[0:06] Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

[0:09] I'd like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on

[0:11] the traditional ancestral territory of the Selix Okanagan people. This

[0:15] meeting is open to the public and all representation to

[0:19] council foreign part of a public record and a live

[0:21] audio video feed is being broadcasted and recorded on colonna.

[0:25] ca. Council, I am looking for a mover in a

[0:28] secondary from the minutes from our June 1st, 2026 meeting,

[0:32] moved by Councillor Hodge, seconded by Councillor Singh. Any errors

[0:36] and emissions in those minute meetings. Seeing none all in

[0:39] favor, thank you, Citi Clerk, please. Thank you, your worship.

[0:43] Item 3. 1 on the agenda is Council Reconsideration for

[0:47] Refusal of a Business License located at 9 - 11

[0:50] Bernard Avenue. Before I go to business license staff, I

[0:54] will go to councillors to heart and lovegrove for some

[0:58] statements. Thank you, worship. I just wanted to make it

[1:02] clear that I have excused myself from this item before

[1:06] because of short - term rental. But this is a

[1:09] business license, and I have voted on that before. So

[1:13] business license different than short - term rental, so I

[1:16] will be staying for this item. Thank you, councillor. In

[1:19] your show. Thank you, your worship exactly the same case

[1:23] in my case. This is not a short - term

[1:25] rental. I'll be staying in the room, thank you. Thank

[1:27] you. Thank you. Pardon me, thank you. Worship with that.

[1:34] We will turn it to staff for a presentation. Good

[1:38] afternoon. Good afternoon, your worship. We are here today to

[1:43] hear a request for a reconsideration of the refusal to

[1:47] grant business license application number 4099899 for an accommodation services

[1:53] major business license for an apartment at 9 - 11

[1:57] Bernard. Under the community charter, staff has the authority to

[2:04] grant refuse suspend or cancel a business license. In 2022,

[2:12] it was identified that the property was divided into seven

[2:15] separate living units, each with its own kitchen, and there

[2:18] are no building permit records on file for those units

[2:21] or kitchens. The business license application was refused as insufficient

[2:25] information has been provided to the city that the existing

[2:29] use or proposed use of the property complies with the

[2:31] applicable zoning and building requirements for apartment housing. Additionally, the

[2:36] property has not been demonstrated to meet BC building code,

[2:40] requirements for apartment housing, and additional review permitting and inspections

[2:45] may be required. In accordance with the business license and

[2:51] regulation bylaw, compliance with all applicable bylaws, policies and enactments

[2:56] would be a condition of the business license. Additionally, the

[2:59] bylaw authorizes the license inspector to refuse to issue a

[3:02] business license where the applicant does not comply with the

[3:05] bylaw license conditions or where the applicant intends to operate

[3:10] a business in a premises or building that does not

[3:12] comply with city bylaws or other enactments of provincial, federal,

[3:17] or other governmental authorities. There is a documented history of

[3:23] noncompliance with zoning, building, and business licensing requirements at the

[3:27] subject property. Before a business license may be issued, the

[3:31] property must comply with all applicable city bylaws and government

[3:34] regulations. This includes those governing zoning and building requirements related

[3:39] to the proposed business use. Despite ongoing efforts by staff

[3:43] to clearly identify the compliance issues and outline possible paths

[3:46] forward, the property owner has not provided evidence that they

[3:49] have taken steps to bring the property into compliance and

[3:53] continue to operate a short - term rental business without

[3:55] a business license, contrary to city bylaws. Also of note,

[4:00] an accommodation services major apartment business license is intended for

[4:04] a long - term rental use in a multi -

[4:07] unit rental building and is not the appropriate license type

[4:10] for the current short - term rental accommodation use operating

[4:12] on the property. In conclusion, staff recommend that council uphold

[4:18] the decision of the license inspector to refuse to grant

[4:21] the accommodation services major business license for an apartment on

[4:24] the subject property. As insufficient information has been provided to

[4:28] confirm the existing or proposed use of the property complies

[4:31] with zoning and building requirements for apartment housing. And the

[4:35] property has not been demonstrated to meet BC building code

[4:38] requirements for apartment housing, and additional review permitting and or

[4:41] inspections may be required. And that concludes my comments. Thank

[4:45] you. Thank you. You worship the applicant or the applicant's

[4:50] agent now has the opportunity to address counsel. You have

[4:53] up to 15 minutes to speak, and I ask that

[4:56] you pleads begin by stating your name and address, and

[4:59] you can come up to the public podium here on

[5:02] your right.

[5:18] Thank you, sir. Just one moment if I may, please,

[5:21] we're just going to make certain your mics on and

[5:23] also make certain that this is a full screen. We

[5:25] just have, if we can. Uh, staff are going to

[5:27] help you with that. A bit. Bigger.

[5:43] With. The uptip. Okay. Thank you.

[5:59] Thank you. Please proceed. You worship members, a council and

[6:04] city clerk. Thank you. My name is Denice. Actually held

[6:09] a brand. I am the owner of 911 Bernard Avenue.

[6:14] I am the applicant. On business license number 4099899. Accommodation

[6:23] services. Major apartment. A stabbed copy. Of a formal legal

[6:31] demand notice was hand delivered to the business licensing department

[6:35] and to the divisional director Ryan Smith this morning. I

[6:39] am now reading into the public record to provide final

[6:43] statutory notice before exhausting my immunoscipal remedies. I just want

[6:52] to note that the slides that are most relevant to

[6:56] my three - minute, hopefully, uh, oral submissions are the

[7:01] 18th slide. Which. Would be. Over.

[7:21] I can't seem to get past 16. But I guess

[7:24] I won't have to worry about that. That notice is

[7:29] addressed to Sarah Cowker business licensing manager as the officer

[7:33] whose ministerial duty to issue this license is directly engaged.

[7:37] To Ryan Smith as the divisional director who appointed the

[7:40] denial and to this council as the governing body. This

[7:46] council is the final administrative step under section 60 subsection

[7:51] five of the community charter. After this vote, there is

[7:54] no further administrative remedy. And there's three points I need

[8:01] counsel to here. Point one. This council has already voted

[8:08] yes to this use. Twice. On December 8, 2025, this

[8:16] council adopted by a law number 12848 rezoning this property

[8:21] to TS1. Section 13. 3 of that bylawless apartment housing

[8:29] as a permitted principal use at this property. No footnote,

[8:36] no subzone, no conditions. The province approved it. January 23rd,

[8:42] 2026. And I applied 18 days later. Before

[8:52] that. On July 22nd, 2024. City staff committed before this

[9:00] council to work in with me toward apartment housing compliance.

[9:05] This council voted unanimously on the basis of that commitment.

[9:12] This council is not being asked to make a new

[9:15] decision today. It is being asked to implement the decision

[9:19] it has already made. Point number two. This is the

[9:27] root, the city asked me to take. On July 18,

[9:33] 20, 23 Dean Straken, MCIP RPP signed a city of

[9:42] Kelowna compliance agreement stating. And I'll quote. The city recognises

[9:48] the seven apartment units on the subject property as legally

[9:53] non - conforming. And. The owner is to apply for

[9:58] a business license for a seven unit apartment building on

[10:02] the subject property." End quote. I did exactly what the

[10:09] city directored. I applied. The city collected the fee. Sarah

[10:16] Crocker, denied it. In certified proceedings before this council on

[10:24] July 22nd. 2024, Dean Stracken stated on the record, and

[10:32] I'll quote. Those kitchens have been reviewed. They have been

[10:39] deemed to be safe. It was offered to the applicant

[10:44] to have it converted to the seven unit apartment building.

[10:49] And we've accepted that as a reasonable sort of alternative.

[10:57] The city directed this path. The city, accepted this outcome.

[11:05] I followed their direction that denial has no lawful basis.

[11:16] Point three. This property is fully compliant right now. On

[11:23] July 14, 2025, city fire inspector candidance freezing classified this

[11:30] property as residential apartment units. Class C Apartment buildings.

[11:44] With every safety item. The denial signed by Sarah

[11:54] Crocker identifies no safety deficiency. No building code violation.

[12:04] No inspection finding. No law for ground for refusing by

[12:11] right use. The property does not need to become compliant.

[12:17] It already is. Closing. Section 60 para section subsection.

[12:26] One clause A of the community charter states a business

[12:30] license application must not be unreasonably. Refused. Refusing a by

[12:40] - right use with no lawful ground identified is unreasonable

[12:45] by definition. If this council upholds the denial today, the

[12:51] section 60 subsection 5 remedy is fully exhausted. I will

[12:55] have to file a petition for a writ of mendingus

[12:59] in BC Supreme Court without further noticed the city. I

[13:03] ask this council to do what it has already voted

[13:06] to do. Grant business license application number 4099899. Thank you,

[13:13] your worship. If there's no questions and I'm just going

[13:16] to go home. Thank you. Worship. This would be the

[13:22] opportunity for a council to ask questions of staff followed

[13:26] by questions of the applicant. Council, if we can, I'm

[13:29] going to ask of staff first. Is there any questions

[13:32] of staff? Councillor Stack, please. Thank you, worship. Uh, I

[13:36] would like staff just to respond to the applicants mentioning

[13:41] that there's no legal reason. That he should not be

[13:44] receiving this because he has completely compliant. And I would

[13:49] like to hear staff respond to that. It is of

[13:54] the opinion of staff that the property is not compliant.

[13:58] There was seven units and kitchens added. There was no

[14:02] permits on file for those kitchens. Um, the use of

[14:06] the property is currently for short - term rental, which

[14:08] is not a permitted principal use in the zone. It

[14:11] is not the opinion of staff that the property is

[14:13] compliant. Councillor Singh, please. Thank you, Worshiped. I also heard

[14:21] staff say it's not compliant with the BC building code.

[14:25] And I also heard the applicants say, no, there are

[14:30] no BC building code violations. So, um, what is he

[14:35] quoting and what is he using to substantiate his argument.

[14:42] I can't speak directly to that. Um, what I can

[14:45] say is that the property was found to have additional

[14:47] kitchens in it. There is no permit record for converting

[14:51] what was a rooming boarding and lodging home into an

[14:55] apartment building. So the staff does not have records on

[14:57] file that show that the property is compliant with BC

[15:01] building code. And staff have not been inside the property

[15:03] to conduct and appropriate inspection to determine what code requirements

[15:07] are actually necessary. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Mr.

[15:12] Smith, please. I believe what the applicant was referring to

[15:20] was the, um, records of fire inspection. So when the

[15:24] fire department, um, inspects a property like this, they will

[15:29] go in and they've got, they're not inspecting against BC

[15:32] building code. They're inspecting against fire code. So that's a

[15:35] totally separate classification. And so even in their system, um,

[15:40] the subset of boarding house, which this property, um, would

[15:43] have been considered would probably fall under the apartment housing.

[15:47] Um, sort of subset there. So we haven't, it hasn't

[15:51] been permitted that way. It's just, um, how it fits

[15:54] into, um, inspection records. And again, their inspection is not

[15:58] doing a BC building code inspection. It is only doing

[16:02] a fire code inspection. So the, the use going into

[16:06] this property, I could describe it a little bit, uh,

[16:10] when we permitted, uh, connog and spirits and burned avenue.

[16:14] Brewery, distillery was a permitted use is a permitted use

[16:17] in that downtown commercial zone. But for them to occupy

[16:20] that space, they needed a building permit to comply with

[16:23] BC building code to ensure that space was safe. And

[16:27] in the process of that, um, they couldn't actually make

[16:30] the space compliant with BC building code for that type

[16:33] of use. So they had to alter what they actually

[16:35] were doing in the distillery. Um, in order to fit

[16:38] the distillery business and their operations, um, into the building

[16:42] code classification. So, um, probably that's a high hazard building

[16:47] code use, um, would be over and above this, um,

[16:50] similar situation where all staff are trying to do in

[16:53] this, in this instance isn't sure that, uh, the use

[16:56] intended, um, fits with BC building code. Thank you, Councillor

[17:01] Wolwood, please. Thanks for worship and thanks Mr. Smith for

[17:05] that. Sorry, my back is to you. Um, just so

[17:07] I'm understanding this. And I do have a question for

[17:08] the applicant as well. Um, so the, the applicant did

[17:11] read out a number of statements from a former staff

[17:14] member in regards to kitchens being compliant and legal nonconforming.

