Um they don't
they might bring in gas because the
[1:11:55] client wants a fireplace in their um
two-bedroom condo. Um, but the reality
[1:12:01] is is gas furnaces don't heat multif
family buildings because everybody needs
[1:12:05] to set their heat at a different level
unless you had a furnace and a system
[1:12:09] for each apartment itself. Um, that
would not be very practical. Um, so
[1:12:14] electric heat has been the standard for
a very long time. Electric hot water
[1:12:17] tanks have been the standard for a very
long time. So I'm less concerned about
[1:12:23] uh developers building multif family uh
buildings because they're already well
[1:12:27] informed. Several of them are coming
from out of town to build here. They're
[1:12:31] already building like this and have been
mandated to build like this in Vancouver
[1:12:35] Island and the Lower Mainland and a
number of other areas including the
[1:12:38] Coupney. So, I don't think that that's
um a worry that the city needs to take
[1:12:44] on. Um I think that um every um HVAC and
plumbing company in Salmon Arm is
[1:12:51] already wellversed in how to install an
electric hot water tank and how to
[1:12:56] install a uh heat pump system whether
that's integrated with um the gas
[1:13:01] furnace such as we're putting in at the
RCMP station or if we're talking about
[1:13:05] mini splits and um room individual
systems that type of thing. So I don't
[1:13:11] think we need to educate them either.
They're already doing the work and
[1:13:14] they're doing a great job. Um, I think
that the only reason I could think of to
[1:13:19] def defer implementation of this uh
might be to educate the consumer um not
[1:13:26] the developers themselves or the
builders themselves. We've heard from uh
[1:13:30] the Zero Home Collective. We've heard
from other developers that have written
[1:13:34] us letters this week that they they've
been doing this already and that they're
[1:13:38] finding that it's cost-effective for
them and very cost effective for the
[1:13:42] buyer. Uh once they own the home, the
costs of running the home are
[1:13:45] substantially lower. Um I think that
deferring this to 2028 would be a
[1:13:51] mistake. I think we uh are obligated by
our uh knowledge of what I mean climate
[1:13:58] change has been all around us this
summer and um the longer we defer the
[1:14:04] longer these effects will accumulate and
um multiply and 20 years from now I
[1:14:12] don't want a council sitting at this
table trying to find ways to mitigate
[1:14:15] things that we should have done today.
So, um, yeah, at this point, I'm I mean,
[1:14:22] obviously everybody in this room already
knows that I would have this instituted
[1:14:25] yesterday if we had the option. Um, if
going slower is uh the will of the
[1:14:31] council, then I I I understand that. Um,
but I would not be in favor of deferring
[1:14:37] past this this lengthy deferral we've
already got set up.
[1:14:42] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Councelor
Cannon.
[1:14:45] » Thank you, Worship. Um, as far as
consultation,
[1:14:50] did we not already take this to skip and
get uh some feedback on that or am I
[1:14:58] remembering that correctly,
>> Mr. Bton?
[1:15:01] » Through through the chair, no, we we've
simply raised the issue with skip. They
[1:15:05] asked us they asked us to produce the
survey. We did that. So, that that's the
[1:15:09] only engagement that we
>> So, we got a survey from them from
[1:15:13] » Councelor Cannon. Go ahead.
We got a survey that we did and Skip
[1:15:18] filled it out.
>> No, Mr.
[1:15:20] » Buckton,
>> that was the survey responses that would
[1:15:23] that were outlined in prior
>> Okay.
[1:15:25] » prior reports.
>> Council Cannon. Now, when I look at
[1:15:30] this,
um, I see the motion would put it in
[1:15:35] effect
March 1st, 2028 for EL2,
[1:15:41] EL3, June 1st, 2029, and then EL4 as
required by the province.
[1:15:48] But what the province has
is EL2
[1:15:56] March 1st 2028, EL3 June 1st 2029 and
EL4 as required by the province. That's
[1:16:04] what the province has suggested. Is that
correct?
[1:16:07] » Mr. Beckton, can you comment
>> through the chair? I'm I'm not aware
[1:16:11] that unless new information that that
I'm not aware of. I'm not aware of any
[1:16:16] schedule for EL2 or EL3 that the
province has. Now, I may have missed
[1:16:20] that. I don't know where you got that
from, but no, the only information I
[1:16:24] have is that the province will require
EL4 by 2030.
[1:16:28] » And then the other ones are just grad
can be gradual whatever anyone decides.
[1:16:36] » Mr.
each authority having jurisdiction can
[1:16:39] set a time at which those are required
to come in or not
[1:16:46] » council
>> like when I look at this even before we
[1:16:52] deferred it but now it's not deferred
anymore um I think putting I feel
[1:16:58] strongly putting it uh in place of
different dates
[1:17:05] I don't support that I think the we're
hearing already that a lot of
[1:17:10] developments especially multif family
ones are already doing
[1:17:15] uh developments that are probably EL4 or
EL3
[1:17:20] and I think by putting that limit you
know it has to be on this date and and
[1:17:28] uh EL3 on this date uh I don't support
that I don't think that we need to do
[1:17:34] that and Yes, we have have been
inundated with different people. A lot
[1:17:40] of people that don't even live in our
community. Builders that don't live in
[1:17:43] our community have sent us letters
saying that they're already doing this.
[1:17:49] You know, it's something that we should
look at. But I don't agree with that
[1:17:54] because I think builders and the
consumers are the ones that are going to
[1:18:00] control how they want a house built, how
a multif family house is built. And I
[1:18:07] think just keeping it status quo and we
know that EL4 is going to be we have to
[1:18:15] have it by a certain date. We're going
to be at EL4.
[1:18:20] So, I don't support this motion. I think
that we need to keep it status quo and
[1:18:28] let the the market dictate how they want
their house built.
[1:18:33] » Thank you, Councelor Cannon. Is there
other speakers? Councelor Lingren for a
[1:18:37] second time.
>> Nobody else wants to go. Um,
[1:18:40] » there's no one else up yet.
>> Okay. So I'm just I'm concerned about if
[1:18:45] we just uh ignore this issue and we
leave it say and 2030 comes around and
[1:18:52] suddenly EL4 is the mandated uh state of
affairs uh people won't be ready because
[1:18:58] they haven't been moving towards that um
on their own and as far as allowing the
[1:19:04] market to regulate this as we go you
know let the consumer decide I mean if
[1:19:10] we went by that in every industry. We
would have cars that didn't have seat
[1:19:14] belts or emissions control. We would
have um you know food that wasn't
[1:19:19] inspected and kept safe. Nobody wants to
spend extra money on these issues if
[1:19:24] they don't have to, which is the point
of government regulation. But I think
[1:19:27] the the key piece for us as a
municipality is that we have a
[1:19:32] responsibility to help our uh residents
make choices that make things safer. And
[1:19:41] uh we do that by putting sidewalks in.
We do that by cleaning our water before
[1:19:46] it arrives in their house. We do that in
a multitude of ways. And one of the
[1:19:50] things we can do and is of zero cost to
the um city which is always one of our
[1:19:58] concerns is can the city afford to
implement this. This is one that's free.
[1:20:02] This is really lowhanging fruit with a
huge impact. So when EL4 becomes the
[1:20:09] standard, we may then move into the next
phase which may be to and this I mean
[1:20:15] the province is already um incentivizing
retrofitting your home. So you can get
[1:20:21] grants right now for installing solar
panels. You can get grants for
[1:20:25] installing heat pumps. You can get
grants for replacing and upgrading
[1:20:28] windows. You can get grants for um
updating your insulation so that your
[1:20:34] house is uh easier to heat and cool. And
the cost of those retrofits is
[1:20:40] astronomical.
It's far better to build it right the
[1:20:44] first time than to have to go back. And
I don't want to see more and more and
[1:20:48] more people building things that they
will later uh need to retrofit in order
[1:20:53] to survive the climate changes that are
coming.
[1:20:57] Thank you, councelor Lingren. We'll go
to councelor G or councelor Lavy next.
[1:21:01] Councelor Lavy, please go ahead.
>> Uh yes, thanks your worship. Um I want
[1:21:07] to start off by thanking staff um not
only for the reports and the providing
[1:21:13] of information and we'll refer to in a
bit, but providing other options to
[1:21:18] consider about tiering this aspect. Um
but I also like to mainly thank them for
[1:21:23] the patience you've you've done your
work. Um and uh this table we've been
[1:21:30] split on it and uh this has been
deferred not because we wanted to avoid
[1:21:35] it in my view but just wanted to make
sure we had a full table for the uh
[1:21:40] further discussion. Your worship um this
is good and I I'm hoping that we will
[1:21:46] decide this here now today. Um, I'm not
going to deliver any of my points here
[1:21:52] uh as an attempt to persuade anyone
because I think we've been around this
[1:21:57] circle. I uh rather what I'm going to
say here is what I firmly believe is
[1:22:04] what a reasonable way forward is. And so
you got four or five talking points
[1:22:10] quickly summarize them about the survey.
Um, and I want to be direct here. We had
[1:22:18] there was some initial delays about this
because and I was one of them to said we
[1:22:23] need to hear from Skip.
The reality is we didn't hear much from
[1:22:27] Skip. There was little quantitative
response from Skip about feedback. Maybe
[1:22:35] others should it. I certainly didn't
didn't. staff put out a uh a survey
[1:22:42] that was led to a a big wave of
opposition but that survey was tainted
[1:22:50] in my view your worship really clearly.
I believe it was stacked by uh who knows
[1:22:57] unknown parties coming from the same IP
address to try to influence this and it
[1:23:03] is very difficult for me and this is
unfortunate
[1:23:07] that there has not been a clear voice
from local land builders land developers
[1:23:15] and I think they missed an opportunity
and I don't um personally
[1:23:21] uh don't subscribe subscribe to the idea
of uh what our local developers are
[1:23:28] capable of or need to do. They haven't
really spoken up and I actually have
[1:23:32] faith in their ability to adapt. Um it's
been pointed out both by staff and
[1:23:36] councelor Lingren and others. Um multif
family developers right now in our
[1:23:40] community are already doing EL3. It's
part of their business model. They know
[1:23:45] how to do it. I personally don't think
and I want to thank staff for the option
[1:23:49] of saying okay split this into
multi-development versus single family.
[1:23:53] Um I don't see the need for that. I
think that this is uh that's already
[1:23:57] happening. They know how to do it and
they are doing it. I think the crux is
[1:24:02] in single family uh developments. I
think it mainly lies with local
[1:24:08] builders.
We have lots and unfortunately not a lot
[1:24:14] of feedback from local developers but
lots of feedback from elsewhere that
[1:24:18] this is doable that it makes sense. And
so I don't begrudge that feedback coming
[1:24:25] in uh from those who are not in the
community because we did not hear from
[1:24:30] and there's a theme here. We did not
hear clearly in my view from our local
[1:24:34] builders. the motion in front of us
about
[1:24:39] what essentially ex a defined a timeline
for EL2 and EL3
[1:24:44] uh which is accelerated from no language
from the province um is not as fast as
[1:24:52] advocates have been calling for and and
in reality worship that I would like to
[1:24:56] see accelerated.