[17:19] Is that relating to the fire code then? I'm just

[17:21] trying to like follow the bouncing ball on this one

[17:24] and what that would have related to. You worship the

[17:27] document contemplated a pathway towards compliance so that conditions associated

[17:33] with that pathway. We're not fulfilled. And the city never

[17:36] confirmed acceptance of that by the applicant. And so if

[17:40] the applicant had said, I would like to pursue that

[17:43] as part of, um, the associated processes, they would have

[17:46] needed to get their business license. They would have needed

[17:48] to make a building permit application and still deal with

[17:52] the same issues that we're talking about today. But we'd

[17:54] recommend it at that time, but that was the pathway

[17:57] towards compliance that we could take. And again, staff remain

[18:01] open to working towards that pathway. Um, and scheduling inspections

[18:05] if the propertyner would like to schedule inspections. Okay. So

[18:08] just so I'm clear, um, no building permit application was

[18:11] ever made to the city. I'll pass that back to

[18:16] the advice and sing inspector. Okay. There was no, there

[18:19] have been a series of building permits made over the

[18:21] course of years, but there was no building permit made

[18:24] to convert the property from aborting and lodging home to

[18:27] an apartment building. And there are not permits for all

[18:30] of those kitchens that are in that building. So the

[18:32] kitchens are the name point that haven't been properly. And

[18:36] that it's been divided into multiple units. Thank you. So

[18:40] just a question to staff with regards to it. So

[18:43] since the kitchens were built, um, and put in there,

[18:47] but the permit for them. There has been no inspection

[18:49] with regards to how they were built the wiring and

[18:53] all the rest of those particular items. Is that correct?

[19:00] Thank you. Yes, the no inspections on any of the

[19:03] units. Besides the kitchens, there's also additional level of life

[19:07] safety for an apartment building such as fire separations, exits,

[19:11] um, heating and ventilation that has not been inspected for

[19:14] an apartment building. Can I ask one other question with

[19:18] regards to it? And something like that with the building,

[19:19] is there also sprinkling that sprinkle systems that sprinkler systems

[19:22] that have to be done from a fire standpoint? I

[19:24] mean, I understand that the other things we're not inspected.

[19:26] I just, I'm uncertain of that answer. Not all apartment

[19:30] housing small apartment housing requires sprinklers. We'd have to have

[19:32] a further investigation on the full building. We haven't been

[19:35] in the building for a series of time. So we'd

[19:38] have to see what's actually there. And if it requires

[19:40] sprinkling. So that would be one of the things, one

[19:43] of the boxes that you would need to tick in

[19:44] order to kind of come in to compliance. Would that

[19:47] be correct? We'd have to do a full review of

[19:49] the building to see that they have fire separated exit

[19:52] corridors, fire separations between suites, proper ventilation, travel distances, all

[19:58] of the above for BC building rule. And none of

[20:00] this is different than what you would do on another

[20:03] inspection. This is all just processes and protocols that you

[20:06] would go through more or less standard procedures? Yes. Yes.

[20:10] For any apartment building, it would be the same requirements

[20:12] of BC building code. Thank you. Um, council, do we

[20:15] have, I see no further questions of staff. Do we

[20:18] have questions for the applicant. Councillor Cannon, please, for the

[20:22] applicant police, sir, if you could stand back up. Thank

[20:25] you. Thank you for your presentation. Did have a opportunity

[20:29] to tour your facility in your units. Just wanted to

[20:32] clarify why you haven't made an application. To the city

[20:38] as requested. So staff could actually come in and inspect

[20:42] the presence and make sure that everything's safe for your

[20:44] guest. Okay. Just to clarify the question is why didn't

[20:48] I apply to have a safety inspection. Oh, apply for

[20:53] a building permit. Why didn't I have an open building

[20:57] permit for outdoor work? There are several occupancy permits. I

[21:02] have to respectfully disagree with the licensing department because the

[21:06] licensing department is not the building department and there's 21

[21:09] building permits in that list that I emailed you guys

[21:11] or should have. And in that those occupancy permits, they

[21:16] list specifically the locations of the suites listed as a

[21:20] suite. So it's not that I haven't applied. I need

[21:25] to say that the staff says the licensing staff says

[21:29] the life safety, the proper ventilation, the trial distances, those

[21:32] were all check marked by Mrs. Freeze and Candice freezing

[21:37] the check marks, making sure the hallways, the proper checks

[21:41] have been done by fire pro or the people that

[21:43] I've hired to do those things. It's not that those

[21:47] departments have been there. And in 2010, when I first

[21:51] bought the place, there was the fire department. There was

[21:54] the gas. There was the building departments. Nothing has changed

[21:58] since Dean Stratch and said that the city recognises the

[22:02] seven apartments units on the property as legally non -

[22:07] conforming in relation to the city bylaws. And city bylaws

[22:10] include the building. They also include health and safety. And

[22:14] they include parking. You name it city bylaws in relation

[22:18] to all the city bylaws. If I'm in trouble with

[22:20] any aspect of that building, including the variances or whatever,

[22:23] it's going to be a city bylaw. And nothing has

[22:26] happened since this statement. And it's not like the city

[22:30] staff, especially the planning, because the planning isn't in charge

[22:34] of denying my license. This has to do with the

[22:39] building being safe and the licensing department. Licensing department has

[22:43] to have a valid reason for denying it. It can't

[22:46] just be like, we prefer to have a bigger apartment

[22:49] there. Somebody pulls me over for doing 450 zone. Well,

[22:54] the officer could ask why you're doing that speed. Well,

[22:57] I prefer to do 45, but you can't ticket me

[22:59] for doing 45 under the speed limit. Just because I

[23:03] have only seven units in the city would like to

[23:04] have 30 units. Doesn't mean that the planning department vetos,

[23:10] the licensing department says, no, it's not safe. It's all

[23:13] vague. You need to be reasonable. Before you deny a

[23:17] license. And that's why I'm so sure that this is

[23:20] not going to stand in court. I don't want to

[23:21] go there. You guys already put me through this. I

[23:23] just follow directions. I want. Now I finally have the

[23:26] zoning, which just makes it compliant. I had zoning that

[23:30] made it compliant in 2010 when I bought it place.

[23:32] I had apartment housing. I had rooming lodging. Private nursing,

[23:36] which I used to do nursing. And in 2019, I

[23:39] had short - term rental as a secondary use. Not

[23:41] talking about any of that secondary use now. I'm just

[23:43] talking about my apartment housing, which is now zoned TS1

[23:47] with by right use. I couldn't do that. Before February.

[23:53] Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Worch. Thanks to worship. Um,

[23:58] and thanks for being here. Um, you've gone through a

[24:02] few different things. Um, I understand zoning and land use.

[24:04] Um, which council had approved. So understand that the use

[24:09] of this land could be considered, um, but what's that

[24:12] issue here is the form. And so can you tell

[24:14] me when exactly did you have city staff come through

[24:18] to do a building inspection and did it pass. Absolutely.

[24:22] And I just want to repeat that question. So I'm

[24:24] getting it right. So you're asking me is when city

[24:27] staff, when did a building inspector come through and approve

[24:31] the building that it meets BC building code? Absolutely. I

[24:35] can answer that question. That happened the day before the

[24:41] issuance of the rooming lodging business license. That was in

[24:45] about June 18 2010. I missed the schedule. I had

[24:49] to reschedule Debbie from the licensing said, Hey, we need

[24:53] to reschedule that Mr. Hildebrandt will be there half an

[24:55] hour sooner. I came there. I didn't have the keys.

[24:58] So I had all the keys all stopped. I'm not

[25:01] interested in 2010. I'm interested in 2020. I'm reading the

[25:04] laundry list of time here in 2023. When did you

[25:07] bring it to component? Okay, that was the very first

[25:08] time that compliance, the last was on July 25th, 2025

[25:14] when Mrs. Cadden's freezing went in there and looked through

[25:17] the entire building once again. And went through the checklist

[25:20] 100 percent certified for the apartment Cyr. Thank you. Tight.

[25:26] Uh, Councillor Hart, do you have a question? Yes. Thank

[25:30] you. I just want to ask. There are no permits

[25:34] for kitchens. Wrong. Okay, am I wrong? There's tons of

[25:38] them. There's 21 of them. That's the lie that they're

[25:41] telling you. The city, sir. Yes. You want me to

[25:44] do not. I will not put up with that. I'm

[25:46] just telling you they're not being honest. I will not

[25:48] put that tone. You can, you can discuss it with

[25:50] us, but I will not put up with that tone

[25:52] with regards to what you're saying about the city, please.

[25:55] You can deal with your case, but it ends up

[25:56] being not in that tone. Thank you. Do you care

[26:00] to answer the question just directly, but not stating anything

[26:03] with regards to any accusations against city individuals. Yeah, I'll

[26:07] do my best. Okay. Staff have said that all the

[26:16] kitchens you put in, there are no permits for kitchens.

[26:20] That you have put in to all those units. So

[26:23] can you provide a permit. For all those kitchens. Okay.

[26:30] So I just got to repeat that question. And I'm

[26:32] sorry for my tone. I want to fix that up.

[26:35] The question that I heard, uh, councillor was. Do I

[26:42] have permits for the kitchens that are in there. And

[26:46] the answer is yes. And I need to say that

[26:48] I did not put those kitchens in. Those kitchens were

[26:50] inspected. Before I came there. The BC assessment shows apartment

[26:55] housing, rooming house. And seven individual units. It's a multifamily

[27:00] building. It's not a single family building. It's a multifamily

[27:03] building. And yes, I did ask the city clerk to

[27:06] email you guys the 21 permits with about four or

[27:10] five occupancy permits for suites. And those occupancy permits have

[27:15] not been revoked. So those are all there. Thank you.

[27:20] I can definitely provide them too personal if you want

[27:22] and we don't have to make a decision today. Thank

[27:24] you, sir. Appreciate that. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Um,

[27:28] council seeing no further questions. Um, city clerk, if I

[27:34] can, just kind of read through the recommendation one more

[27:36] time to me, please. Thank you, worship. So the staff

[27:41] recommendation is that council upholds the decision of the license

[27:44] inspector to refuse to grant and accommodation services major business

[27:48] license for an apartment on the subject property located at

[27:51] 911 Bernard Ave. Thank you, council. Do I have a

[27:54] mover. Move by Councillor Singh, seconded by Council World? Do

[27:58] we have comments? Comments, councillor sing comments. Thank you, worship.

[28:03] You know, I have visited the site. And this morning

[28:08] drove by, uh, to take another look at it. It

[28:11] is a perfect location for what the applicant is wanting

[28:15] to do. But it's simple. It's not compliant. We just

[28:19] cannot approve something if he doesn't comply with the regulations.

[28:24] It's simple. Um, we would be wrong. If we, um,

[28:31] if we approve this, and he's not playing by the

[28:35] rules. I'm not comfortable that people living there would be

[28:39] in a safe situation. I'm just not comfortable with that.

[28:43] And, um, so because of all this. All I'm asking

[28:49] for is the applicant to comply with the regulations and

[28:53] work with staff to get. The best possible outcome. We're

[28:59] not being unreasonable. I cannot support it at this, uh,

[29:03] thank you, councillor. Councillor Walwich, please. Thanks for worship. Um,

[29:07] a compliance agreement was issued in 2023 with a laundry

[29:10] list of items that could have been completed. And whether

[29:14] permits have been opened or not is irrelevant to me.

[29:18] The zoning allows the use. But the form has not

[29:20] been approved from a life safety perspective. That is my

[29:23] number one concern. And those, those standards are in place

[29:27] for a reason with BC building code. And, um, you

[29:31] know, this has taken an immense amount of staff time.

[29:33] Which by the way, I take exception to implying that

[29:36] our staff are lying. Um, I'm fully prepared to uphold

[29:40] what's before us today. This is a life safety issue.

[29:43] And it's something that we have to take really seriously.

[29:45] The zoning allows it. And if, um, if the applicant

[29:47] wants to come into compliance, three years ago, that was

[29:51] an option. So I'm, I'm steadfast in supporting the recommendation

[29:54] before us. Thank you. Uh, council after that all in

[29:57] favor. Opposed carried. Thank you and to staff. Thank you

[30:03] for the work that you have done on this. We

[30:05] hope that there is a successful pathway found to come

[30:08] into compliance. Um, and, uh, apologies on behalf of any

[30:13] comments that drogatory comments that were made towards you. They

[30:17] are not something that should be said. And they are

[30:19] not correct. So thank you. Thank you, worship. That brings

[30:24] us to item 4. 1 on the agenda. We have

[30:28] initial consideration and first reading for an application to amend

[30:31] the future land use designation and rezone a property on

[30:35] Montenegro drive. And here to present to staff from the

[30:37] development planning department. Good afternoon, Jamie.

[31:04] Good afternoon, your worship. Today council's being asked to give

[31:09] initial consideration to an official community plan and zoning by

[31:14] law amendment. To facilitate a six lot subdivision. The application

[31:20] was submitted to staff on May 20th, 2025. Neighbourhood notification

[31:25] was received on March 25th of this year. No responses

[31:29] were received. Pending consideration today, the application will be forward

[31:33] to public hearing. The subject property is located within the

[31:39] cursioner mountain neighbourhood and is bisected by Montenegro Drive. The

[31:45] proposed OCP and zoning amendments only apply to these two

[31:49] small portions within the northern section off Montenegro drive. While

[31:55] the southern portion will remain its current state. Kirshner Mountain

[32:00] neighbourhood park. Directly at Butts, the Eastern boundary of the

[32:04] southern portion that will once again remain in its current

[32:07] state. Model City Data indicates approximately 363 residential units.

[32:17] Across 268 parcels within 400 metres of the subject property.

[32:23] Suggesting the surrounding area is predominantly comprised of single detached

[32:27] dwellings on individual lots, which is consistent with the proposed

[32:30] development. Here is closer look at the subject property. The

[32:39] building envelopes were graded during the earlier subdivision stages. And

[32:44] the six proposed lots extend the existing pattern of development.

[32:52] The future land use as nation of the subject property.

[32:55] And the majority of the surrounding area is the S

[32:57] res, suburban residential, which is highlighted in yellow. Kirshner mountain

[33:03] neighbourhood park designated us park as shown as dark green.

[33:06] Areas designated as natural areas. Are shown in light green.

[33:12] The proposed OCP amendment seeks to redesnate a portion of

[33:16] natural areas to SRES, suburban residential, to align with a

[33:20] more suitable RU - 1 large lot housing zone. We

[33:26] propose OCP amendment is illustrate here as overlapping the existing

[33:29] natural areas, future land use destination. This remnant area does

[33:34] not meet the city's criteria for park dedication as the

[33:38] parcel is constrained, has limited functionality. And would provide minimal

[33:44] public benefit while introducing ongoing maintenance requirements. As part of

[33:50] the broader subdivision, a more suitable parkland education area will

[33:54] be provided through the transfer lands to the city to

[33:57] support linear parks network and trail connectivity. The current zoning

[34:03] of the subject properties comprise of RU1, large lot housing.

[34:07] MF2 townhouse housing, and P3 parks in open space. The

[34:16] proposed zoning amendment is intend to align the proposed development

[34:19] with the surrounding neighbourhood by maintain the same type of

[34:22] built form and log configuration through the proposed six slot

[34:26] subdivision. DRE1 large slot housing zone permits up to four

[34:31] dwelling units. However, concurrent applications proposed a single family residence

[34:37] on each slot due to cite constraints such as deep

[34:40] slopes and narrow lock configuration. The proposed amendments would facilitate

[34:46] development that would match the surrounding area in terms of

[34:48] height and stories. The OCP and zoning amendment proposals show

[34:55] strong alignment with climate resiliency objectives as the subject property

[34:59] is adjacent to cursioner mountain neighbourhood park. And we'll include

[35:02] an additional park area to be dedicated through the subdivision

[35:05] process. Black mountain elementary school is a tenement by right

[35:09] away. And the site is serviced by the number 14

[35:13] bus, which provides an eight minute trip to Rutland Urban

[35:16] Centre. The proposal amendments support policy 7. 2. 1 ground

[35:23] - oriented housing by facilitating the development of single ground

[35:26] - oriented dwellings located in close proximity to black mountain

[35:30] elementary school and parks. This also aligns with policy 7.

[35:35] 2. 2 hillside house informed by ensuring that future residential

[35:39] development reflects the natural topography and minimizes disturbance to the

[35:45] sensitive rear slopes. As well as policy 7. 2. 3.

[35:51] As it encourages the integration of natural parks with natural

[35:54] areas. Therefore, given the alignment with the OCP policies, staff

[36:03] recommend support for the OCP and zoning amendments. And that

[36:06] concludes my presentation, your worship. Jamie, thank you. Uh, councillor

[36:10] Weber, please. Yes, just to understand, um, the natural area

[36:15] designation that he showed in the slide. It looks like

[36:18] the new houses, as you said, will be built along

[36:21] Montenegro drive, right? And then behind it, there is a

[36:26] section there that's called natural. And it doesn't sound like

[36:28] there's any plan, like that slide there. It doesn't sound

[36:31] like the plan to build on that green strip. Thank

[36:36] you, worship. That is correct. So that will be portion

[36:40] that will be dedicated through the city, and that will

[36:42] remain within the linear trail corridor to connect it. And

[36:46] it will be also retained as a covenant. So there'd

[36:50] still be a fair amount of space between the houses

[36:52] on Montenegro and then whatever houses are above that on

[36:55] the neighbouring streets. There'd still be that, it wouldn't be

[36:58] a park, you said, but it would be a natural

[36:59] area. Thank you, worship. That is correct. It'll remain as

[37:04] a kind of a more natural feature with a linear

[37:07] cord or a trail network. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[37:12] Um, Councillor Cannon, questions? Yeah, just to clarify, this will

[37:15] be coming to a public hearing. So I was wondering,

[37:18] staff, or was there any sort of pro formated based

[37:21] on what the present zoning, how many units would be

[37:23] permitted to the six being proposed? That basically looks like

[37:26] the applicant's down zoning his own property, from correct? I

[37:31] think you worship. Sorry, just to understand, are you asking

[37:35] how many units there'll be proposed through the subdivision? No,

[37:39] potentially with the existing zone. Thank you, Rorschap. So technically

[37:42] within the RU - 1, they will be allowed up

[37:45] to four units. However, the concurrent applications that have been

[37:49] received show only a single family dwelling within each lot

[37:54] due to high constraints of these deep rear slopes and

[37:57] the lock configuration air lock configurations. The OCP would support

[38:02] townhomes. Um, if the applicant wanted to retain the MF2,

[38:10] but currently rewinding to rezone the MF2 to align with

[38:13] the RU - 1. That's what I was referring to

[38:15] how many units could they get into MF2? Oh, sorry.

[38:18] My apologies, your worship. Um, within the MF2, they could

[38:21] get six. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, do I

[38:26] have a mover please move by Councillor Stock, seconded by

[38:29] Councillor to heart. No further comments, all in favor. Carried,

[38:33] thank you. And your worship, are two bylaws associated with

[38:37] this item. So item 4. 2 is to give first

[38:40] reading to the official community plan amending bylaw for the

[38:44] subject property. That is moved by Councillor Cannon, seconded by

[38:47] Councillor D. Hart. That by the number 12, 924, be

[38:50] read a first time. And that the bylaw has been

[38:52] considered in conjunction with the city's financial plan and waste

[38:56] management plan. All in favor. Opposed. Carried, thank you. And

[39:00] item 4. 3 is the corresponding zoning bylaw. This is

[39:03] Teresa owned to the RU - 1 large lot housing

[39:06] zone. That is moved by Councillor Dehart, seconded by Councillor

[39:09] Cannon that bylaw number 12, 925, be read a first

[39:12] time. All in favor. Opposed, Carrie, thank you. Thank you.

[39:17] Your wiship and those will be scheduled to the July

[39:19] 14th public hearing. Thank you. That brings us to item

[39:23] 4. 4. This is initial consideration for a rezoning application

[39:26] on Glenmore Road. Here to present is staff from development

[39:29] planning. Good afternoon, Carson. Hello, your worship. Good afternoon. The

[39:36] purpose of this application is to seek initial consideration. To

[39:40] rezone the subject property from the MF - 1 infill

[39:42] housing zone, to the MF2 townhouse housing zone facilitate a

[39:46] future development. The application was submitted to staff on March

[39:51] 20th of this year. Neighbourhood notification was received May 13th

[39:56] of 2026. With 25 responses received. Today we are seeking

[40:01] initial consideration. This is the subject property located on Glamour

[40:06] Road, as indicated by the red boundary. The neighbourhood provides

[40:10] a mix of infill and townhouse housing zoning and is

[40:13] located in close proximity to the village centre along Kaynor.

[40:20] Here's the subject property without zoning. Using Model City Data,

[40:26] we can determine that there is an estimated population of

[40:30] 1060 peoples. With 689 estimated jobs within a 400 metre

[40:35] buffer. Future land use is core area neighbourhood. Here's a

[40:44] closer look at the property. There's an existing dwelling on

[40:46] site facing Glennmore Road. Glenmore Road is designated as a

[40:50] transit supportive corridor, which supports building heights up to six

[40:53] stories. Vehicle access to site is provided via McTavish Road.

[40:57] And there is a multi - use pathway adjacent. To

[41:00] the southeast of the property. Here's some street perspectives. First

[41:06] is from Glenmore Road. The second provides view from the

[41:09] north side of McTavish Road. Which is currently a dead

[41:12] end. The applicant is proposing to rezone to the MF2

[41:19] zone, which provides a zone for townhouses up to three

[41:22] stories on service urban lots. Which is the same height

[41:25] permitted in the current MF1 zoning. The maximum density is

[41:31] a floor area ratio of 1. 0. A maximum height

[41:35] of three stories. And a maximum site coverage of 55

[41:39] percent. Subject property meets criteria for climate resilience. It is

[41:45] less than a 10 minute walk to retail and restaurants

[41:47] in the Glenmore Village Centre. A five minute walk to

[41:50] park, such as brands Creek Linear Park and Baloo Park.

[41:53] And a 10 minute walk to either Watson Road Elementary,

[41:56] where Dr. Knox Middle School. The proposed rezoning meets several

[42:02] OCP policies for the core area, including policy 5. 3.

[42:06] 1, which supports larger infill projects near Community amenities, such

[42:10] as Parks and Schools. And policy 5. 11. 1, which

[42:15] ensures the diverse mix of low and medium density housing.

[42:19] As well as policy 5. 2. 2, which encourages building

[42:23] heights of up to six stories and query neighbourhoods along

[42:25] transit supportive corridors. Staff recommends support for the proposed rezoning

[42:33] application. As the future land uses coryary neighbourhood, it means

[42:37] several OCP policies. Is located along a transit supportive corridor.

[42:42] And a development permit would follow to consider housing design.

[42:46] That concludes my presentation membership. Thank you. Um, questions. Councillor

[42:50] Stock, please. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Yeah,

[42:54] could you go back to the subject property map with

[42:56] the aerial view of the site, please? This one, thank

[43:02] you. So I see McTavish Road comes to a dead

[43:04] end and then it appears McTavish picks up again. So

[43:08] in this, um, development process, uh, is there a road

[43:13] dedication and a completion of Mctavus Road. You worship. Uh,

[43:17] road design and any road dedications would be attributed at

[43:20] development permit. At this time, nothing, uh, spoken from the

[43:26] engineering department regarding a dedication. The intent would be a

[43:31] hammerhead currently, uh, at the centre of the property, as

[43:35] opposed to just extending the natural flow of the road.

[43:38] Yeah, it'd be addressed that development permit and not at

[43:40] rezoning. Okay. It has a substantial impact on design. So

[43:46] I think it's been held for that. That's what I'm

[43:48] thinking of from a zoning perspective. It's not on typical

[43:51] to consider the road network when we're zoning something. And

[43:54] I'm surprised that there's no discussion regarding the road network.