It's not going to please everyone. Um,
[1:25:00] but I supported I spoke in favor of this
motion before it was deferred. Um, I
[1:25:05] remain in favor of it now because at a
minimum I I see this as a a reasonable
[1:25:12] compromise to actually move this
forward. I think this is within our pure
[1:25:17] purview. It's low cost
as referenced in our CRP that we're
[1:25:22] going to talk about next to be fully
electrified by 2030. Not that far away.
[1:25:28] it's identified as a high priority and
it's been identified that meaningful
[1:25:33] change has to come from these sort of
actions. So your worship um
[1:25:40] I council Linguin referred to it a
little bit again I'd like to see this
[1:25:44] accelerated more but the motion in front
of us does give some time for local
[1:25:48] builders to get up to snuff and I don't
think that's hard to do and I've got
[1:25:52] confidence that they can do it. I think
it permits uh uh suppliers, equipment,
[1:25:58] retailers and suppliers time to gauge uh
the supply of their equipment going
[1:26:04] forward
and those are reasonable amounts of time
[1:26:08] probably more than reasonable amount of
time to do it. So I fully support this
[1:26:13] your worship even though that I would uh
see I'd like to see personally something
[1:26:18] more stringent but I think this is a
compromise that we need to make to move
[1:26:22] forward. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Councelor Lavy. Um, councelor
[1:26:27] Ganella,
>> [clears throat]
[1:26:28] » uh, thank you, your worship. I also want
to echo um, councelor Lavy's comments
[1:26:32] about thanking staff through this
process. It's quite complicated. Um,
[1:26:37] and I too will also echo that I'd like
to see this accelerated, but I also
[1:26:42] understand why we need to find a um, a
start to this u solution. And I believe
[1:26:48] this motion here today in front of us is
that solution. I think it's important
[1:26:52] that um after this summer that we've
gone through with the this um the smoke
[1:26:57] um that is it's affecting our everyone
who's working outside in a real critical
[1:27:04] way and um I myself have you know family
who worked outside and it was and you
[1:27:10] could see how brutal it is and it's not
going to get better until we start
[1:27:13] making these steps that are going to be
very difficult and not just difficult
[1:27:17] for the building community it's going to
be difficult for all of us because we're
[1:27:20] all going going to own this solution.
Um, and that solution is not going to be
[1:27:25] easy. Um, we've gotten ourselves to this
point where we know that the solutions
[1:27:31] we make today will have a mitigating
effect on the impacts going forward, but
[1:27:37] even then there's this echo effect with
the the climate that we have with where
[1:27:41] it is now that it's going to take time
even if we make all the changes you want
[1:27:45] today in an accelerated rate. So, I
believe that we need to start making
[1:27:49] steps now. And it comes right back to if
we're going to do anything, why not now?
[1:27:54] I think we've used enough time to decide
um what's best for um everyone. I think
[1:28:03] we've put some time into this and
thinking what's good for compromise to
[1:28:07] our building community. But at the at
the end of it, I represent the whole of
[1:28:11] the city and I am hearing from a lot of
people that they want this to be
[1:28:15] accelerated. But I'm willing to work
with our comm our industries to meet a
[1:28:21] compromise and this motion is that
compromise and I'm going to approve it.
[1:28:27] » Thank you, councelor Ganella. Councelor
Wallace Richmond.
[1:28:29] » Y thanks your worship. Uh first one
question uh through you to staff. Can
[1:28:36] builders build to zero now?
>> Mr. Bton,
[1:28:42] » sorry. Build to zero
>> to zero carbon now if they want if they
[1:28:46] so choose. Okay.
>> Um, so before I get into my comments,
[1:28:50] for me, the conversation is around not
whether or not people can build or
[1:28:54] people want to build, but whether or not
this is our decision to make. So, um, as
[1:29:03] we've seen in the leadup to this, uh,
one motion on one policy, um, to make
[1:29:10] this decision, but we have to answer
many, many questions in the leadup to
[1:29:14] making this decision. So, uh, full
transparency, I'm just going to share
[1:29:18] with you some of the things I have been
thinking about, some of the questions I
[1:29:22] have been trying to answer, um, in
addressing this. um
[1:29:28] and it's a provincial policy with a
municipal adoption to adopt early. So
[1:29:34] the first question that came to my mind
and I'm sure I hope some of you have
[1:29:38] thought about that is isn't BC um
actively developing
[1:29:46] um LG facilities for export.
We know the answer to that is yes. The
[1:29:53] second question I always have on my mind
is does the province have a serious
[1:29:57] budget challenge?
We also know the answer to that is yes.
[1:30:03] And so I think part of the reason
they're actively pursuing LG projects is
[1:30:08] to bolster um u provincial coffers so
they can pay for the things that we want
[1:30:13] to be able to do. So this is a reality
of the world that we live in. So, does
[1:30:18] local government normally have the
option to BC to vary the BC building
[1:30:23] code? And the answer to that in my
experience is no. This is very unusual
[1:30:29] that the province would say, well,
except for this thing, you could change
[1:30:32] this thing if you wanted to. So,
here's my sense. It's just me being
[1:30:38] completely honest with everyone. My
sense is there's a reason the province
[1:30:42] hasn't been pushing this because I don't
think they're there yet either. I think
[1:30:48] they're actively developing now. They're
talking about site C, site E. Um they're
[1:30:54] working on uh energy opportunities. Um
you know, so my sense is the urgency is
[1:31:00] to build the electrical capacity right
now. So the next question is have the
[1:31:07] feds and the province been incentivizing
lower emissions and higher efficiency
[1:31:12] for decades in fact and the answer of
course to that is yes but all that takes
[1:31:17] is that takes revenue to accomplish. So
um given that builders can now build to
[1:31:23] zero already um the question is are they
and the answer is mostly yes especially
[1:31:31] multif family right um however the
caveat is you have to have BC Hydro
[1:31:38] approve your proposal so we don't even
control that part so we could say yes
[1:31:44] zero carbon today
and we leave our builders um subject to
[1:31:50] a regulation we have no control over, we
have no budget for, right? And so just
[1:31:55] from a policy, strategic strategy
perspective, I have a a lot of concerns.
[1:32:02] Um and here's my next t.
I think we should all be asking this
[1:32:07] question. Do multifamily
um units use less energy than single
[1:32:14] family units? And of course, the answer
to that is yes. And it's pretty
[1:32:18] considerable. It's like 30 to 50%. A
multif family unit is 30 to 50% less
[1:32:25] energy used than a single family home.
So then if you ask yourself, will this
[1:32:32] change be up and down the valley all
over the southern interior? And we know
[1:32:37] the answer to that is already no because
we would be the first and the only.
[1:32:42] Um
so here's the big question. I have
[1:32:47] wrestled with could this decision
to accelerate uh zerocarbon uh step uh
[1:32:57] could this influence the decision of
multif family builders to build here and
[1:33:02] it's reasonable to say that it could
right um so they might decide not to
[1:33:09] build here they might decide to go to
Vernon because they're implementing it
[1:33:12] more slowly than we are I mean the
housing market is still at risk. We are
[1:33:17] making progress. It's been very
promising lately. We're ve we have a
[1:33:22] very favorable status with multif family
builds and we know that they're already
[1:33:25] at EL3 or EL2 or even EL1. So
another thing, we're going to consider
[1:33:32] this in the next item, but according to
our own climate resiliency plan, if you
[1:33:38] asked um is community housing the
largest risk factor for energy and
[1:33:45] emissions
in the community? No, it's
[1:33:50] transportation.
Then if you would ask if the city's
[1:33:53] largest risk factor for energy
efficiency and emissions is building the
[1:33:59] answer is yes 60% that's our biggest
risk
[1:34:03] and so will this zerocarbon impact the
city what's the city what the city is
[1:34:08] doing now no and so to me and I'm
telling you this from the bottom of my
[1:34:13] heart um for me true leadership is not
to ask the private sector to do as we
[1:34:21] say but not as we do which is
effectively what would be we would be
[1:34:26] doing.
So
[1:34:29] uh
so for the for these reasons the the
[1:34:34] fact that this is normally not something
that municipalities weigh into that
[1:34:38] there's an uncertainty as to why the
province is saying okay in this case you
[1:34:42] can go ahead and change that part of the
code. um that we don't control the grid
[1:34:47] that BC Hydro plays a huge rule role in
this and we have no control over it. So
[1:34:53] am I ready to go alone risk the need to
diversify our housing supply and signal
[1:34:59] to our market that the rules are just a
tiny bit different here? I don't think
[1:35:04] um this is the right tool for the right
challenge. So, and unless I were beyond
[1:35:10] a reasonable doubt that it would in fact
make a material impact um on GHG
[1:35:15] emissions, there's no multif family and
very little single family, then I can't
[1:35:19] commit our community or our business
community to it ahead of time. And I
[1:35:23] have heard from business owners and I
have heard from builders. Um, so you
[1:35:30] know I am my preference would be I think
I could live with 28 2930.
[1:35:37] It would give us time to get everyone
ready for the change. I would even
[1:35:41] consider splitting single building
versus complex building. But, you know,
[1:35:46] this is going to have a big impact on a
number of sectors in our community. And
[1:35:52] I'm not feeling like we have um you know
[1:36:01] I mean I know I understand a lot of
people be disappointed in me and I
[1:36:05] wanted to acknowledge that but the the
knockoff effect
[1:36:09] um of this decision um has to be
considered and we have to thoroughly and
[1:36:14] appropriately address all those concerns
before we move it forward at this time.
[1:36:19] Thank you. Thank you, councelor Wallace
Richmond. Is there any other counselors
[1:36:24] who wish to speak?
[1:36:29] Seeing none, then I will just summarize
with my comments and call a question.
[1:36:33] So, first of all, thank you um to the
public who um has responded to us and
[1:36:38] thank you to staff um as we've deferred
this along and to counselors and I a
[1:36:43] conversation is always good and it's
okay if everyone doesn't agree at the
[1:36:48] end of the conversation.
Um,
[1:36:53] wouldn't it have been nice if the
province would have said, "We're going
[1:36:56] to go to EL4 in the end of 2026."
We wouldn't be sitting here talking
[1:37:02] about this right now if that was the
case.
[1:37:07] So, why didn't they?
Councelor Wallace Richmond's actually
[1:37:11] done a pretty good job outlining why
they haven't.
[1:37:18] Second thing the province said was we
think that there should be regional
[1:37:23] consideration
for acceleration
[1:37:26] of the zerocarbon step code.
[1:37:32] So when you look at our region and I'll
start in the south and I think what
[1:37:38] these local governments are saying is we
support the province. I do. I support
[1:37:46] the province's plan
with
[1:37:51] acceleration
or working through EL2, EL3 to EL4 and
[1:37:58] 2030.