[43:58] Mr. Smith, please. You worship. As Glenn Moore is a

[44:03] major arterial. We do seek to limit the number of

[44:08] accesses onto those types of roads. And that's why we

[44:12] wouldn't be looking at that, um, through this application. And

[44:15] rather than that. Um, keep the hammerhead situation. Um, like,

[44:20] like, uh, Carson was referring to in his comments. Uh,

[44:24] the generally we try and by policy again, like, take,

[44:27] take the driveways off of those and the access is

[44:30] off and keep them at more major intersections that are

[44:33] lighted. Thank you. One supplemental question then. But if McTavish

[44:37] Road was extended through, would not all the properties have

[44:40] access off McTavish roed. Uh, you were not need to

[44:44] have the access off Glenmore. Yeah. You worship. I mean,

[44:47] it could go to Glenmer. It could go right through.

[44:50] But again, um, that adds traffic in another neighbourhood. And,

[44:54] uh, that's another from our staff perspective. It wasn't something

[44:56] that we thought from a performance perspective was a big

[44:59] enough benefit to justify. Or we would have asked for

[45:01] it. Thank you. Councillor Singh, please questions. Yes. Thank you.

[45:09] Along the same lines, her staff actually, um, you know

[45:14] of McDavish. It's a pretty narrow road to, um, provide

[45:19] access to 22 units or so that are being proposed

[45:24] for the site. How comfortable a staff with the, um.

[45:32] Path, the road network, as Luke said, to this project.

[45:41] Uh, yes, Jership. The number quoted, the 22 is just

[45:44] a part of a conceptual design. And it's not addressed

[45:48] today, but it'd be addressed at development permit. That number

[45:51] could shrink considerably depending on factors, uh, associated to the

[45:54] development permit. Currently, uh, everybody would be directed to access

[45:59] and leave via McTavish Road at this time. Sorry, can

[46:04] you repeat the last line, sorry? Uh, the intent would

[46:08] be accessed via McTavish Road to site. Um, on the

[46:11] Glenmore side, there is a corridor, a trail there. So

[46:15] I assume that wouldn't be the main exit off site.

[46:21] Thank you. Councillor Love Growth, please. Yeah. I was going

[46:25] to say anything because Councillor Stack actually asked my question,

[46:27] but those, those are pretty short cul - de -

[46:29] sacs. Um, so, but I just eyeballing it. So are

[46:33] we talking less than 200 metres? I think so. It's

[46:36] fairly short approximately 200 metres from that. And the alternate,

[46:39] even without the hammer, if you had to back up,

[46:41] but the hammerhead gives me comfort. Um, I was looking

[46:44] for a dedication as well, just like you, but actually

[46:47] looking at it from a little higher distance. I think,

[46:49] I think, uh, I think that'll work. Thank you. And

[46:53] it's staff had mentioned that's a phase which is coming

[46:56] up. So, um, so with that said, do I have

[47:00] a mover of this motion? Please move by Councillor Weber.

[47:03] Second advice councillor. Lovegrove, uh, comments. Councillor Stack, you have

[47:08] comments. Yes, thank you. I appreciate staff's comments on this.

[47:11] However, just from my years on council, I mean, one

[47:15] of the main things we've always tried to do is

[47:17] have road connectivity whenever we could when there's a dead

[47:21] end road with a lot. And then another part of

[47:23] the road that's dead ended. To me, it makes good

[47:26] planning sense to connect those roads. Um, for access for

[47:31] emergency for all the other services why we want our

[47:33] road network connected. So I'm really puzzled on this one.

[47:36] Why there would be no road connection through what looks

[47:39] like already and established road other than perhaps the development

[47:42] team doesn't want to build the road and lose the,

[47:46] we're at the additional cost to extend it. But to

[47:48] me, it seems, I'll be very concerned when it comes

[47:52] to DP, whether I'll support that because it just doesn't

[47:54] seem to make sense to me. I guess I'll need

[47:57] a lot more defence or argument why we should not

[48:00] connect our road system. Thank you, councillor. Seeing no further

[48:04] comments. All in favor. Opposed. Councillor Singh and Councillor Stack

[48:11] opposed. Thank you. Thank you, worship. Item 4. 5 is

[48:19] supplemental report. This follows notice of motion. Pardon me, notice

[48:23] of first reading being given for a site - specific

[48:25] text amending bylaw. And three, rezoning bylaws. Uh, we have

[48:29] not received any correspondence on any of those items. If

[48:33] there is no questions from council, I'll move straight to

[48:35] the bylaw. Council, do we have any questions? Councillor Cannon,

[48:40] questions on one of. I would rather separate the first

[48:42] one out. Thanks. I'm sorry. I'd rather separate the first

[48:44] one. The first. I'm a favor of the two of

[48:48] them. Okay. So, um, city clerk, please, if we could

[48:51] just pull the first one out of the other two.

[48:54] Yep. So Haldane Road will be considered, uh, separately as

[49:00] that is to give first, second, and third readings and

[49:03] to adopt, just to clarification here, uh, the agenda indicates

[49:08] that it's only for first, second, and third readings. There

[49:10] are no conditions on it. So it can actually be

[49:12] given all readings and be adopted today. So council will

[49:15] consider, uh, that item only right now. So this is

[49:18] item 4. 6. 1 haldane road. And this is a

[49:22] text amending bylaw for the I3 heavy industrial zone. And

[49:26] that is moved by Councillor Canon and seconded by councillor

[49:29] dehart that by the number 12, 923 be read a

[49:34] first, second, and third time and be adopted. All in

[49:36] favor, posed, carried. Thank you. Thank you, worship. Um, and

[49:42] then if counsel has no objections, we would consider the

[49:45] items under 4. 7 together. Council, anyone, your worship I

[49:51] was looking at for. Councillor Cannon, which item are you

[49:53] speaking of? Lawson Avenue. Loss. Okay. Okay. So, uh, thank

[49:56] you, council. We will then deal with item 4. 7.

[50:01] 1 on its own. So this is the rezoning application

[50:05] for 727 747, loss in avenue. This is Teresa on

[50:11] the subject property to the TS1R transit supportive corridor rental

[50:14] only zone. Uh, and so this is to give first,

[50:18] second, and third readings to the rezoning bylaw, uh, by

[50:22] the number 12, 915. And I'll need a mover in

[50:25] secondary worship. Moved by council. Well, we're seconded by Councillor

[50:28] Hodge. All in favor. Opposed. Councillor Cannon opposed their Weber

[50:35] opposed also. Thank you. We will deal with, uh, items

[50:39] 4. 7 and two and 4. 7. 3 together then.

[50:44] Uh, so this is to give first, second, and third

[50:47] readings to the rezoning bylaws on Harvey Avenue and on

[50:51] Appaloosa Road. And that is Moved My Councillor Dehart. Second

[50:54] and by Councillor Cannon. That bylaw number is 12, 918

[50:58] and 12, 922. We read a first, second, and third

[51:01] time. All in favor. Opposed, Carried, thank you. Thank you,

[51:05] worship. Uh, that brings us to item 4. 8 on

[51:09] the agenda. This is to amend a bylaw third reading

[51:13] and adopt it before we go to that item. I'll

[51:15] go to Councillor Canon for a statement for this and

[51:18] item 4. 9. Councillor Cannon, please. Thank you, worship. And

[51:21] thanks Madam Klurk. Family have owned property two doors down.

[51:25] So excuse myself the DP application as well as rezoning

[51:29] things. Thank you.

[51:41] Thank you. So, uh, dealing with item 4. 8. This

[51:45] is the, uh, rezoning bylaw for the subject property, uh,

[51:49] on crossroad. And so this is moved by councillor singed

[51:54] by councillor D heart that by then number 12, 617

[51:57] be amended at third reading, uh, by replacing the underlying

[52:01] zone to MF1 in fill housing. And, uh, I'll need

[52:06] a vote on that. Do you have it moved? Yep.

[52:10] Moved by councillors singing by councillor D heart. So this

[52:13] is just to amend the bylat third reading and then

[52:15] we'll deal with adoption. Thank you. All in favor. Opposed.

[52:19] Carried. Thank you. Thank you, worship. And then, uh, moved

[52:21] by councillor singed by councillor dehart. That bylaw number 12,

[52:26] 617 as amended be adopted. All in favor. Opposed carried.

[52:31] Thank you. Thank you. That deals with the bylaw under

[52:34] item 4. 8 and brings us to item 4. 9,

[52:38] where we have consideration for a foreman character development permit

[52:41] for the same property on crossroad. And here to present

[52:44] to staff from development planning. Good afternoon. Thank you, worship.

[52:51] This afternoon we are here for councils consideration of a

[52:53] development permit for the form of character of a town

[52:55] host development. The rezoning and development permanent applications were submitted

[53:00] to the city on March 1st of 2023. The file

[53:03] went for initial consideration on February 5th, 2024. The file

[53:07] received reading considerations on February 26th. And today we are

[53:11] here for the final reading of MF2 Zone and council

[53:14] consideration of a DP. And if approved, the file can

[53:17] move to the billing permit stage. As shown on the

[53:19] development process slide, the application exceeded the average development timeline.

[53:24] This is primarily due to the applicant's preference to proceed

[53:27] without variances, uh, which resulted in several site redesigns, as

[53:31] well as following rezoning the applicant as for more time

[53:34] to secure appropriate financing. The subject property is in close

[53:43] proximity to North Glenmore elementary, Dr. Knox Middle School. Across

[53:47] Glencross Park and the Glenmore Recreation Corridor. Uh, the surrounded

[53:52] area is a mix of MF1 in fill housing. MF2

[53:56] townhouse housing MF3 apartment housing. P2 education and minor institutional

[54:01] and P3 parks in open space. So mix of zones.

[54:05] The hosey knees break down. Uh, indicates that there are

[54:09] the need for three bedroom units. So this bedroom mixed

[54:12] will assist in meeting those targets. Here's a look at

[54:16] the subject property on the corner of crossroad and snow

[54:19] cell road. Uh, they're currently two properties. And they'll be

[54:23] required to be consolidated prior to the issuance of the

[54:25] development permit. Here's some neighbourhood context seeing the existing dwelling

[54:31] on the corner of Snowstone cross as well as an

[54:34] aerial image showing the existing property in this rounded neighbourhood.

[54:38] Uh, the development permit proposes 18 three bedroom units, all

[54:42] three stories. Uh, the units all have two parking stalls

[54:45] as well as three visitor cells, which exceeds the minimum

[54:48] required parking. There are also 10 large trees across the

[54:51] property. Here's a closer look at the, uh, at the,

[54:55] um, site plan showing the four main blocks with main

[54:59] vehicle access off of snow cell street and all units

[55:03] are ground oriented with seven of the units facing the

[55:05] streets. Amendy spaces include private amenity, a private patio is

[55:10] in the second third floor in rooftop as well as

[55:13] common amniedady spaces programmed with green space, uh, into locations

[55:17] at the centre of the site. Here is the, one

[55:21] of the buildings, billing one facing north. As well as

[55:24] facing south, building four years of the one facing crossroad.

[55:29] And then the internal circulation joined the garage doors. Uh,

[55:32] the materials that are used include a mix of white

[55:35] grey and black fibre cement board wood longboard and then

[55:39] concrete finishing. Here's the landscape plan, landscape plans a little

[55:44] bit hard to read. So we circled some of the

[55:46] trees here. Uh, there are eight trees along snowstone cross

[55:50] as well as eight along the north property line, creating

[55:52] privacy and a visual break. And then for along the

[55:56] east property line. And the proposed location will help with

[56:00] screenscape as the streetscape as well as, uh, enhancing privacy

[56:04] and screen of the neighbours. So here's the site plan

[56:07] showing off of snow cell. And then once again, on

[56:09] the corner of, uh, snow cell and cross. The proposal

[56:14] meets several policies in the official commute plan. Including designing

[56:19] each unit to have individual access from the public street,

[56:22] providing landscaping and strategic locations, including framing, the building, then

[56:27] softening the edges and then designing all, you know, tab

[56:30] access to private and semi - private amenity spaces. So

[56:33] staff are recommending support for the provost development permit as

[56:36] it meets the majority of the OCP former character design

[56:38] guidelines does not include any variances and provides density into

[56:42] an established neighbourhood. And that includes that for Mark. Thanks.