And I believe these local governments
[1:38:01] are saying they're not saying no.
They're not saying we don't believe in
[1:38:05] climate change. They're not saying we
need to reduce GHG emissions. That's not
[1:38:10] what they're saying. They're saying this
is the province's job and we agree with
[1:38:14] it.
[1:38:19] So, ause they agree with the province.
Oliver, they agree with the province.
[1:38:24] Regional district south of the Similcom,
they agree with the province. City of
[1:38:29] Pentictton, they agree with the
province.
[1:38:34] City of West Colona, they agree with the
province. City of Colona, they agree
[1:38:39] with the province. Peachland, they agree
with the province. Summerland, they
[1:38:44] agree with the province. Vernon, they
agree with the province. Armstrong, they
[1:38:49] agree with the province. Enderbe,
Sycamoose, Revel Stoke, Cam Loops, RDCO,
[1:38:58] CSRD,
every local government within our regent
[1:39:04] agrees with the province.
[1:39:09] So, people have pointed out, well, what
about Rossland and Nelson? Why are they
[1:39:13] outliers? Well, there's some pretty big
variables there. Actually,
[1:39:17] Rossland, extremely small resort
community. I was there recently.
[1:39:24] The only building happening there is
happening at Red Mountain.
[1:39:30] Very expensive topline
condos going in there.
[1:39:35] City and Nelson,
they don't even buy their hydro from BC
[1:39:40] Hydro. They have their own hydro
company. This is very good business for
[1:39:43] them. If I was in Nelson, I would do the
same.
[1:39:47] The c the electricity used there goes
back into the city coffers.
[1:39:52] I don't begrudge them at all. I think
they're making a good decision.
[1:39:57] But no other local government within our
region is making that decision.
[1:40:02] There's a reason for that.
So, we started this out by asking the
[1:40:09] public
and
[1:40:14] we received 700 respondents.
That's versus
[1:40:21] 140 for the CRP,
which by the way assumes
[1:40:26] that we're moving to EL4 in 2030.
That's what the climate resiliency uh
[1:40:33] report assumes.
So, we asked the public and I know that
[1:40:39] there was some uh people who were
questionable about those respondents,
[1:40:44] but no matter how you cut it, we asked
staff to go back and look at the repeat
[1:40:50] um number of people who filled in more
than one form. So the difference
[1:40:57] moves from 700 respondents to 596
and the percentage of support
[1:41:04] the aggregate percentage of support for
moving accelerating the EO4
[1:41:11] zero step code is 1% from 26 to 27%.
[1:41:22] We we said that skip has not responded
or I've heard that today
[1:41:28] 23% of the respondents to that survey
were skip
[1:41:35] respondents.
77% were members of the public.
[1:41:40] So 77% of the members of the public
came forward on that survey and said we
[1:41:48] want to follow the province and that's
what Skip has said as well. They are not
[1:41:53] saying we don't think it's a good idea.
They're saying we agree and we agree
[1:41:57] with the province's plan is what's being
said.
[1:42:02] So
[1:42:06] 2026 today, 2030 is not far away. And in
between that time, provinces have said
[1:42:14] they're going to accelerate to EL2 and
EL3. They haven't given a date, but
[1:42:19] they've said that they're going to do
it.
[1:42:22] And so I trust their word.
[1:42:27] I'm not willing to put my foot into what
is a provincial jurisdiction.
[1:42:34] It's their job.
And that's another reason why a lot of
[1:42:38] the other local governments have not put
their foot in there
[1:42:43] because as soon as you take on one of
their jobs,
[1:42:48] more falls on it in every single case
that's happened in the past with
[1:42:54] different topics.
So this is a provincial matter and they
[1:42:59] have a plan. I support the plan.
Obviously our residents do as well. The
[1:43:06] majority of our residents do as well.
And uh um you know to say that the
[1:43:14] survey was tainted or stacked,
I I have to disagree. I don't think it's
[1:43:20] respectful of those people that filled
in that survey. Um, so my conclusion is
[1:43:25] we go along with the province's plan. I
agree with it. And to go along with the
[1:43:29] province's plan, we have to vote against
this motion and that's what I intend on
[1:43:33] doing.
So I will give any other counselor one
[1:43:37] opportunity, one more opportunity to
speak if they wish and then we'll call a
[1:43:40] question.
>> Councelor Lingren,
[1:43:43] » thanks your worship. Um, I'm going to
speak again, but obviously it's not
[1:43:47] going to change anybody's mind, but I
need to go on record um for future
[1:43:54] um residents reviewing this um that I
disagree with most of what was just
[1:44:00] said. So,
the survey that went out was anonymous.
[1:44:06] We have no idea where those people
lived, whether they were residents of
[1:44:10] Salmon Arm or residents of Atlanta,
Georgia.
[1:44:14] Uh some of the IP addresses were clearly
not residences residents of Salmon Arm.
[1:44:20] Um I disagree that they were in support
of the province's plan. A number of
[1:44:25] those surveys came back saying there's
no need to do anything. Climate's not a
[1:44:30] problem. So those were climate deniers.
They had no uh interest in supporting
[1:44:37] this plan or the province's plan or any
other plan. They were happy to just go
[1:44:40] along status quo. So those people I
would discount as uninformed
[1:44:46] um possibly um
you know people that were targeting
[1:44:53] whatever gas companies for all I know I
don't know but people that had a stake
[1:44:57] in continuing to burn fossil fuels or
people that were uh completely
[1:45:02] uninformed about um the effects that
fossil fuels have on our climate.
[1:45:09] Um there was a comment about it's not
our within our jurisdiction to vary the
[1:45:15] code.
Implementing EL2 EL3 um on specific
[1:45:20] dates in my view is not varying the code
at all. The province has set the code at
[1:45:27] EL4 for 2030
and us we are not varying the code. We
[1:45:34] are complying with the code by
implementing steps to get us to the
[1:45:39] point the provin province has required
us to be at.
[1:45:44] As far as being the first in our region,
that's just bravery. That's not a valid
[1:45:50] argument. We talk about this all the
time. Uh why would we put a sidewalk
[1:45:54] there? It's the sidewalk to nowhere. And
the comment at this table is always we
[1:45:58] have to start somewhere. Why would we
bury the overhead lines on that one
[1:46:04] frontage when the rest of the ones on
the street are above ground? Well,
[1:46:08] because we have to start somewhere. And
we talk about this every single meeting
[1:46:14] about having to start somewhere. This
could be us starting somewhere. The
[1:46:19] letter from the writer in Chase
specifically noted that uh that Chase
[1:46:24] has not implemented this, but to have
Salmon Arm, a nearby community,
[1:46:28] institute it would give them the courage
to also step forward. And maybe it just
[1:46:33] takes one community to implement this
plan and the rest of the communities
[1:46:37] would get on board, which is what we've
seen across regions around BC.
[1:46:45] Um, why would
uh there was a comment that uh you know
[1:46:50] builders might not build here. They
might go build in Vernon instead. Well,
[1:46:53] I I disagree. The builders are already
building above and beyond what we're
[1:46:58] asking for in this uh motion. So, I
don't believe that it would scare them
[1:47:04] off at all. People are coming all the
way from Naimo to build in Salmon Arm
[1:47:09] because there's opportunity here. And
this we've seen from multiple letters
[1:47:14] from multiple developers who are
building this way that this is actually
[1:47:17] cheaper for the developer and for the
builders that this saves them money. It
[1:47:22] saves everybody money. So the argument
that they might go somewhere else to
[1:47:27] build that just doesn't sit right with
me at all. Also the comment that LG is
[1:47:34] being developed for export. Yes, maybe
that's true. Maybe we sell a million
[1:47:39] tons of LNG to other countries, but that
doesn't mean that if we reduce our LNG
[1:47:44] use in BC that we're going to just sell
more. It means we'll probably still sell
[1:47:50] a million tons of LNG to another
country. It doesn't mean that we
[1:47:54] shouldn't stop our own consumption.
Again, we have to start somewhere.
[1:48:04] CRP itself uh assumes that we're going
to be EL4 by 2030. That's correct and
[1:48:10] that is exactly what this motion asks us
to do. But the CRP also states very
[1:48:16] explicitly that they recommend early
adoption which is also what we're asking
[1:48:21] for in this motion.
So I think we just have to be brave
[1:48:26] enough. For me I mean it for me it
doesn't even feel brave. It just feels
[1:48:31] like the only choice there is actually.
Um, but we need to try to work through
[1:48:37] these issues and obviously this is going
to fail today. I hope that future
[1:48:41] councils after October will take a look
at this video and we'll consider these
[1:48:47] options and we'll reconsider this six
months from now. I hope uh and bring it
[1:48:53] back to the table and try to get it
passed because I think that you know our
[1:48:58] future depends on this kind of action.
>> Thank you councelor Lingren. Are there
[1:49:04] further speakers to the motion?
[1:49:11] » I will call the question on the motion.
All those in favor? Any opposed?
[1:49:17] Councelor Cannon, myself, councelor
Wallace Richmond opposed. Motion does
[1:49:21] not pass.
Councilors, we will move move forward to
[1:49:26] what was 1010,
which is director of engineering and
[1:49:31] sustainability climate resiliency plan.
There is a motion for consideration. If
[1:49:37] we can have a mover in a second or to
get that on the floor. Councelor
[1:49:40] Canella. Thank you, Councelor Cannon.
[1:49:47] Mr. Mills, are you speaking to us about
this or is this Mr. Buckton?
[1:49:51] » Mr. Buckton.
>> Buckton.
[1:49:52] » Okay. I just saw Mr. Mills there.
>> Thank you.
[1:49:55] » Mr. Buckton, please go ahead.
>> Thank you. You worship it. Members of
[1:49:57] council, um, as noted here, we're
seeking council's endorsement of the
[1:50:02] climate resiliency plan, which is a
massive project that Miss Wilson, Mr.
[1:50:06] Mills have been working on as project
leads for quite some time. Um, August
[1:50:12] 4th, development planning services
committee meeting. um you asked us to
[1:50:16] seek and coate last comments
on on the plan which I will get to in a
[1:50:23] moment. So the plan itself it's both an
adaptation and mitigation. Um so we're
[1:50:28] we're looking at reducing risks and
vulnerabilities.
[1:50:31] I I'm before I start I'm not going to go
through that whole presentation again
[1:50:35] that Miss Wilson went through so don't
panic. Um so the there are adaptation
[1:50:40] elements to the plan. Uh there are
mitigation so reducing greenhouse gas
[1:50:44] emissions that contribute to climate
change.
[1:50:47] Um there are 44 actions identified under
nine focus areas or nine categories
[1:50:55] um
uh that are outlined in the plan. Um
[1:50:59] there are some key strategic actions
whether or not it's um development of
[1:51:04] climate resilience resilience policy a
climate development of a climate
[1:51:08] resilience community strategy um review
and updating our emergency management
[1:51:13] plans particularly with respect to
adaptation
[1:51:17] and establishing sustainable funding and
staffing capacity to implement the CRP.
[1:51:23] Um in terms of the the comments that
that we did receive um um following
[1:51:31] council's direction or committee's
direction
[1:51:34] um I mean I I would categorize it
typified as some general support
[1:51:39] comments on background um the comments
from interior health um particularly
[1:51:45] around language I think we can address
those on a go forward basis I'm not sure
[1:51:50] that
going back through the and would involve
[1:51:53] a significant amount of editorial um
that I don't know would add a terrible
[1:51:58] amount of I don't want to knock that but
might not add a lot of value for the
[1:52:03] effort required but certainly
um moving forwards um we can certainly
[1:52:09] take that on board um and address it as
we move forward I mean if council wants
[1:52:16] any of that editorial directed then
please let us know but we weren't
[1:52:20] planning to go back through the document
[1:52:24] um the climate action society um they
made some interesting comments around
[1:52:29] the modeling um redoing that redoing the
project. So we're not going to recommend
[1:52:34] that council step that far back
um
[1:52:40] I mean in terms of the priorities
council can take those up as part of
[1:52:44] future budget decisions and project
decisions and strategy decisions going
[1:52:50] forward. So,
um I don't plan on I say Mr. Mills and I
[1:52:56] are here to answer council's questions.
Um but I say we
[1:53:02] um in terms of the feedback, council has
seen it. I don't know that we need to
[1:53:06] make any amendments to the to the CRP
unless specifically directed, but
[1:53:12] I would try and answer council's
questions from this point forward.
[1:53:16] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckton.
Um, I will open it up to counselors for
[1:53:20] any comments or questions that they
might have.
[1:53:29] » Councelor Lingren,
>> thanks worship. Uh, I want to start by
[1:53:32] saying thanks to staff for the work um
that's gone into this. This report looks
[1:53:38] so different from uh I think back to the
days when we did the C report and some
[1:53:44] of our disappointment in how general
that was and how
[1:53:50] um just broad
broad uh strokes rather than you know
[1:53:57] specific actions. This climate plan is
specific. It's uh based on science. It's
[1:54:07] very adaptable. It's got real actions
that we could implement, some of them
[1:54:14] very quickly.
Um, [laughter]
[1:54:18] with political will. Um, and so I I I
just want to express how appreciative I
[1:54:26] am of this kind of quality of report
coming forward.
[1:54:32] Um, we know that the risks from climate
change are going not what we're
[1:54:38] experiencing today is not what we're
going to be experiencing in 20 years.
[1:54:41] It's going to be, you know, multiple
times worse. This is the beginning of a
[1:54:47] long stretch of tough roads ahead.
And so implementing some of these things
[1:54:54] now, I think, is a key piece. Um,
adaptation is really important. I think
[1:55:02] that we know what some of the risks are
with fire and flood and heat and drought
[1:55:06] and we know that um we need to prepare
now because you know as I said things
[1:55:13] are going to get worse and we need to be
ready when they do. I think that um you
[1:55:18] know drought and fire are probably the
biggest risks that we face in Salmon Arm
[1:55:23] and I think that there are things that
we will do uh moving forward or future
[1:55:28] councils will do moving forward. Um and
staff seems to already be moving in that
[1:55:34] direction of you know working on
building bylaws change mandating things
[1:55:39] like charging infrastructure and fire
smart landscapes and uh solar readiness
[1:55:44] those types of things.
um because our future is going to be
[1:55:48] electric and we know that uh those
things are going to be important. Um I
[1:55:53] think water meters comes back to mind
for me as a really important um
[1:56:00] mitigation strategy. How are we going to
help people understand the water that
[1:56:05] they use and the effect it has? uh we
need to be able to show every single
[1:56:10] homeowner what's happening in their own
home and teach them how to work towards
[1:56:15] it. So um towards doing better. So I
think one of the things that uh you I I
[1:56:22] can't see any reason we wouldn't adopt
this today or endorse this today. I I
[1:56:27] will be endorsing it. Um uh and I I hope
that the next step after this will be
[1:56:33] around um education, the education piece
for our staff and for our uh community
[1:56:40] and for council. Um,
one of the things that we saw in England
[1:56:45] a couple of years ago when we were
traveling there was uh billboard type uh
[1:56:51] advertising for things like um
uh trading in one trip in your car for a
[1:56:58] bicycle reduces greenhouse gases by x
number of whatever. And so I I hope that
[1:57:04] in the not too distant future we're able
to move into that phase and we can start
[1:57:08] educating people about how their
decisions in their daily life can help
[1:57:13] um cumulatively make big changes for
everybody.
[1:57:18] » Thank you councelor Lingren. Councelor
Wallace Richmond.
[1:57:21] » No thanks. I just I had a question and
then a comment. Um,
[1:57:27] in the report, uh,
is there any reference to things that
[1:57:33] might be outside of our jurisdiction
like provincial that would require
[1:57:37] provincial or federal funding? I mean, I
I just see that things like investment
[1:57:42] can be sort of very high as opposed to
low. But I'm assuming the very high ones
[1:57:47] like retrofitting our own buildings um
would absolutely require uh provincial
[1:57:53] and federal support. I mean is that a
fair statement? Cuz I'm okay with I this
[1:57:59] is a comprehensive plan. It's all tied
together. It's very thoughtful.
[1:58:05] Completely happy to endorse it. I just
think that we can't set an expectation
[1:58:09] where it means that we are going to pay
for all of this all by ourselves. I I
[1:58:13] feel like that would be an important
piece to put in there somewhere.
[1:58:16] » Mr. Buckton, can you respond?
>> Yes, through the chair. Um I don't
[1:58:21] believe there's anything that's beyond
our ability legislatively or
[1:58:25] jurisdictionally. Um funding.
Yes, that that's an entirely different.
[1:58:30] Will it require funding from other
sources? Inevitably.
[1:58:33] » Yeah, most plans do. Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:58:36] Well, I just I always think it's
important to set expectations and the
[1:58:41] truth is um as you know, as we learned
in the um PowerPoint around this um we
[1:58:50] know that our our biggest vulnerability
is actually buildings, our own buildings
[1:58:54] and the community's biggest
vulnerability is transportation. So one
[1:58:58] of those things means transit which we
share with the province and the other
[1:59:02] thing other thing means very expensive
retrofits of older community facilities
[1:59:08] which also need um senior orders of
government to help fund. So let's just
[1:59:13] be clear as we move forward that we're
going to have to do this in partnership.
[1:59:17] Thank you.
>> Thank you. Councelor Wallace Richmond.
[1:59:21] Um councelor Lavy please go ahead.
>> Yeah thanks your worship. Um I to a lot
[1:59:27] of this is a good document. I want to
thank uh city staff um the engagement
[1:59:33] with organizations, experts, residents,
the uh steering group committees, the
[1:59:39] work that has been done in terms of
getting feedback loop and the broad
[1:59:44] community participation. I think it's
been quite remarkable and I think it is
[1:59:48] the document for for the future. Um I'm
wondering if we could get to page on the
[1:59:53] screen, page 139, please.
[1:59:59] part of the report.
[clears throat]
[2:00:07] Thank you. And your worship, I'm going
to hammer away hammer away at this.
[2:00:12] Under buildings,
use policy tools to incentivize the
[2:00:16] adoption of green building
infrastructure that enhances cooling,
[2:00:20] energy efficiency, water conservation,
and overall climate resilience.
[2:00:25] Priority very high, investment low,
[2:00:33] and
a a timeline.
[2:00:39] Buildings implement the zerocarbon step
code by 2030.
[2:00:44] priority very high, investment
very low
[2:00:53] by 2030. your worship. I accept but I
disagree profoundly with our last
[2:01:01] decision on zero carbon step code. But I
would urge the upcoming council
[2:01:10] to put in definitive to review to put in
definitive timelines of what actually
[2:01:17] short and medium is.
both are talking about 2027 2030 and in
[2:01:26] my view short and medium doesn't say
okay we're going to do it in 202720 2030
[2:01:32] I think it'll be a challenge there may
not be the political will there I think
[2:01:36] that there should be and I think that uh
and I'm hoping that the next council
[2:01:41] will pick up this ball um in my view
your worship that's been dropped but
[2:01:46] that not to taint what is the good
document here thank
[2:01:52] Thank you, Councelor Lavy. Are there any
other comments from council or questions
[2:01:57] at this time?
Councelor Lingren, is there anyone else
[2:02:01] want to speak that hasn't had a chance?
Okay, councelor Lingram, please go
[2:02:05] ahead.
>> Thanks, Worship. Uh just wanted to
[2:02:08] comment on partnerships and how uh well
done that was in this document actually.
[2:02:14] uh partnerships with groups like forest
or [clears throat] industries like
[2:02:18] forestry and agriculture. Those are
going to be so important moving forward.
[2:02:22] They have such a huge effect on how
things happen. Really happy to see uh
[2:02:28] the city looking at ways that we can
collaborate.
[2:02:32] If we lose the funding for firesmarting
our community, can we partner with
[2:02:37] forestry to do selective logging in
those areas? like those are natural fits
[2:02:42] and I think they're things that we
haven't really explored in detail before
[2:02:46] and I'm really happy to see those coming
forward. Um the other thing that I hope
[2:02:50] that we look at in the not too distant
future is some kind of I I saw one of
[2:02:55] the things for 2027 was um CRP funding
and staffing. And I don't know what
[2:03:01] staff is thinking about um uh as far as
staffing what that will look like or but
[2:03:08] I'm imagining some kind of CRP
coordinator position working with the
[2:03:13] Zero Home Collective to help citizens um
connect with the services they need if
[2:03:19] they want to retrofit their home. um
connecting with forestry, connecting
[2:03:23] with uh interior health, those types of
agriculture, those types of things to
[2:03:27] help move the city's um objectives
forward and using those partnerships to
[2:03:33] uh get them done at a reasonable cost or
no cost to the city um because there's a
[2:03:40] partnership in place where somebody is
going to benefit from that. So again,
[2:03:44] just thank you for the good work done.
>> Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Are there
[2:03:49] any further comments or questions from
council?
[2:03:56] Okay, seeing none, um I'd also like to
thank staff and not just staff, but
[2:04:01] there was many many groups involved in
helping provide information for input.
[2:04:06] the steering committee um had members
from from all kinds of groups within
[2:04:13] within salmon arm and uh and they
provided that the information they
[2:04:17] provided is included in this document. I
think one of the really important pieces
[2:04:23] in this document is it's it brings
together um city departments because
[2:04:30] with regards to to this kind of change
we we need to make sure that uh that all
[2:04:38] of the departments are considering and
working together and sharing and we've
[2:04:43] seen that progression happen. I think
this this document really spells it out.