[56:45] Thank you. Tyler, thank you. Uh, council questions. Seeing none,

[56:51] do I have a mover, please? Move by councillor sing,

[56:54] seconded by councillor to heart and comments. Council to heart,

[56:57] please. Thank you, worship. And thanks to staff, you know,

[57:01] um, we look around and quite often we do not

[57:03] get, um, a development this size with no variances. And

[57:08] I really like the clean look of it close to

[57:10] schools. I think it would be really, really great for

[57:12] families in this area. So I'm very happy to, to

[57:15] move it forward. Thank you. Um, seeing no further comments,

[57:19] counsel all in favor. Opposed, carried. Thank you both and

[57:24] council. We're on to the next section. So we will

[57:28] just take a five minute break, please. And thank you.

[57:36] Sorry. I missed the. I thought you were pretty. No,

[57:39] I know. Anyway. We got there. Jews orange. So. I

[57:43] keep hearing. Back there. I know.

[58:04] I could separate it.

[58:15] Uh, no, that's cool. Sorry. I just want to know

[58:23] whether that was that limitation. No, because we, that's been

[58:27] expanded. That's why I had to land my own memory.

[58:32] Anything from the sea.

[58:59] Oh. I'm just here. So then I wanted to go

[59:03] to people. And I wanted to see that was the

[59:11] one I think was up historically.

[59:30] Okay. So this is order. This is somebody. Yeah. I'm

[59:33] not sure why it's not big. Why is it first

[59:36] year.

[59:47] Oh yeah, the subsequent build on Sprite. Go there. Yeah.

[59:55] Show the second down. Okay. I know that there was

[1:00:01] some, from going on too far. I wonder if I

[1:00:07] thought. Yeah. But it's because that's all safe. Was weight

[1:00:11] content? If the way to have those two talk to

[1:00:14] each other. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

[1:00:39] The best technique. Like. Screen.

[1:00:59] Um, yeah, so it's not coming up there.

[1:01:30] Uh, maybe just respond in that room. Okay.

[1:01:47] Yeah. I haven't had any issues receiving. Them. I'm not

[1:01:50] aware. Of what. S exploring at any. Rate.

[1:06:13] Thank you, council. I just like to call this meeting

[1:06:16] back to order. Citi clerk, please. Thank you, your worship.

[1:06:21] We are now moving to item 5. 1 on the

[1:06:25] agenda, and this is to adopt a rezoning bylaw on

[1:06:28] Penno Road before I go to that item. I'll go

[1:06:30] to Councillor DeHart for a statement. Thank you, worship. I

[1:06:33] am going to excuse myself as I have on this

[1:06:36] item in the past for several reasons. My employers own

[1:06:39] two major golf courses in Kelowna, and I'm very involved

[1:06:42] in those two courses. And also they online budding coloning

[1:06:47] springs golf course. Thank you. And Councillor Dehar, I'll actually

[1:06:50] get you to also make a statement for 5. 2.

[1:06:54] It's a separate matter, but you have previously declared conflict

[1:06:56] for that one as well. That's 5. 2, a short

[1:07:00] - term rental. Yeah, so I was just looking there.

[1:07:02] Yes, I will declare conflict on this. Also, my husband

[1:07:07] and I own two short - term rentals, Airbnbs, that

[1:07:12] are in effect right now as a June 1st. And

[1:07:16] also the hotel I work for. Airbnbs can be a

[1:07:19] conflict. Thank you. Thank you, councillor.

[1:07:30] Thank you with councillor dehart declaring. We move to consider

[1:07:36] adoption of the bylaw for 480 penno road. And this

[1:07:40] is moved by Councillor Wildridge, seconded by Councillor Cannon that

[1:07:43] bylaw number 12, 864 be adopted. All in favor, Councillor

[1:07:48] Cannon, comments? Yeah, you worship. I just want to note

[1:07:50] the clerk to just clarify if it's Putin for council

[1:07:53] to a preceded this time to approve final reading the

[1:07:55] spylaw, considering that pending litigation. Thank you, Riship. The city

[1:08:00] is confident that our obligations have been met for this

[1:08:04] file, and we are preparing a response to the litigation

[1:08:09] regarding the matter. But in the meantime, the bylaw in

[1:08:13] any associated procedures are considered valid unless a court decides

[1:08:17] otherwise, which would be dealt within accordance. And so with

[1:08:20] all the conditions for the rezoning having been met, council

[1:08:24] is to consider bylaw adoption. That is the prudent course

[1:08:26] of action. Thank you. Councillor Lovegrove, please. I just want

[1:08:32] to thank the clerk for that answer to Councillor Cannes.

[1:08:35] Question, but given we're still in pending litigation, I'd like

[1:08:39] to move deferring this pending resolution of that legal challenge.

[1:08:47] Your worship, on the floor for the bylaw itself. But

[1:08:53] a deferral motion would need to be dealt with. There's

[1:08:56] no debate on that. So I suggest that that'd be

[1:08:59] addressed. Just a point of clarification with regards to it.

[1:09:02] There's already emotion on the floor, city clerk. So would

[1:09:05] that deferral basically. You worship the deferral would need to

[1:09:11] be dealt with, and then we would go back to

[1:09:12] the original motion if the deferral fails to pass. Thank

[1:09:16] you. So there is a deferral that has been put

[1:09:19] forward by a councillor. The question with regards to that

[1:09:22] is all in fade. Sorry, your worship. It would need

[1:09:25] to be seconded to be on the floor, the deferral

[1:09:27] motion. Sorry, my apologies with regards to that. So do

[1:09:31] I have a seconder. Seconded by Councillor Cannon. So this

[1:09:36] has been moved by Councillove, go seconded by Councillor Cannon.

[1:09:39] All in favor. Opposed. So that does not carry. Thank

[1:09:44] you. Back to the original motion. Thank you, Riship. So

[1:09:48] just for clarity, back to the original motion. This has

[1:09:50] moved by Councillor Wildridge, seconded by Councillor Cannon. That byline

[1:09:54] number 12, 864 be adopted. All in favor. Opposed. Councillor

[1:10:00] Cannon, Councillor Love Grove opposed. And Councillor. Again, councillor Hodge,

[1:10:04] thank you. Thank you, council. Thank you, worship. So just

[1:10:09] Councillor Lovegrove, short - term rentals. Thank you, worship. That's

[1:10:15] exactly what I was having my light on for. My

[1:10:17] wife and I do own a short - term rental,

[1:10:19] so I'll recuse myself from item 5. 2. Thank you.

[1:10:30] Thank you, Riship. So we are on item 5. 2,

[1:10:34] and this is to adopt a rezoning bylaw on Abbott

[1:10:37] Street as Councillor Love Grove indicated is related to short

[1:10:40] - term rentals. So that has moved by Councillor Wildredge,

[1:10:43] seconded by Councillor Canon that by the number 12, 899

[1:10:47] be adopted. All in favor. Post, Carrie, thank you. Thank

[1:10:51] you, worship councillors, dehard, and lovegrove may return to the

[1:10:53] meeting.

[1:11:04] And that brings us to item 5. 3 on the

[1:11:06] agenda, and this is to adopt a rezoning bylaw in

[1:11:09] Franklin Road to the MF1R in Phil Housing Rental Only

[1:11:12] Zone. That is moved by Councillor Love Grove, seconded by

[1:11:15] counseloredge that by the number 12, 908 be adopted. All

[1:11:20] in favor? Post, carried, thank you. Thank you, and item

[1:11:24] 5. 4 is a rezoning bylaw on saucier ab, to

[1:11:27] rezone to the TS1R transit supportive corridor, rental only zone.

[1:11:32] That is moved by Councillor Woodridge, seconded by Councillor Lovegrove

[1:11:34] that by the number 12, 911 be adopted. All in

[1:11:38] favor. Opposed. Carrie, thank you. Thank you. That brings us

[1:11:43] to item 6. 1 on the agenda, and we have

[1:11:46] a report from the audit committee regarding fringe area planning

[1:11:49] agreement options. Uh, and here to present on behalf of

[1:11:52] the audit committee staff from long range planning and financial

[1:11:55] services. Good afternoon, Robert. You worship.

[1:12:27] Okay, good afternoon, your worship members of council. This is

[1:12:30] a follow - up to the report brought before council

[1:12:32] this past January, regarding the fringe area planning services agreement

[1:12:37] with the regional district of central local. Disagreement gives Coluna's

[1:12:43] representatives on the regional district board a vote on land

[1:12:45] use decisions like zoning and electoral areas in close proximity

[1:12:48] to the city. The existing agreement expired at the end

[1:12:51] of 2025 and the proposed for newer runs from January,

[1:12:55] 2026 to December 2030. In the proposed renewal agreement, no

[1:13:00] changes are recommended to the boundaries. Or to the funding

[1:13:03] formula. However, the formula does result in increases to the

[1:13:07] total cost for the program year over year with the

[1:13:10] agreement signalling an average annual cost of approximately 373, 000

[1:13:16] dollars over the five - year term. This funding is

[1:13:21] sourced from the RDCO tax levy, charged the cologne attack

[1:13:25] spayers, and does not require an allocation from the city

[1:13:27] of Columbus budget. For reference, these are the areas in

[1:13:31] the existing and proposed agreement. The stars show the French

[1:13:34] areas where cologne directors would vote on land use decisions.

[1:13:42] For context, annual costs under the previous agreement rose from

[1:13:45] approximately 177, 000 dollars in 2021 dollars in 2025 driven

[1:13:53] primarily by staff and overhead changes. The new agreement cites

[1:13:58] a cost of approximately 373, 000 dollars. And this would

[1:14:02] be the anticipated average cost annual cost over the life

[1:14:05] of the agreement. So these costs would be lower, earlier

[1:14:08] in the agreement's life, and higher in later years. For

[1:14:12] context, this cost is approximately double of what was in

[1:14:15] effect in 2021. In January of this year, council deferred

[1:14:24] council deferred of resolution on the new agreement pending additional

[1:14:27] information from the regional district. This discussion took place, uh,

[1:14:32] in April to the audit committee, and following these discussions,

[1:14:36] three options emerged with the recommendation coming from the audit

[1:14:38] committee for councils consideration today. Option one commits to the

[1:14:44] full five - year agreement as outlined with annual cost

[1:14:48] reviews, though this does not guarantee cost or service -

[1:14:51] level changes during this term. This is effectively the status

[1:14:55] quo that the agreement has proposed with more regular connections

[1:14:58] with regional staff to discuss, anticipated, and upcoming costs. Option

[1:15:06] two enters the agreement for 2026 only, then direct staff

[1:15:10] to work with the regional district to negotiate, reduced fringe

[1:15:14] area boundaries, limited to lands directly adjacent to Kelowna for

[1:15:18] 2027 through to 2030. The swap shows the reduced fringe

[1:15:27] area contemplated under option two, so the areas with X's

[1:15:31] would be removed. Leaving only those areas adjacent to the

[1:15:36] Kelowna boundary. If this area was reduced, the cost would

[1:15:39] also come down, and based on the agreements funding formula,

[1:15:43] uh, would drop from the three approximately 373, 000 to

[1:15:47] approximately 225, 000 dollars. What this effectively does is shrinks

[1:15:52] the overall fringe area to reduce the overall costs. Under

[1:15:59] the third option, Kelowna would enter into the agreement for

[1:16:02] 2026 only, opt out of electoral area planning entirely. What

[1:16:07] this means is that colonizable directors would no longer have

[1:16:09] a vote on land use matters within the fryjaria, but

[1:16:13] that colonna residents would also no longer contribute financially to

[1:16:15] the service. Under this option, we would only need to

[1:16:20] notify the regional district of this intent by August 31st

[1:16:23] of this year. Regardless of this approach, the regional district

[1:16:30] is expected to continue sending land use referrals to city

[1:16:33] staff for comment, and colonist directors would keep their vote

[1:16:36] on broader regional planning work. Uh, including the regional growth

[1:16:40] strategy, for example. The city would also retain direct influence

[1:16:44] on land use through water, sewer, and road connections at

[1:16:47] the boundary, which would often be needed to service new

[1:16:49] development. And other partners like Florida species and the province,

[1:16:54] would continue to set utility and other transportation requirements. The

[1:17:00] audit committee has recommended option three, where colonna would opt

[1:17:03] out of electoral area planning. This option is recommended because

[1:17:07] it balances the short - term continuity, uh, by continuing

[1:17:10] in 2026, also a clearly signalling an exit from the

[1:17:14] service and the associated costs for cologne attackspayers. It allows

[1:17:19] the city to maintain its current role this year while

[1:17:21] recognising that staff referrals work on broader regional initiatives like

[1:17:25] the regional growth strategy, and the city's role in utility

[1:17:28] and servicing decisions remain meaningful tools to influence fry, growth,

[1:17:33] um, after exiting the service. Thank you, worship members of

[1:17:38] council. That concludes staff comments. Thank you. Um, questionslor Wolbridge,

[1:17:45] please. Thanks to worship. Um, I understand why we're looking

[1:17:49] at this today, absolutely. Um, to make sure it's effective

[1:17:53] for the taxpayers of Kelowna. Um, I'm just wondering, a

[1:17:57] decision has been made to exit completely. And what concerns

[1:18:00] me are the fringe areas of north and south colognus,

[1:18:05] specifically South Kolonia, I recount, if we go back to

[1:18:07] the map, clone a mountain, for example, uh, was fully

[1:18:11] supported by EA directors and not by Kelowna. And so

[1:18:14] by opting out of this completely, um, that's an example

[1:18:17] where I think we're opening ourselves to risk despite what's

[1:18:23] been said about, uh, infrastructure servicing. So I'm just, I'm

[1:18:25] just wondering, how does that decision made. And what are

[1:18:29] the impacts going to be. So, so you worship the

[1:18:33] decision was really focused on looking at the opportunities where

[1:18:38] and how the city could influence decisions. Um, on what

[1:18:41] happens in these areas. Right. Um, and balancing that with

[1:18:45] the cost of the service. Um, so what was discussed

[1:18:48] was the role that the city would play on something

[1:18:50] like, um, a broader regional initiative like the regional growth

[1:18:53] strategy, where there could be proactive direction to, um, to

[1:18:58] determine or signal what would be appropriate and inappropriate uses.

[1:19:01] Um, those areas. Um, and then having those opportunities for,

[1:19:05] um, the staff referral level that if something comes to

[1:19:08] staff from the regional district and there are concerns, staff

[1:19:11] could provide comment on that as well. So those were

[1:19:13] the different elements that were balanced in the discussion. Right.

[1:19:17] So to be clear, uh, we can give comments, but

[1:19:20] whether those are taken to account when a vote is

[1:19:22] called. Doesn't really matter, correct? You worship, that's correct. I'm

[1:19:26] referring to staff level comments and referrals. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:19:29] I just think it's, it's important for the public to

[1:19:30] understand that, um, don't bother calling your elected officials because

[1:19:33] it'll just be comments put on a report at the

[1:19:35] regional board table decided by 2EA directors. So there are,

[1:19:39] there are implications in this. I fully understand the direction

[1:19:41] on that. EA West, but I think this is a

[1:19:43] bad governance decision from EAs, but I'm not surprised this

[1:19:47] is a administrative decision. Thanks. Um, councillor Love Grove, please.

[1:19:54] Thanks. Um, when did staff become aware of these 2026

[1:20:00] service costs being doubled. Your worship, uh, the request to

[1:20:06] consider renewal of the five year agreement came to staff,

[1:20:09] uh, last year last fall. Um, as part of the

[1:20:12] review of that request, um, staff, uh, connected with our

[1:20:17] regional counterparts, um, to pull the information on, um, what

[1:20:21] the, what the finances had been for this program over

[1:20:23] the past few years. Um, and that's when staff had

[1:20:26] the opportunity to see how the cost had changed over

[1:20:30] in recent years. And I think I heard you say

[1:20:33] it was a reallocation of overhead and just staffing increases.

[1:20:38] Your worship, yes. We did reach out to the regional

[1:20:41] district to get some information on what was tied to

[1:20:44] those cost increases. Uh, and it was really related to

[1:20:48] onboarding new staff and the overhead that goes along with

[1:20:50] that. Okay. And please remind me, you worship, if this

[1:20:55] was out of words, okay, this, we knew about this

[1:20:58] before we withdrew from the transportation service. Because I can't

[1:21:03] remember the time you're not. You worship. I can't confirm.

[1:21:05] I don't recall the timing. Okay. Um, dude, and this

[1:21:10] is, uh, city, I guess, question your worship for city

[1:21:12] clerk. Do we have access to the information that was

[1:21:15] presented at the audit committee by RDCO staff. Uh, your

[1:21:22] worship, it's, it's in general summarized in the information that

[1:21:25] council has available to you today. And just a note

[1:21:30] in terms of the previous question regarding the transportation service.

[1:21:35] It was a proposed new transportation service in the council

[1:21:38] made that decision earlier last year, uh, prior to the,

[1:21:42] uh, renewal coming to staff. Oh, okay. Interesting. Um, so

[1:21:49] with the audit committee, maybe I'll wait to hear from

[1:21:53] your worship and councillor stack on your aspect at the

[1:21:57] audit committee. If you don't mind. But I guess I'm,

[1:22:00] I do have some comments to make your worship, but

[1:22:03] I'm sure I'd like to understand this a bit better.

[1:22:06] Because Councillor Wolwards last comment or in response to the

[1:22:10] question for staff was that this is administrative decision, but

[1:22:13] I'm, I'm a little concerned about whether this is a

[1:22:18] short term gain and the risk involved because opening ourselves

[1:22:21] to risk, maybe, maybe staff could clarify, um, I'm just

[1:22:25] going to list off what I came up with being

[1:22:27] a first dream councillor is potential risks. So we would

[1:22:31] have no input other than just a staff comment. No

[1:22:34] voting around the table. If suddenly in our electoral areas,

[1:22:38] we have gravel pits. Is that correct? Your worship, what

[1:22:44] would happen in that case is that we would in

[1:22:46] terms of the staff referral staff would get a referral.

[1:22:48] We'd have an opportunity to comment. Uh, where the city,

[1:22:51] uh, would have additional influences if uses like that required

[1:22:55] additional infrastructure at the, at the city end. Um, that's

[1:22:58] where the city would have, had direct influence in those

[1:23:00] cases. Um, and again, looking at, um, proactive upstream planning,

[1:23:06] having those types of discussions at something like the regional

[1:23:08] growth strategy level. Okay. And what about soil fill on

[1:23:12] individual lots. Uh, your worship. Yeah, I wouldn't be able

[1:23:19] to comment on that. Um, it would be, it would

[1:23:21] really be determined as to whether or not additional servicing

[1:23:24] was need for that. Okay. And then access in or

[1:23:27] through water sources. Lakes, shoot Lake Road. I'm not sure

[1:23:32] where our boundary. East boundary is. But I mean, I'm

[1:23:34] just wondering about, um, well, I'm going to just list

[1:23:38] off and you can just give a general comment down.

[1:23:40] I don't want to believe this. But wildfire planning firefighting

[1:23:43] emergency response search and rescue. All those aspects could be

[1:23:47] happening. Our electoral areas. We have absolutely no influence other

[1:23:50] than the staff comment. Your worship, to be clear when

[1:23:53] it comes to things like emergency services, um, inserts and

[1:23:57] rescue. Those are existing functions that are separate from this

[1:24:01] fringe planning area discussion. Okay. All right. Fair comment. Thanks.

[1:24:06] Um, councillor cannon, please questions. Yeah. Thanks. For regional planning.

[1:24:12] We'll still be part of the regional planning, correct? For

[1:24:15] the regional district. Like the, you said the regional growth

[1:24:18] planning. I think we contribute almost 450 or 500, 000

[1:24:22] a year to that program. That'll still be part of

[1:24:25] the equation. So we won't have any input as far

[1:24:28] as potential land use under regional girl strategy. So you

[1:24:34] worship there too. Um, we're touching on two different funding

[1:24:38] streams here. There's regional planning. Um, which is a different

[1:24:41] funding stream and provides different services. That would include something

[1:24:44] like the regional growth strategy. That's not the subject of

[1:24:47] today's discussion. This falls under the electoral area plot. I

[1:24:51] just want to over. It's still part of that program,

[1:24:53] but it doesn't have any, uh, ability to provide some

[1:24:58] direction for long - term planning under the, we would

[1:25:01] have direction under that funding source. So that's what I'm

[1:25:05] saying. We still have a bit of a lever. You

[1:25:09] worship, yes, with the, uh, with the, uh, the funding

[1:25:12] source that we're talking about for regional planning under the

[1:25:15] regional growth strategy, that's retained. And so the city would

[1:25:18] still have a role and our representatives on the board

[1:25:23] would have an, would still be able to vote on

[1:25:25] region white initiatives like the growth strategy. Okay. For the

[1:25:28] flip side, then Councillor Wolverage mentioned about the south. So

[1:25:34] of Clauna Mountain came with another proposal. It's the regional

[1:25:36] district. If we pull out of here, then we wouldn't

[1:25:39] have a say in that it would be up to

[1:25:41] just the area director. There are directors. Is that correct?

[1:25:45] You worship if a proposal like that move forward. Um,

[1:25:48] there would be discussions on servicing. So if the influence

[1:25:51] that through the servicing on the city side, we would

[1:25:54] continue to have a role there. There would be a

[1:25:57] staff level referral, but there would not be, um, a

[1:26:00] vote from a cologne councillor on, on that one. Okay.

[1:26:03] And, um, I think councillor Wolver lovegrove had mentioned about

[1:26:08] the audit committee. I see it's, as council, we don't

[1:26:12] know when the audit committee meets and we don't have

[1:26:13] access to the meeting minutes. So maybe through the chair

[1:26:16] as the chair are one of the committee members could

[1:26:18] elaborate a little bit more with. It says that the

[1:26:22] regional district staff presented, but not really sure how this,

[1:26:27] based on the recommendation, we're going to save some money.

[1:26:30] But maybe you can provide a little bit more clarity

[1:26:33] of how you came up with this recommendation from the

[1:26:35] audit committee. Thank you. I'm just going to work my

[1:26:38] way through councillors questions first, councillor. Councillor Hodgklees. Well, most

[1:26:46] of you may. Feel rather rushed on this one, to

[1:26:50] be honest with you. And I'm not comfortable with it.

[1:26:53] Part of me says, I'm wondering if we shouldn't be

[1:26:57] looking at deferriness or delayness until we have, uh, new

[1:27:02] council and new regional district. To do with it. I

[1:27:06] mean, it's going to affect. And in fact, the future

[1:27:11] governments that are running both bodies. And. I would say

[1:27:19] to all see them, you know, make their own decision.

[1:27:24] I'm uncomfortable with it right now. That's why I say

[1:27:26] that. Councillor, and we'll just try to keep comments if

[1:27:32] we can. Just kind of keep it on questions if

[1:27:34] we can for at the moment. And then we'll make

[1:27:36] comments afterwards once we move this. Councillor Weber, please. Actually,

[1:27:41] I had a, I'm waiting for comments. Okay. Thank you.

[1:27:43] So that's, that's perfect. So I'm just, and we'll go

[1:27:47] to comments. I'm just going to kind of, um, open

[1:27:49] this up. I'm looking for a motion to put this

[1:27:51] on the floor. Um, move by councillor. Um, stack seconded

[1:27:56] by councillor cannon. Um, just to kind of move it,

[1:28:00] uh, councillor, um, stack, please. I will too also, but

[1:28:05] I'll start with you. You've been around a little bit

[1:28:07] longer. My copes right. There you go. There we are.