[2:04:50] um have to agree the education piece is
is really large um um for for us to get
[2:04:57] out to the community um details of the
of the plan and we certainly will do
[2:05:01] that. Um and there is a number of major
components that we we need to continue
[2:05:07] to to educate on. um water metering
metering which was mentioned and which
[2:05:13] we're piloting now is is one that's
quite significant and uh and one that we
[2:05:19] need to talk about more with our
community. Uh
[2:05:23] the transportation component and getting
people out of their cars. Um we're we're
[2:05:28] doing it a piece at a time through
through electric bikes and active
[2:05:32] transportation networks. Um I'm seeing
more and more of it and I'm a personal
[2:05:37] example. Um and so that is that is a a
reasonably easy way that that uh
[2:05:43] community members can contribute.
So also like to thank we we ask um a
[2:05:51] number of groups to comment on the draft
uh and appreciate those comments but I
[2:05:58] don't want to hold up this resiliency
plan by going back and adjusting. I
[2:06:04] think those comments are useful be
useful for the future. I think it's
[2:06:08] important that we pass it today. So, I
certainly will vote uh to uh in favor of
[2:06:14] um of accepting this uh document.
Seeing no other speakers, I will call a
[2:06:19] question. All those in favor?
That passes unanimously.
[2:06:25] Thank you very much.
Okay, we are going to move in camera.
[2:06:32] Um, I'll just check with uh our
chief uh administrative officer if she
[2:06:39] could read the uh motion for
consideration
[2:06:44] » that pursuant to section 91D
and 92B of the community charter.
[2:06:50] Council moving camera.
>> Could I have a mover and a seconder?
[2:06:54] Councelor Canella, councelor Wallace
Richmond. Thank you. All those in favor?
[2:07:00] That passes unanimously. Thank you. I
think uh for members of the public,
[2:07:04] we'll probably be about 45 minutes. So,
I'm thinking 4:00. We should come back
[2:07:09] to regular session at 4:00. So, if
you're interested in coming back on, um
[2:07:13] come back on at that time. Council will
take a short little break.
[2:07:22] This conference will now be recorded.
[2:08:08] We will reconvene the city of Salmon
regular council meeting of Monday,
[2:08:12] August 24th. Welcome back. Uh councelor
Labry is with us virtually as some staff
[2:08:18] members um and the rest of council here
in the council chamber with our staff.
[2:08:24] Council, we have uh moved to item or tab
12 now, which is the introduction of
[2:08:30] bylaws. And the first one is a fee for
services amendment bylaw 4761. It's
[2:08:35] water and sewer rates. There is a motion
for consideration. I can have a mover in
[2:08:39] a seconder to get that on the floor.
Councelor Cannon, Councelor Lingren.
[2:08:43] Thank you. I'll pass it over to Mr. JRO
to speak to us about the report.
[2:08:53] or will the chief financial officer Oh,
Mr. Buckton's gonna speak to this. Okay,
[2:08:57] Mr. Buckton, I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
[laughter]
[2:08:59] » Thank you, worship, members of council.
Um, bylaw 4761 is is essentially an
[2:09:04] attempt to harmonize the utility rate
categories
[2:09:08] with the land use categories that have
developed through the the zoning bylaw
[2:09:12] and the schmoo legislation. So, we're
starting to see these accessory dwelling
[2:09:16] units of various sizes that don't really
fit into the existing categories in the
[2:09:21] current FIFA services bio agency,
private dwellings, apartments, and
[2:09:25] suites, boarding and lodging. Um, a
freestanding suite that we're seeing,
[2:09:29] these carriage homes, garage homes,
granny suite, um, they're not really a
[2:09:35] suite as the current bylaw anticipates
it. Um and the current size limit
[2:09:40] potentially on these accessory dwelling
units is quite large. Um so it it just
[2:09:45] doesn't fit into the categories that we
have
[2:09:49] um in the current fee for services
spiral. So what we're proposing is to
[2:09:52] move from the first the first four
private dwellings, apartments and
[2:09:56] residents combined with
the new categories we would propose are
[2:10:01] residential dwelling apartments and
secondary suites and then accessory
[2:10:05] dwelling units below that threshold
which is 104 square meters and there is
[2:10:08] some rationale for that and then ADUs or
accessory dwelling units above that 104
[2:10:14] square meters. Residential dwellings the
new category is essentially the same as
[2:10:19] private dwellings previously. um that
would capture single family homes,
[2:10:23] duplexes, triplexes, and grand oriented
town homes definitions contained in the
[2:10:28] new bylaw to cover that off. Same
definitions as we have in the zoning
[2:10:32] bylaw. So, we've got consistency across
those bylaws.
[2:10:36] The rates would stay unchanged for that
category of of dwelling unit. Um
[2:10:40] apartments and secondary suites would
capture apartments and suites within
[2:10:44] homes as those currently what we
understand as secondary suites.
[2:10:48] um the rate is assigned the same rate
that it currently is. So it's it's that
[2:10:53] much lower rate.
The smaller accessory dwelling units
[2:10:57] would be given the same rate as suites.
That's the two 211 for water and 205 for
[2:11:02] sewer. And larger accessory dwelling
units, that's above the 104.1 m get the
[2:11:09] higher rate. Um the rationale being that
those are the larger units. The 104
[2:11:15] 104.1 m actually has a bit of thought
behind it. It's 75% of the um average
[2:11:21] single family home size and we had
Patrick pull the the assessment records.
[2:11:25] So there is some math and some rationale
behind picking picking that number. Um
[2:11:31] so that the larger units get assigned to
larger utility rate. They say the rates
[2:11:36] remain the same. We haven't changed the
rates. It's just what we put into those
[2:11:39] categories is a little clearer. and the
these ADUs that we're seeing which don't
[2:11:44] fit anywhere right now have a home to go
to. It's clear everyone can see what it
[2:11:49] is when we're assigning the utility
rates. Um it's very clear about where to
[2:11:54] put that. Um the note sections been
amended um so we've got the necessary um
[2:12:00] definitions
um or we're cross referencing to
[2:12:04] definitions from the zoning bio [snorts]
so it's clear about what is what.
[2:12:08] um we don't intend to look at the
existing utility accounts. That work of
[2:12:13] trolling through manually through each
of those records would be a massive
[2:12:16] piece of work. So as those accounts
change, we can reassess, but we're not
[2:12:21] going to go back in and change those. Um
at this point in time, we don't
[2:12:27] anticipate this will have any impact on
revenue. Um I say as an administrative
[2:12:33] classification of utility accounts, we
don't feel there's a need for public
[2:12:36] communication. So, as noted, we're just
trying to make sure that what we're
[2:12:41] seeing through the zoning ble has a
place to go in the utility account
[2:12:44] classifications.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you for that
[2:12:48] explanation and for the report,
counselors, I'll open it up to you if
[2:12:52] you have any questions or any comments
that you wish to make.
[2:12:57] » Councelor Lingren,
>> thanks for worship. Um, so I'm in
[2:13:01] generally support in support of this. I
see the rationale I think for you know I
[2:13:07] think what the push is is more people
more wear and tear more use of utilities
[2:13:12] therefore higher rates is that correct
that's why we charge more
[2:13:16] » Mr. Braxton.
Yes, we're using the size and size of
[2:13:21] the unit as a proxy for
uh impact on utilities. The larger the
[2:13:26] unit, the more likely to have larger
fixtures. It's the best short counting
[2:13:29] fixtures. It's the best proxy we have.
>> Great. Councelor Lingren.
[2:13:33] » Yeah. So, I assume that it's too
hard to it's probably not possible to
[2:13:40] assess based on the number of people
actually living there. And here's my
[2:13:44] thought process.
Um, if [clears throat] you live in a
[2:13:47] house that has a thousand square ft on
each of two floors and it's got three or
[2:13:52] four bed, say four bedrooms, two up, two
down, with a wreck room uh, in the
[2:13:57] basement and you raise a family with
four kids, that's a pretty realistic
[2:14:03] Yikes. Go away. Oh, I don't have a
touchcreen. Sorry.
[2:14:08] Um, so if you raise a family with four
kids, that's a pretty realistic number
[2:14:12] of people to be in that house. Then your
kids grow up and leave home. Uh you've
[2:14:17] had four basically uh six basically six
adults in the house for a number of
[2:14:21] years. And then your kids all leave home
and you think, you know, this space in
[2:14:26] the basement would be much better used.
Let's put in a suite down there. So you
[2:14:29] put in a a two-bedroom suite and you
rent it out, but there might just be one
[2:14:33] person living there. And so you have two
people upstairs and one person
[2:14:38] downstairs and you now have half as many
people, but you're going to pay one and
[2:14:41] a half times as much for utilities. And
I'm wondering whether or not it's a
[2:14:45] deterrent for people to sweep their
place and whether or not we might be if
[2:14:50] we're trying to incentivize housing more
housing and incentivize adding a suite
[2:14:55] to your home if you're not using that
space if it would be smart for us to not
[2:15:00] charge if the suite is within the home.
Is that a possibility?
[2:15:04] » Mr. Buckton, can you uh comment?
the chair. I believe it's been practiced
[2:15:10] for many years to charge for that
secondary suite. So that would be a
[2:15:16] reversal of
um long-standing practice at the city.
[2:15:23] » Councelor Lingren,
>> yeah, it has been a practice. Um but we
[2:15:27] have not had a push like we have now to
increase housing and uh density and uh
[2:15:33] provincial rules have changed, municipal
bylaws are changing. Um, you know, there
[2:15:38] are lots of reasons to be increasing
incentives for people to put sweets in.
[2:15:43] So, it I'm for me it feels like it's an
appropriate time to rethink that
[2:15:49] philosophy that it may not be that there
are more people living in that house and
[2:15:52] that there are not there's not a higher
use of utilities and the chances are
[2:15:57] that there's actually fewer people
living in the house than there was when
[2:16:00] it was a four-bedroom home uh single
family home.
[2:16:04] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Are there
other speakers to the motion?
[2:16:12] I see none. I will call the question.
All those in favor?
[2:16:17] Any opposed?
That passes unanimously. Thank you. We
[2:16:21] will go to reconsideration of bylaws,
which is tab 13.
[2:16:26] First one is zoning a bylaw 4759, civic
address 3851th Avenue Southeast. The
[2:16:32] owner is Little Mountain Ridge
Developments. agent is uh Dave McHugh.
[2:16:37] There's a motion for consideration for
this final reading. If I have a mover in
[2:16:40] a seconder, councelor Canam will move.
Councelor Wallace Richmond will second.
[2:16:46] I'll pass it over to Mr. Buckton just to
review briefly this final reading.
[2:16:50] » Thank you. Worship members of council.
Um this is the reszoning just west of
[2:16:55] Little Mountain Park. It's going from A2
to R10. It's consistent with the OCP. No
[2:17:00] changes or issues since um council last
considered this.
[2:17:05] » Thank you. Councilors, any questions or
comments?
[2:17:11] » I will call a question. All those in
favor?
[2:17:15] That passes unanimously. Thank you. The
next one 13.2. Again, final reading is
[2:17:21] traffic bylaw, ticket information
utilization bylaw, and fee for service
[2:17:25] bylaw amendments 4773,74
and 75. There is a motion for
[2:17:29] consideration. Um, councelor Lavy, if
you were interested in moving or
[2:17:33] seconding, I take move here. Thank you.
Moved by councelor Lavy, second by
[2:17:38] councelor Cannon.
>> I'll pass that over to Mr. Buckton.
[2:17:43] » Thank you, worship, members of council.
Again, um these three bylaws of council
[2:17:47] recollects are a suite of bylaws to the
three separate bylaws that deal with um
[2:17:53] enforcement and trying to align all of
our bylaws so that we can undertake
[2:17:58] digital um ticketing.
>> Thank you. Thanks for that summary.
[2:18:03] Counselors, any questions or comments?
Councelor Lingren,
[2:18:07] » maybe you already know what I'm going to
say. Um, I noticed in the traffic bylaw
[2:18:13] that people can be ticketed for using
their engine retarder brakes and I
[2:18:18] wondered if we could start maybe
implementing more tickets for that to
[2:18:22] see if that stops people from using them
on Tank Hill.
[2:18:26] » Mr. Bson, can you respond?
>> Certainly something that if it's in the
[2:18:31] bylaw, we can do that.
[2:18:35] » Thank you. Councelor Lingren, any
further comments? I'll start calling
[2:18:38] bylaw instead of the RCMP then. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Any other comments or
[2:18:43] questions?
I'll call a question and all those in
[2:18:47] favor
[2:18:50] that passes unanimously.
Council, we're into correspondence and
[2:18:55] councelor Ganell, I think um if it's
okay with you, we'll deal with the two
[2:19:00] items that um you made a de declaration
in 1419 and one and 15. So I will call
[2:19:08] you back after council's had an
opportunity to work on those two. So I
[2:19:13] would call on a counselor who's willing
to um speak to those items.
[2:19:22] Councelor Wallace Richmond, please go
ahead.
[2:19:24] » Yeah. 1419
Trail Alliance request
[2:19:29] to host their spring trail celebration
at the South Canoe. Um they're always
[2:19:34] well ahead of time planning for June
5th, a very popular event. I would move
[2:19:39] that uh we ask staff to work with the
Trail Alliance uh to put in place
[2:19:45] whatever is needed to done to
accommodate this request.
[2:19:49] » Thank you. Seconder councelor Cannon.
Thank you. Do you wish to speak to your
[2:19:53] motion, Councelor Wallace Richmond?
>> Uh, no. Um, yes. Would be the fourth
[2:19:58] year, I think, of this uh event. It's an
important one for the Trail Alliance and
[2:20:03] uh I hope council will support.
>> Thank you. Any other speakers to that
[2:20:08] motion?
I'll call a question and all those in
[2:20:12] favor
that passes unanimously.
[2:20:17] Um, would someone like to bring up
14.15?
[2:20:21] Thank you, Councelor Canon. Please go
ahead.
[2:20:23] » So, this is a request,
but I'm just kind of thinking that this
[2:20:29] request is coming in the final hour.
Uh I don't know. I'm sure this is on the
[2:20:38] radar of our staff because uh the parade
is this this weekend. So,
[2:20:46] um, but this is the closure for the fall
fair which starts on the Thursday, the
[2:20:51] road closure. So, make a motion that
staff work with the fall fair.
[2:20:58] » Thank you. Is there a second to the
motion? Councelor Lingren,
[2:21:03] should we check in with our staff and
just see how
[2:21:05] » I just wanted to just say to staff, is
this too short a notice or was it on
[2:21:11] your radar screen?
>> Mr.
[2:21:13] Yeah, thank you through your worship. Uh
it was on our radar. It was just uh an
[2:21:18] item that was missed previously in in
their road closures and the parade route
[2:21:22] and it was a frantic phone call late
last week in the evening. That's what I
[2:21:26] was wondering.
>> And uh yeah, so we're all good. This is
[2:21:29] the same they've done for previous
years. They'll also be utilizing the the
[2:21:33] the old memorial arena lot as a
expansion of their fair as well. So no
[2:21:38] concerns.
>> And we're able to provide barricades
[2:21:42] and certainly signs. Perfect. Thanks so
much.
[2:21:45] » Thank you. Um, is there any comments or
questions around that motion?
[2:21:53] Seeing none, I'll call a question. All
those in favor?
[2:21:57] Thank you. And thank you for our staff
for always uh being so willing to work
[2:22:02] with these groups. All right, we'll
invite Councelor Ganella back.
[2:22:44] Welcome back, Councelor Canella. Um,
we've dealt with those two items. So,
[2:22:48] counselors, I'll open it up to you for
any of the other items that you might
[2:22:52] wish to speak to on theformational
correspondence. Councelor Cannon.
[2:22:56] » Thank you, your worship. Oh, I just uh
lost what number it was. Just a sec.
[2:23:03] 14.1.5
the letter from the SPCA.
[2:23:08] » Yes, please go ahead.
>> I mean, this is uh I think an
[2:23:13] interesting opportunity.
uh looking at the letter from them um
[2:23:21] leasing the land possibly from them.
But I think this is something that we
[2:23:27] need to look at at budget time.
>> So could I make a motion to put this on
[2:23:33] specific would it be specific referrals
for worship?
[2:23:37] » Yes, please. And maybe we can even uh
get staff to get us a bit more
[2:23:42] information on they say in here that
they did some preliminary figuring and
[2:23:50] they figure it would be 100,000 plus
volunteer time, but maybe we could have
[2:23:56] a little bit more information from staff
if they could look at it.
[2:23:59] » Thank you for the motion. Is there a
seconder? Councelor Ganella will second.
[2:24:04] Um did you wish to speak further to your
motion, Councelor Can? I just think uh
[2:24:09] with it being right on 97 uh definitely
fencing would be an issue and it would
[2:24:14] be interesting to see what kind of
configuration to make this work for a
[2:24:18] dog park cuz the dog people are always
looking for a dog park. So
[2:24:24] » thank you council Lingren. I see your
buttons pressed. Is it for this item?
[2:24:28] Okay. I don't see other speakers for
this item. And by putting on specific
[2:24:32] referrals, they also get an invitation
to come speak to us. So that might be
[2:24:35] helpful as well.
>> All right, I'll call a question. All
[2:24:38] those in favor?
That passes unanimously. Thank you.
[2:24:46] Councelor Cannon, do you have any other
ones that you'd like to speak to?
[2:24:50] » Well, no, that's good.
>> Okay, I'll go to Councelor Lingren next
[2:24:54] then. Councelor Lingren, please go
ahead.
[2:24:56] » Uh number eight and number 11, please.
>> Okay, let's start with eight then.
[2:25:00] » Um just a letter a letter requesting
licensing for cats. just want to keep
[2:25:05] this on the radar of staff that at some
point I think this issue is going to
[2:25:09] boil over and we're going to have to
address it, but I'm not [clears throat]
[2:25:13] prepared to make any motions at this
time. The EAC made some recommendations
[2:25:17] around that and um maybe we should get
back to this lady and let her know what
[2:25:22] the issues are around why we haven't
instituted licensing for cats just yet.
[2:25:26] » Thank you. We will get back to Miss Tate
and appreciate her her concern there.
[2:25:32] Um, and the other one you wanted to
speak to was
[2:25:35] » 11.
>> Okay. Yes, please go ahead.
[2:25:37] » Yeah. So, this is a letter from somebody
asking us to ban fireworks. And I
[2:25:41] understand this concern completely. Last
summer, there was somebody uh in the
[2:25:46] evening with a black pickup truck parked
at, um, Safeway Field, I call it. I
[2:25:52] can't remember what it's really called.
uh uh firing off fireworks randomly in
[2:25:57] the middle of a park or a green space in
the middle of Salmon Arm and in the
[2:26:01] middle of fire season. It just seems
really tonedeaf and I just wanted to
[2:26:05] know from staff what our legal
parameters are around something like a
[2:26:11] fireworks band ban.
>> Sure. Would you like to refer it to
[2:26:16] staff to get back to us or do you want
to see if we can do it today? Uh if they
[2:26:22] have any information, I'd be happy to
hear it. But if um we need some time to
[2:26:26] do some research and see what's
possible, I'm happy with that, too.
[2:26:30] » Okay. My suggestion would be we might
want to refer because I think the fire
[2:26:33] department might have some input
perhaps. Um
[2:26:38] » sorry, I was just wondering if we have
legal jurisdiction to ban fireworks
[2:26:42] within the city.
>> All right, let's see if we can figure
[2:26:44] that out first. Um C
>> your worship uh currently we do not have
[2:26:50] the jurisdiction to ban the sale of
fireworks. Um there are some frameworks
[2:26:56] available to us including the fireworks
act but um that would specifically
[2:27:02] um create a scenario where selling,
giving or setting off fireworks would
[2:27:07] not be permitted except between October
24th and November 1st in any year. So
[2:27:12] very restrictive under the fireworks
act. Um there are other means of dealing
[2:27:19] with this through us bylaw. So that
would be the mechanism and the city does
[2:27:24] have that ability.
>> Yeah, I appreciate that answer. I know
[2:27:29] it's a complicated one. Uh I think the
biggest issue is that they're very hard
[2:27:33] to catch because they go down there and
you see them and you call the RCMP and
[2:27:36] by the time they get there, these guys
have packed up and gone somewhere else
[2:27:39] to do it. So, um, yeah, just anything we
can do to mitigate that. I think there's
[2:27:45] a a fairly supportive group of residents
in Salmon Arm that would be in favor of
[2:27:50] banning fireworks that are just random
like that. I think they're dangerous.
[2:27:54] They're disruptive to um, pets and um,
animals. And anyway, it's just a huge
[2:28:00] fire hazard and a nuisance and I don't
think they should be allowed to do it.
[2:28:04] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren.
>> No other uh, items.
[2:28:07] » Okay. Um
there is one other item that requires
[2:28:12] our it's around the Terry Fox run. Um if
someone could bring that one up. They're
[2:28:18] asking to be able to Oh, Council Cannon
probably knows. Councelor Cannon, go
[2:28:22] ahead.
>> Okay. So, they are looking
[2:28:28] » it's 4.1.2.
>> Yeah, I got it.
[2:28:31] » We've rented the gazebo at Blackburn
Park for September. Proudly hosted.
[2:28:36] While reviewing the rental agreement, I
noticed that amplification is not
[2:28:39] permitted and that access to power on
site is restricted. I am writing the
[2:28:44] request special permission for the Terry
Foxorn to use available power and
[2:28:50] limited amplification
during the event. So,
[2:28:56] um I guess I would ask
our director
[2:29:04] of public works if this is something
that we could do. I guess I think it's
[2:29:09] through Shaw Recreation Society. They
manage that. Correct.