[1:28:13] Uh, couple of questions. So let me explain, I guess,

[1:28:17] my perspective as to why I support this going ahead

[1:28:22] is, um, I've sat on regional district off and on

[1:28:26] for many, many years. And when originally we went into

[1:28:29] fry jury planning, many years ago, um, the cost was

[1:28:34] not very much. It was fairly minimal. Uh, we decided

[1:28:38] at that time to fringe all the areas that were

[1:28:41] identified here because we just thought it was a reasonable

[1:28:44] thing to do. Um, and we did. But I don't

[1:28:47] want to quote the amount, but my recollection was with

[1:28:50] someone in the range of 90, 000 dollars a year

[1:28:52] at that time. But over the years, it gets larger

[1:28:55] and larger and larger to the point last year. It

[1:28:57] really caught my attention. We're now looking at a five

[1:29:00] year contract for 1. 85 million dollars. So when I

[1:29:06] look at it from that perspective, when I'm looking at

[1:29:08] any contract that I'm going into for 1. 8 million

[1:29:11] dollars that the citizens of our city are going to

[1:29:14] pay, I want to know what the value is that

[1:29:16] we're going to get from that. And when I went

[1:29:18] and reviewed the to some of the decisions that we've

[1:29:20] made it, even including myself as a fringe area member,

[1:29:25] uh, I couldn't think of any substantive vote that I've

[1:29:27] taken in the years that I've been on the regional

[1:29:30] district that I think would have made a difference. Typically

[1:29:32] what I've done is we've looked to our electoral area

[1:29:36] counterparts and said, do you want to support that secondary

[1:29:39] suite or that carriage house? And they say, yeah, we

[1:29:41] do. And I say, good, we'll support it too. So

[1:29:44] there was just nothing of substance. And therefore, when I

[1:29:47] looked at the cost of, you know, getting up between

[1:29:50] three and 400, 000 dollars a year just to offer

[1:29:54] a vote. I just couldn't see the value. And, um,

[1:29:59] when we go back to the colonist, or sorry, to

[1:30:02] the, um, cologne mountain thing, it never even made it

[1:30:06] to the regional board table. It was proposed. But the

[1:30:10] applicant never even came through. But that was dealt with

[1:30:13] through an OCP change. And my understanding as a regional

[1:30:15] director, we would still be involved with the official community

[1:30:18] plan and with a long - term range planning. So

[1:30:21] when I look back over the years, I just can't

[1:30:23] see the value. So I had to put my city

[1:30:27] of Kelowna hat on and saying, should our citizens be

[1:30:29] paying this amount of money for a very minor comment

[1:30:34] in my opinion on some of these rezonings? And I

[1:30:38] just couldn't see the value. So therefore, that's why I

[1:30:40] felt we should back off. And, um, and not continue

[1:30:45] on with this service. I just don't see the value

[1:30:47] for our citizens, for the costs that's being proposed. Council,

[1:30:52] and then I will open it up to yourselves afterwards,

[1:30:54] but just to give you a little bit of insight

[1:30:55] from. Myself. First of all, weighed in with regards to

[1:31:01] previous individuals who have been around longer than I have

[1:31:04] with regards to fringe area planning, uh, whether it be

[1:31:07] the mountain item, whether it be around the airport, um,

[1:31:10] whether it be in other areas of this community, recognising

[1:31:13] that each municipality in each area needs to put together,

[1:31:17] um, uh, an official community plan. That official community plan,

[1:31:21] when it sits upon our borders, we'll give us an

[1:31:23] indication of whether that's residential lots, whether that is, um,

[1:31:27] industrial, whether that is agriculture or whatever it happens to

[1:31:31] be. So when we're looking at doing that long -

[1:31:35] term planning that Robert speaks about, um, there's awareness with

[1:31:39] regards to those individuals, what is coming within those specific

[1:31:41] areas. There truly isn't really any real surprises. Um, that

[1:31:46] come about. And if they need services of potential water,

[1:31:51] if they need services of sewer, if they need services

[1:31:55] of, you know, and this thing even potentially electricity to

[1:31:58] a great degree, there's an involvement that they have. So

[1:32:01] there isn't anything that's coming in, which is, um, again,

[1:32:05] surprising us with regards to the way that it works.

[1:32:09] I saw that, um, the work that the team does

[1:32:12] here in conjunction with communicating with those individuals allows for

[1:32:16] enough awareness of what is coming within these areas without

[1:32:21] any surprises because of the role that they play from

[1:32:23] a communication standpoint. And I asked, um, what to what

[1:32:29] degree, you know, the vote and how it counts and

[1:32:32] how many times it's been used. And you know, where

[1:32:35] it's advanced. And there wasn't, I couldn't get any concrete

[1:32:38] information back from it. And in our meetings, we did

[1:32:41] go through and look at it from a financial standpoint.

[1:32:45] We also did go through and ask for the regional

[1:32:47] district to come in and present the situation with regards

[1:32:50] to what's being done. They did present to specific areas

[1:32:54] that were of concern. And the mountain was one of

[1:32:56] them. And we had discussions about it. So it was

[1:32:58] a good discussion around, you know, the specifics of it.

[1:33:03] Um, but it was based upon that, you know, that

[1:33:06] information, that consensus that there was substantial backup from all

[1:33:10] of the existing programs at all the different areas have

[1:33:13] as they build out. And that there is communications. And

[1:33:16] if there is, you know, as councillor stock had said,

[1:33:19] usually if there is one or two situations that come

[1:33:21] about it gets discussed around the table and then is,

[1:33:25] uh, information is exchanged. And if it's appropriate, then voted

[1:33:27] for accordingly. But so just to give you some insight

[1:33:31] that there was discussion that was had, and the audit

[1:33:34] committee going back to this information of kind of exchanging

[1:33:37] with regards to the audit committee, the audit committee has

[1:33:39] worked this way well before even I got here that

[1:33:43] they basically went through, got the reports, made a decision,

[1:33:46] brought that information back to council. If counsel is, you

[1:33:50] know, at this point in time, looking at saying, well,

[1:33:52] we need a little bit more information from the audit

[1:33:54] committee. That's absolutely fine. I mean, there isn't any problem

[1:33:57] there. They're just like the other committees that are established

[1:34:00] within here to try to look at reviewing the information,

[1:34:04] having good discussions around it and bringing a recommendation back

[1:34:07] to council. So, um, just so you're aware of kind

[1:34:10] of some of that process that we went through. Councillor

[1:34:13] Weber, you were the other individual on the audit committee.

[1:34:17] Yeah. But my, my conclusions weren't the same as yours.

[1:34:21] Yeah. And that's fair. That's fair. I'm just, I'm saying,

[1:34:24] but and I'm, you know, I'm trying to be respectful

[1:34:25] of the committee and so forth. But, um, I agree

[1:34:28] with councillor stack that over the course of time costs

[1:34:31] are risen to the point that you really do have

[1:34:33] to debate whether or not it's worth it to the

[1:34:35] colonia taxpayers to continue into it. But as I've been

[1:34:39] on council now a while, maybe in my old age,

[1:34:42] I'll becoming more small sea conservative than I used to

[1:34:45] be, but I'm not comfortable. Sorry, Ron. But I'm not

[1:34:47] comfortable with, um, I'm not comfortable with big changes all

[1:34:52] at once anymore. So I'm more like, I look at

[1:34:55] when option two came along. I looked at that and

[1:34:57] said, that's perfect to me that we, we reduce the

[1:35:01] cost by reducing the area in which we're voting and

[1:35:05] only vote on the areas that are immediately adjacent to

[1:35:07] the boundaries of Kelowna rather than across the lake and

[1:35:10] way inlet. And so we could do, and that would

[1:35:13] be for one period of time from now until 2030,

[1:35:17] four years, I guess. And then during that time, we

[1:35:19] could watch and see whether anything came up that, um,

[1:35:24] we needed to vote for. And at the end of

[1:35:25] that time, if we didn't even vote for those regions,

[1:35:28] then that might be a good reason to actually get

[1:35:30] out of it altogether. But I think myself option too

[1:35:34] is the preferred option. And I would vote against the

[1:35:36] motion that's, that's in front of us today. Thank you.

[1:35:38] Thank you. Councillor Wolverge, please. Thanks for worship. Yeah. The

[1:35:45] part of the problem I have here is that I

[1:35:46] think option two, uh, was a reasonable approach where, you

[1:35:50] know, where we still weigh in from a regional perspective

[1:35:54] on what we, what we neighbour, um, obviously electoral area

[1:35:58] West makes no sense to be, to be voting on

[1:36:00] things across the lake. Um, but when I think about

[1:36:03] what South of us, if someone wants to put an

[1:36:04] AI data centre, for example, at the top of the

[1:36:08] mountain, um, you know, staff can give feedback. But if

[1:36:11] residents in the upper mission in kettle valley have an

[1:36:14] issue with that, well, don't bother calling your city councillor

[1:36:16] because they can't vote on it. So, um, unfortunately all

[1:36:21] we see is what's before us right now in an

[1:36:23] afternoon meeting. We didn't get to sit in and the

[1:36:25] presentation from the regional district. So yet again, it's debatable

[1:36:29] if that even meets the test to be in camera

[1:36:32] from that perspective. But I think option two offered a

[1:36:37] decent review. Reducing cost. And, um, would still give Kelowna

[1:36:42] the ability to weigh in on, um, issues that affect

[1:36:45] them. Um, our airport is also right on the border

[1:36:47] of this. So, um, from my perspective, this is taking

[1:36:50] it in the wrong direction. And I know we're looking

[1:36:52] at dollars and cents of a 300 and some odd,

[1:36:55] but in our billion dollar budget that we tote so

[1:36:57] much at the city of Kelowna. That's a fairly small

[1:36:59] amount of money that we could have negotiated down by

[1:37:01] just changing the boundaries. So I won't be supporting the

[1:37:03] resolution. Councillor Singh, please. You are at first, Councillor Stack

[1:37:09] made so much sense to me, which he always does.

[1:37:11] And I thought that was brilliant, of course. And then

[1:37:15] councillor Weber made an argument which actually makes. Plausible sense

[1:37:22] to me. And, um. I will be also looking at.

[1:37:32] Recommendation to. Counts. Done. Uh, councillor, um. Love growth, please.

[1:37:43] You worship just reading the room here. I'm going to

[1:37:47] let you have a side chat with the city clerk

[1:37:49] because it sounds like a lot of us are gravitating

[1:37:51] towards option two. Council, there is a motion on the

[1:37:53] floor right now. So we'll deal with that one and

[1:37:55] comment on that one. But if you, there is one

[1:37:57] on the floor. But if we defeat this. But we'll

[1:38:01] deal with the one that's on the floor right at

[1:38:02] the moment. All right. Well, I guess that's my comment.

[1:38:06] I'm, I'm, I'm a, I guess I'm getting a sense

[1:38:10] that based on decisions over the last year, getting this

[1:38:14] feeling we're frustrating or regional partnerships. And I'm, I'm for

[1:38:20] working on partnerships. It makes us stronger together. And I'm,

[1:38:23] if we're out of this, what's going to take to

[1:38:26] get back in. If we've made a mistake. So I'm

[1:38:29] going to side with the voice of experience to my

[1:38:32] far right. And the colleague to my immediate right. I

[1:38:36] think, uh, as well to my immediate left based on

[1:38:39] your earlier comments, Charlie. And I will be not supporting

[1:38:42] this motion, but I do hope your worship. That if

[1:38:46] this does go down, we're able at this meeting because

[1:38:49] we're, I think we're getting a little tight on time.

[1:38:51] That we can have an immediate reconsideration for option two

[1:38:55] in the next few weeks, I hope, if not a

[1:38:57] referral to a committee. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Just

[1:39:00] throwing it out there. Thank you. Um, councillor Cannon, please.

[1:39:05] Thanks, your worship, good discussion. And I really appreciate staff's

[1:39:10] feedback as well. And I look at this from a

[1:39:12] regional planning perspective. Our value, it's not if we're going

[1:39:16] to grow. It's going to grow. And it's how we

[1:39:18] manage it. If we don't manage it properly, it'll take

[1:39:21] on a life of its own. So I think if

[1:39:23] we just remove ourself exclusively and allow the area to

[1:39:28] develop, we're open for some very serious problems and challenges

[1:39:35] in the future. We've had a lot of growth already

[1:39:37] without proper infrastructure. And as we continue to grow, I

[1:39:41] mean, focuses to ensure that proper infrastructure is in place.