[2:29:14] » Mr. Dro, can you comment?
>> Yep. Thank you, your worship. Uh yeah,
[2:29:19] the gazebo can be booked through the
Shrop Recreation Society. Um the
[2:29:22] amplification uh goes against the parks
and open space bylaw where they just
[2:29:26] need council approval to have
amplification. Otherwise the event no
[2:29:30] concerns you can move.
>> So I'll make a motion uh that
[2:29:36] if council would accept them being able
to have amplification.
[2:29:41] » Thank you. Seconded by councelor Wallace
Richmond. Do you wish to speak to that
[2:29:46] motion? Councelor Cannon.
>> Nope. Just want to thank our city
[2:29:50] manager for working with us.
>> Okay. Thank you. And that uh Terry Fox
[2:29:55] run September 20th for those interested.
I will call the question and all those
[2:29:59] in favor.
[2:30:03] That passes unanimously. Thank you.
Councilors, uh councelor Canada, do you
[2:30:09] have any others that you want to talk
to?
[2:30:11] » No.
>> No. Okay. Then councelor Lingren, then
[2:30:13] councelor Wallace Richmond.
>> Uh thanks worship. I wasn't going to
[2:30:17] bring this one up, but number six, I
think I just want to comment on.
[2:30:21] » Sure. Go ahead and make your comment.
>> I don't [clears throat] know who this um
[2:30:25] writer is or what neighborhood they live
in. Um but it seems that they are
[2:30:31] requesting that the city
um institute or build or I'm not sure
[2:30:37] exactly how they would do this, but the
estab they want us to establish
[2:30:40] neighborhood level fence dog runs. And I
just want to comment on how unrealistic
[2:30:44] that would be. First of all, the city
doesn't own land in every neighborhood.
[2:30:48] Uh second of all, the cost of either
buying land, turning it into dog parks,
[2:30:54] maintaining it, running water, um all
the things that would have to happen for
[2:30:58] a dog park is completely off the charts,
unrealistic.
[2:31:02] Um there is a ton of places in the air
in all of our city, all over the city,
[2:31:08] where you can walk your dog on leash and
off leash, including one designated dog
[2:31:13] park. And while I support her idea that
more dog parks are uh uh
[2:31:20] favorable, like we need more of them, um
having a neighborhood level fence dog
[2:31:26] run in every neighborhood is just never
going to happen. Um, so I
[2:31:32] [clears throat] I I also need to comment
again that uh um Blackburn Field,
[2:31:38] Blackburn Park is not a dog park. And I
know the whole community thinks that it
[2:31:44] is and I'm going to keep saying this
until I'm done in October. [laughter] It
[2:31:48] the fairgrounds is not a dog park. The
fairgrounds is a place that the board
[2:31:53] allows people to take their dogs because
it's a lot of the time unused for other
[2:31:58] things. Um, but it is not a designated
dog park. It is not run by the city. Um,
[2:32:03] yeah, we got to stop calling it that.
So, we're lucky to have that extra
[2:32:08] space. Khani is the only dog park that
I'm aware of. Um, and do we need another
[2:32:13] one, a bigger one with some trails and
trees? Yes, of course we do. And, you
[2:32:18] know, just tonight we were or just today
we were even just talking about that.
[2:32:22] Um, but yeah, this is a completely
unrealistic ask and I don't know if
[2:32:27] staff can
>> [laughter]
[2:32:29] » tell her that in a much more measured
way than I would be able to. Um but
[2:32:34] yeah, I think that that is off the
table.
[2:32:37] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Councelor
Wallace Richmond.
[2:32:40] » Yeah. On um item 14.1.7
regarding improvements to the boat
[2:32:45] launch.
>> Yes.
[2:32:47] Um,
[2:32:50] [clears throat]
can we confirm that those kind of uh
[2:32:57] improvements in water would not be our
decision to make and in fact dredging
[2:33:03] isn't really allowed anymore.
>> Um, CAO, I know there's three requests
[2:33:09] there. Concrete ramp extensions,
dredging, launch basins, lowwater market
[2:33:13] signage. We could ask staff to get back
to us on on that information or would
[2:33:17] you like to try to? [laughter]
>> No, I'm happy for staff to get back to
[2:33:22] us. [clears throat] I guess if I could
add one question and also if if we
[2:33:25] dredged, wouldn't it just fill up with
silt all over again? So, I know this is
[2:33:30] a a problem all over the Shushwap and um
other boat launches have had to close.
[2:33:36] So um it would be good to have clarity
around this answer without making any uh
[2:33:43] suggesting in what a way am I prepared
to move ahead on this. I just think we
[2:33:48] as a community we need to understand
what the regulations around that kind of
[2:33:51] work is. Would you like to craft a
motion to staff walls Richmond or uh
[2:33:58] that council uh refer this letter to
staff to get clarification around our
[2:34:05] jurisdiction in terms of uh boat rent
boat launch improvements and um dredging
[2:34:14] and building in the lake.
>> Okay. Thank you. Second to that motion.
[2:34:18] Councelor Cannon. Thank you. You wish to
speak to your motion? Uh, no. I already
[2:34:22] did. Thank you.
>> Okay. Are there other speakers to the
[2:34:25] motion?
Okay. I I appreciate the motion. The one
[2:34:30] piece of the motion that I think I'll be
especially interested in is the concrete
[2:34:35] ramp extensions
because that could be if we can if we're
[2:34:42] permitted to do it um could be a way to
extend the use of the boat launch at uh
[2:34:51] Marine Park because I know that's one of
the problems. So, look forward to
[2:34:55] hearing back from staff on that.
Any other comments on the motion? Uh,
[2:35:00] councelor Lingren. Yes.
>> Yes. Uh, I just find it ironic that this
[2:35:05] uh request or this letter came up on the
same day that we're talking about
[2:35:08] climate change and a climate resiliency
plan because part of the reason that the
[2:35:14] lake is lower every year is due to
climate change. We're in drought
[2:35:18] conditions and they're getting worse all
the time. and the idea that we have to
[2:35:21] do anything um to make it easier for
people to take their fossil fuel burning
[2:35:27] toys out on the lake uh while that's
happening. It seems a bit tonedeaf. So,
[2:35:33] I I wouldn't be in favor of extending
them uh the the boat launches. I think
[2:35:38] that we need to be more cognizant of the
effect that we're having when we do
[2:35:42] these types of activities.
>> Thank you, Councelor Lingren. Is there
[2:35:46] any other speakers to the motion?
I will call a question on the motion.
[2:35:50] All those in favor?
Any opposed?
[2:35:55] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.
Um, any other items? Councelor Wallace
[2:35:59] Richmond, please go ahead.
>> On the 14.1.10
[2:36:06] is both a compliment on the soontobe
complete roundabout, but also a concern
[2:36:11] around use of staff time. I think it's
important that the letter writer
[2:36:17] understand that these were contracts
agreed to without overages and it's
[2:36:23] really um important that we recognize um
that a biz was bid was placed and
[2:36:29] accepted and how they manage their staff
is purely a private matter for them to
[2:36:35] deal with. So I don't think any comment
in this case would be appropriate.
[2:36:40] Thank you, Councelor Walter. And we we
will let um Miss Vander Clark know um th
[2:36:47] those uh those facts. Appreciate her
input because this is an opportunity to
[2:36:51] to uh educate. Right. So, thank you very
much for that. Is there any other um
[2:36:57] pieces of information that uh council
may wish to bring up at this time?
[2:37:03] Councelor Lavy, please go ahead.
>> Yeah, thanks for worship. Uh so 14.1.3
[2:37:10] um I think we'll be doing social media.
We have done social media stuff but a
[2:37:14] note to everybody there's a candidate
information session if you're thinking
[2:37:18] of running for local government. It's
this coming Wednesday two days from now
[2:37:22] 5:00 pm council chambers and there's a
way of attending virtually. Thank you.
[2:37:27] » Thank you very much councelor Labry.
Thank you for uh for your advocacy of
[2:37:33] towards people learning all about it.
Okay, I see no other uh um
[2:37:40] interest in any of the other items
there. So, we'll go to council
[2:37:44] statements. Does any counselor have a
statement they would like to make?
[2:37:48] Councelor Cannon, please go ahead.
>> I'm just going to get to my statement.
[2:37:53] Okay. Um,
I received a letter a few days ago from
[2:37:59] the vice president of the tennis salmon
arm tennis club and she was just
[2:38:05] thanking on behalf of the Salmon Arm
tennis club
[2:38:10] uh of the 55 plus legacy funds that we
gave the tennis club for to upgrade
[2:38:18] their uh outdoor Wi-Fi system in the
facility. So, she was they were very
[2:38:25] appreciative and it is all done. So, she
just sent a thank you letter on behalf
[2:38:30] of the tennis club. So, I just wanted to
pass that along.
[2:38:35] » Thank you, councelor Cannon. And you've
probably seen they've been pouring the
[2:38:38] uh foundation for the lights.
>> I know at the synthetic field, which is
[2:38:44] also part of that legacy.
>> Yeah, the legacy funds paying for a
[2:38:48] portion of the lighting in the synthetic
field. So, it was pretty exciting that
[2:38:52] the the cement is poured and it's
hopefully soon we'll have spent all our
[2:38:58] money cuz it's sitting there. So,
exciting times.
[2:39:02] » Thank you, councelor Cannon. Councelor
Lingren,
[2:39:04] » thanks worship. [snorts] I just wanted
to say thank you to councelor Lavy for
[2:39:08] um not being able to attend his sir
meeting last Friday because that meant I
[2:39:13] got to go and it was really interesting
the sterile insect re release. I I know
[2:39:18] I always ask questions about this and
why is this important and how does this
[2:39:21] work uh at budget time? I think probably
most of the last seven years I've asked
[2:39:26] that question and now I understand a lot
better how it works and uh why it's
[2:39:31] important and it's an amazing um uh
venture that they've got going there
[2:39:36] with like 60some staff and it's it's
really incredible what they're doing and
[2:39:41] it's a cutting edge technology. So, it
was really exciting to be there and uh a
[2:39:46] lot of the information was over my head,
but if I get to go again in the next
[2:39:49] couple months, uh I'll probably
understand more of it. So, thanks.
[2:39:53] » Thank you, Councelor Lingren. I know you
have the same enthusiasm that councelor
[2:39:58] Flynn and councelor Lavy have for that
uh sir. So, there you go. We'll have to
[2:40:03] get more people to visit those meetings.
So, thank you for attending. Councelor
[2:40:07] Wallace Richmond.
>> Yeah, just a word about UBCM quickly on
[2:40:12] its way. held in Vancouver 13 to the
18th. Um
[2:40:18] while my term on the UBCM board is
coming to a close, uh I did want to
[2:40:25] remind council and the community at
large that the resolution book is out.
[2:40:29] Uh so um it's time to get your homework
done. Take a look, see um where that
[2:40:37] sits with you and um looking forward to
a resolution session at UBCM which will
[2:40:43] be a little bit different this year
because it only deals with matters
[2:40:47] related to the province at large, not
specific regions which will then fall to
[2:40:52] our area associations like Silka. So
looking forward to it.
[2:40:56] » Great. Thank you very much for that. And
we're expecting to hear um from the
[2:41:00] ministries shortly now about any
meetings that we might uh um have been
[2:41:06] able to arrange. So our corporate
officer will be keeping us um informed
[2:41:10] of that. Thank you for your work with
UBCM Council Wallace Richmond.
[2:41:16] I'll just uh let you know and I think
most of you were aware not all were able
[2:41:20] to attend uh our visit with uh um our
sister city friends from Inishki. um
[2:41:26] council walls and I were here uh in the
council chamber last Tuesday
[2:41:33] um when they
uh sister city representatives were here
[2:41:38] and as most of you know part of that is
that each of the students and there's
[2:41:42] eight of them this year much smaller
group had their opportunity to come and
[2:41:46] speak to us uh in English on um without
uh any translation and they were
[2:41:53] amazing. I think I think the best I've
seen. They were so well practiced and uh
[2:42:00] they were seated. It was quite it was
quite an a warm morning because they
[2:42:03] were seated with their uh with their um
homeay uh student um and some of the
[2:42:10] families were here as well and you could
just sort of see them just getting to
[2:42:13] know each other and cheering each other
on. I know they had uh three really good
[2:42:17] days camping out at Harold Park. Um, as
you know, we we certainly uh um scaled
[2:42:22] back the numbers and the activities. So,
instead of a house boat, it was a tenth.
[2:42:26] Um, but it was very Canadian and I heard
it went very well. um had opportunity to
[2:42:32] meet uh with the mayor and with the
consulate uh general from uh um from
[2:42:37] Vancouver and uh you know the goodwill
that that um that brings about um which
[2:42:45] is was demonstrated by the uh
interpreter who's a Karen de Breeze a
[2:42:51] student who exchanged and I went lived
in Japan and has come back. It's kind of
[2:42:55] the changing the guard where the um the
teacher the new teachers are taking over
[2:42:59] and the younger interpreters. So I see I
see a good uh a good um future for that
[2:43:05] program. Very very enjoyable and uh very
worthwhile.
[2:43:10] Any other um council statements?
Seeing none, um as you know that our
[2:43:16] question period has been suspended
temporarily until after our election. So
[2:43:22] um I will recess this meeting. Thank
you, Councelor Cannon, for chairing the
[2:43:27] evening meeting. As you know, I'm not
able to be there this evening. Thank you
[2:43:30] to all of council for your input today.
We dealt with some very interesting and
[2:43:35] uh challenging issues and I think we did
it very professionally. Thank you and
[2:43:39] respectfully and thank you to staff as
well.
[2:43:47] » This conference will now be recorded
[2:46:52] Could
[2:46:59] we do a sound check, please?
[2:49:43] Can you hear us now, Tim?
>> I I can, Deputy Mayor. Thank you.
[2:49:57] hear any of the opening statements?
>> Um, no, but I I understand the file, so
[2:50:04] I'm
>> comfortable with us moving on. Thank
[2:50:06] you.
>> Okay, so we'll move on to planning to
[2:50:10] finish.
>> Um, yes, thank you. Um while we
[2:50:15] recognize that the improvements are
insignificant uh not insignificant sorry
[2:50:21] uh due to the uh um double frontage um
we would not recommend staff are not
[2:50:27] recommending that council wave the
requirements. Um our alter staff's
[2:50:32] alternative alternative recommendation
however is consistent with motion that
[2:50:36] council passed at the that the committee
passed at the development planning
[2:50:40] services committee meeting.
If council has any questions of of
[2:50:45] staff, we will try to answer them for
you.
[2:50:49] » Okay. And I'll just mentioned that we
did get a late item 22.1.
[2:50:56] Does everyone have a copy of that? I
think it came in an email
[2:51:01] » from the engineer.
>> From the engineer.
[2:51:03] » Oh. [clears throat]
Oh, yes.
[2:51:07] Okay.
[2:51:16] Does any counselors have any?
[2:51:22] We don't have anyone here or online that
would like to speak.
[2:51:31] So I'll call the first time. Would
anyone like to speak on this matter?
[2:51:38] Calling a second time for submissions
from the gallery or online.
[2:51:48] Calling a third and final time.
[2:51:54] Seeing and hearing.
No one wants to speak. So we will close
[2:52:01] this hearing.
[2:52:06] And now we'll move on to
the variance that's in front of us.
[2:52:18] Councelor
Wallace Richmond,
[2:52:22] » what do I [clears throat] have to do to
get your light to go on? Just
[2:52:27] » um thanks your worship. Um
and through you uh
[2:52:34] did we want to move the original motion
or the alternative?
[2:52:41] » I would ask our CEO.
>> My recommendation your worship is to
[2:52:47] move the motion um as indicated in the
staff report and then um make an
[2:52:52] amendment similar to what you did at um
the planning meeting.
[2:52:56] » Okay. So then uh in that case I worship
I would move uh the original motion
[2:53:04] » the original motion or the staff
recommendation.
[2:53:06] » We move the original motion
and if it's seconded I might uh make an
[2:53:13] amendment.
>> The original motion just for
[2:53:16] clarification is the staff recommended
motion. Oh in the report and then you
[2:53:20] would do an amendment.
>> Just wanting to make make sure that's
[2:53:24] was your intent.
Um
[2:53:30] yeah well my intent is
[2:53:36] well my interest here is to understand
how we would go about um
[2:53:44] advocating for uh the alternative motion
or the alternative suggested in the
[2:53:50] report. the one that we uh discussed at
development of planning.
[2:53:57] » Thank you, your worship. I would still
recommend going with the the motion that
[2:54:02] was requested by the applicant and then
modifying it to what you want. Okay.
[2:54:07] » Which is is how you um navigated that at
the planning meeting.
[2:54:11] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[2:54:13] » All right. So then we'll move the
original motion.
[2:54:16] » So councelor Wallace Richmond moves.
Councelor Lingren seconds
[2:54:24] » and then
>> I'm just trying to get it on the floor.
[2:54:27] » Yeah.
>> Um
[2:54:30] » so what I would say then speaking to the
motion is understand the challenges with
[2:54:35] double fronted properties um and the
fact that this property is uh slightly
[2:54:41] over what would qualify as infill.
However, um I'm I'm interested in waving
[2:54:50] that the sidewalk on 52nd, which was uh
the amendment we made um at planning.
[2:54:57] So, would now be a good time to make
that amendment?
[2:55:00] » So, it's waving the the sidewalk
uh but not the the shoulder widening.
[2:55:08] Correct.
[2:55:13] » Oh, okay.
Sorry, the the motion that was passed at
[2:55:20] um committee
>> is essentially item one only on the
[2:55:26] » So,
>> oh, sorry. Curb and gutter. My my
[2:55:28] apologies. Curb and gutter. Sorry. Yeah.
To remove item one
[2:55:33] » would be my amendment
>> to see if
[2:55:37] » to leave that one in and remove the
other four. So that would be the only
[2:55:41] » only wave curve and gutter. Yes. Okay.
Thank you.
[2:55:45] » Of number one.
>> Yeah.
[2:55:47] » And two, three, four, five stay in the
motion. Correct.
[2:55:52] » No, those those would not be waved.
[2:55:58] » Okay. Sorry for the confusion. To
clarify my motion, the amendment I would
[2:56:03] make is that we only wave curb and
gutter on 52nd,
[2:56:08] which would eliminate 2, three, four,
and five from the motion on the table at
[2:56:12] this time.
>> Okay.
[2:56:15] » And we have uh councelor Lind, do you
second that?
[2:56:19] » Okay.
>> Okay. And so again, uh the logic being
[2:56:24] for the amendment is while I understand
the challenge of double fronted
[2:56:29] property, um
there could be a maximum of four units
[2:56:35] of four um four
lots with four units each at 16 lots. Um
[2:56:44] typically you wouldn't get 16 lots on a
single fronted property. Um, so I feel
[2:56:49] like it is reasonable if um 52nd Street
Northeast doesn't have any sidewalks, it
[2:56:56] might need some ditching. So uh at at
one point so and my assumption is and
[2:57:03] through you maybe I can check with staff
is that we would have a we have a right
[2:57:08] of way to do that already. Do we not? Or
do we have to get it if we need if and
[2:57:13] when we need to ditch 50 seconds.
>> Okay, chair. I believe that there are
[2:57:18] some small road widening requirements,
but those were not asked to be waved.
[2:57:22] » Okay. All right.
>> They're they're they're small in nature,
[2:57:24] but they're they're not subject to the
variance request.
[2:57:27] » Okay. Perfect. So, as long as doing this
uh agreeing to this being waved wouldn't
[2:57:33] restrict the ability to ditch at a
future point in time based on that canoe
[2:57:38] overflow water plan. So, okay.
>> So, that would be my motion to amend.
[2:57:46] Okay.
>> And my rationale for it.
[2:57:50] » And would you like to speak to the
motion that's been amended? Councelor
[2:57:54] Linger.
>> Sure.
[2:57:58] » Thanks, uh, your acting worship. Um,
just wanted to clarify this lot has been
[2:58:05] proposed to be divided into four lots,
not 16, but could have 16 units. So
[2:58:09] there could be four um single family
homes each having a suite and an ADU
[2:58:16] with a suite or something along those
lines. So that does um push them up to a
[2:58:20] pretty high standard I think. And I'm
fully in support of waving the curb and
[2:58:24] gutter on 52nd for the rationale given
by staff um but none of the others. So I
[2:58:29] support the amendment.
Okay.
[2:58:34] » Any other speakers?
[2:58:39] Seeing none, I'm going to call the
motion as amended.
[2:58:45] » The amendment of the motion first.
>> Yeah. Vote on the amendment.
[2:58:49] » All in favor of the amendment.
That passes unanimously.
[2:58:54] Now we will vote on the motion as
amended.
[2:59:00] All in favor? Oh, just that councelor
Labry.
[2:59:04] » Uh, yes. Thanks. I I I'm in support of
the motion as amended. I just wanted uh
[2:59:09] especially for the applicants to note
that while I was not at planning, I
[2:59:13] reviewed the documents, reviewed the
recording and know uh know the property.
[2:59:19] So I will support what's in front of us.
Thank you.
[2:59:22] » Thank you councelor Lavy.
So we will call the the question on the
[2:59:28] motion as amended. All in favor?
That passes unanimously.
[2:59:37] Okay,
moving on to
[2:59:42] we don't have anything else on the
agenda and our question and answer
[2:59:47] period has been suspended temporarily.
So we are adjourned.
[2:59:54] Thank you.