[1:39:44] And if we don't have a say at the table,

[1:39:46] I'm really concerned with that. I think with option two,

[1:39:49] it'll be also revisiting our other, other programs, it says

[1:39:55] with regard to, um, it says trigger RDCO led discussions

[1:39:59] revised agreements. So I would look at our regional planning

[1:40:03] function. We might build a save some money there and

[1:40:05] contribute to here. So I'm leaning more to option too.

[1:40:07] Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Stack, please. Thanks for

[1:40:12] the second opportunity. I just wanted to respond to Councillor

[1:40:16] Weber. Because as we had, we had some of these

[1:40:18] discussions. And, um, I'm quite respectful of that opinion that

[1:40:22] option two is something that could easily be considered. Um,

[1:40:26] but I do, I guess my response to that is

[1:40:29] I point out, uh, like West city of West Colonia,

[1:40:32] for instance, doesn't comment on colonia east as an example.

[1:40:36] I mean, they're part of our regional table, but we're

[1:40:40] only talking about things that are immediately adjacent to our

[1:40:43] border, but it doesn't mean that we at the regional

[1:40:46] table don't discuss the whole region and do our planning

[1:40:49] on a regional basis. So, uh, that's why this is

[1:40:52] called fringe area planning because it's really not our area.

[1:40:57] We vote on city of Kelowna. We're talking about having

[1:40:59] a vote on our neighbor's area. It's adjacent to the

[1:41:03] city. So that's why it's called a fringe. It's really

[1:41:06] not our, our legislation and our, in our, in our

[1:41:09] municipality. So I did consider, um, Councillor Weber's perspective. And

[1:41:16] the only reason I didn't go that route is that

[1:41:18] when I weighed out the financial cost, it was still

[1:41:20] 1. 1 million dollars over five years. And I had

[1:41:23] to go back to my original assessment saying, is the

[1:41:27] citizen of Kelowna getting good value? Even for a 1.

[1:41:29] 1 million dollar contract versus a 1. 8 million dollar

[1:41:32] contract. And in my mind, it couldn't justify that the

[1:41:35] value is there. And therefore trying to keep my conservative

[1:41:40] financial hat on. I didn't support it. But that's the

[1:41:44] reason I went the root idea as opposed to, I

[1:41:48] fully understand the direction councillor Weber recommended. Councillor Hodge, you

[1:41:53] have comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. I think for

[1:41:58] the input. It's really helped me a lot. Honestly, I

[1:42:01] know of all this until. And I am going to

[1:42:03] be putting my support pan off from two. I think,

[1:42:08] uh, the best of both worlds. From small worlds as

[1:42:12] they are. And I think it's the best gamble as

[1:42:18] far as I'm concerned. So I would be going with

[1:42:19] option to Mr. Mayor. Thank you, kind of. Thank you.

[1:42:22] So seeing no for the comments, there is a motion

[1:42:24] on the floor. I'm going to look for all those

[1:42:26] in favor. Please certainly city clerk, please. Thank you, worship.

[1:42:31] So the motion is that council receives the report for

[1:42:33] information. That council enters into a fringe area planning agreement

[1:42:36] with the regional district of central Okunogan for 2026. And

[1:42:40] that council direct staff to give notice to the regional

[1:42:42] district board to opt out of participation in electoral area

[1:42:46] planning services by August 31st, 2026. And that is in

[1:42:50] accordance with option three, just for clarity. That's, sorry, that's

[1:42:53] option three. So I'm looking for, that's option three. So

[1:42:57] all those in favor opposed. So that does not carry.

[1:43:02] Thank you, councillor. So there was a request to address

[1:43:05] one of the other options. I'm going to lean into

[1:43:07] the city clerk to look at, um, if we, uh,

[1:43:12] can move potentially for a consideration of that other option.

[1:43:16] And if so, could you please read that other option

[1:43:18] out? Thank you, Riship. So should council wish to consider

[1:43:21] option two today. You're free to do so. Um, and

[1:43:25] so by way of actual resolution, the first two items

[1:43:30] would be the same. So for council to receive the

[1:43:32] report from the audit committee for information to enter into

[1:43:36] a fringe area planning agreement for 2026. And that encompasses

[1:43:40] all areas. Uh, that's essentially how, how it's currently operating.

[1:43:45] And then that council direct staff to engage with the

[1:43:47] regional district of the central Okanagan staff on an agreement

[1:43:51] for only the Kelowna and Kelowna and lake country fringe

[1:43:54] planning areas for 2027 onward in accordance with option two

[1:43:59] and to report back to council. Uh, and council, just

[1:44:02] for, for added clarity, the Kelowna and clona and lake

[1:44:06] country fringe planning areas, I've, Robert, if you can go

[1:44:08] back to the PowerPoint that shows those, those are the

[1:44:12] pink and green with the yellow stars on them on

[1:44:15] this slide. Thank you. So council, do I have a

[1:44:19] mover of this move by Councillor Weber, seconded by Councillor

[1:44:22] Lovegrove. Do I have comments. Um, counts their stack. Yeah.

[1:44:30] Um, I liked the first option that was on the

[1:44:32] floor better, but I will support this because I think

[1:44:34] it's better than leaving nothing amended. So as a compromise,

[1:44:41] I would support it. Uh, any other comments. Counter to

[1:44:46] heart. Thank your worst. Thanks, your worship my light. Okay.

[1:44:51] Yeah. Um, basically, um, option two, it says enter agreement

[1:44:57] for 2026 only. And I, and I'm comfortable with that.

[1:45:00] If it had said anything more, now I know that

[1:45:02] we're going to work on a new agreement, but that

[1:45:05] doesn't mean that we can go back on, you know,

[1:45:09] and do different agreements. Because it's a remainder. And who

[1:45:13] knows that that'll come up with. I think once we

[1:45:15] know that we would like some changes regardless of what

[1:45:18] they are, I think having a compromise on those would

[1:45:22] be good. So I'm okay with option two right now.

[1:45:25] But I think there's a lot, uh, we're going to

[1:45:29] have to really do some digging for 20, you know,

[1:45:31] after 2026 and decide what exactly we're going to do

[1:45:34] for 27 to 30. And I think that might even

[1:45:37] change a bit. Thank you. Councillor, Councillor Cannon. Thank you.

[1:45:42] The fact that this is, you know, for the year,

[1:45:44] we can look forward to Councillor Hoyt said a new

[1:45:47] council. We'll have maybe some different perspectives. I think we

[1:45:50] need to look at the regional planning. Other regional components,

[1:45:53] even recreation component, transportation as we study all these. And

[1:45:57] maybe the funding from some of those other programs we're

[1:46:00] in were reduced. And overall, the dollar impact might be

[1:46:06] both the same. And we get better value for the

[1:46:07] taxpayers. Thank you. Councillor Walbridge, please. Thanks to worship. Um,

[1:46:12] yeah, I think wherever we landed with option to give

[1:46:15] us some, some insurance that the interests of Kelowna can

[1:46:18] be upheld at the board table, the regional growth strategy

[1:46:21] is great. It's a, it's a guiding document. Um, but

[1:46:24] it's not a decision making document. It doesn't override individual

[1:46:27] OCPs or residents or partner municipalities. So, um, that is

[1:46:32] a great document to guide discussion and growth. Um, but

[1:46:35] this, I think, gives us, um, we've done our due

[1:46:38] diligence to make sure that we aren't paying for things

[1:46:40] we don't need. Um, but also gives us insurance that,

[1:46:44] um, if things are being built on our borders that

[1:46:46] we do have some input around the regional board table

[1:46:48] can actually vote on them. Thank you. Any other comments

[1:46:52] just before we go to a vote. As I had

[1:46:55] shown in my vote, I would have preferred to have

[1:46:57] option three, but I completely understand with regards to council.

[1:47:01] And the direction that they're going, I felt there was

[1:47:04] strong enough, um, strong enough backbone behind the idea that

[1:47:08] the official community plans are in place. The coordination of

[1:47:11] basically discussion in between them, uh, the centre where water

[1:47:15] comes from and all the rest of that, that we're

[1:47:16] well aware of whether or not there's growth happening in

[1:47:18] these particular areas. I think there needs to be even

[1:47:22] with going into this agreement, a complete and stronger understanding

[1:47:25] of what this agreement does for all of the communities.

[1:47:29] Um, and going through it, it doesn't seem to have

[1:47:31] the depth that it needs. And also the timelines with

[1:47:33] regards to renewals and all the rest of that, which

[1:47:36] has brought this to the forefront and was not, you

[1:47:39] know, potentially properly addressed. Um, so I think all of

[1:47:42] that needs to happen. And, um, in agreement that it

[1:47:46] ends up being, we came to a consensus on this

[1:47:48] and moving it forward. So saying that we are looking

[1:47:50] for option number two. I am going to ask all

[1:47:53] in favor. Opposed. And thank you, counsel for that discussion.

[1:47:57] And Robert, thank you. Your worship that brings us to

[1:48:03] item 6. 2 on the agenda. And we have staff

[1:48:06] from financial services to present on an update to the

[1:48:09] value for money program.

[1:48:32] Good afternoon, Shelly. Good afternoon. Your warship. And members of

[1:48:36] council. Today I'll be providing an update on the city's

[1:48:41] value for money program, highlighting the program's progress and benefits

[1:48:45] to date. The city transition, the value for money program

[1:48:52] to an in - house model in November of 2022.

[1:48:57] The intent of that change was to increase our internal

[1:49:00] capacity, improve follow - up on recommendations, and move towards

[1:49:06] continuous improvement model rather than relying on point - in

[1:49:09] - time external reviews. Since the transition, the program has

[1:49:15] produced three important outcomes. First, increased output with more engagements

[1:49:21] completed each year. Second, improved oversight through structured follow -

[1:49:27] up and ongoing monitoring. And third, enhanced accountability through clear

[1:49:32] action plans and regular reporting to the audit committee and

[1:49:36] council. A key strength of the program is that it

[1:49:41] follows a consistent methodology across all engagements. This includes planning,

[1:49:47] execution, reporting, and follow - up. Planning is supported by

[1:49:52] a rolling three - year engagement plan that's based on

[1:49:55] risk and significance, along with input from the senior leadership

[1:49:59] and the audit committee. Engagements are then carried out or

[1:50:03] executed through a consistent approach with results reported to the

[1:50:08] audit committee and council. And then tracked through ongoing monitoring

[1:50:13] and structured follow - up. To date the program has

[1:50:19] issued 40 recommendations with 62 associated action plans. These action

[1:50:25] plans are key. They move the work beyond identifying opportunities

[1:50:30] and into implementation and improvement. They've addressed a range of

[1:50:34] areas, including infrastructure delivery, infrastructure deficits, costs related to the

[1:50:41] unsheltered community endowment fund alignment and strategy and capital project

[1:50:45] management. Follow - up is one of the key strengths

[1:50:52] of the in - house model. And there's two main

[1:50:55] components. First is the follow - up tracking, which includes

[1:51:00] semi - annual updates from management, monitoring the status of

[1:51:04] all action plans, identifying what's complete in progress or requiring

[1:51:09] attention. And finally, reporting the results annually to the audit

[1:51:13] committee and council. Second are the follow - up engagements.

[1:51:18] These are targeted reassessments of selected engagements. They validate the

[1:51:23] action plans have been implemented. And they provide confirmation that

[1:51:27] improvements are effective and sustained. Together, these processes improve transparency,

[1:51:34] reinforce accountability and provide independent assurance on progress. So this

[1:51:42] slide tries to compare a bit of the former outsourced

[1:51:44] model with the current in - house approach. Both models

[1:51:49] were structured to maintain independence. However, there are some differences

[1:51:53] in how work is delivered and the level of insight

[1:51:56] it provides. So under the legacy model, engagements were delivered

[1:52:01] by external consultants, offering an objective perspective. Delivered an average

[1:52:08] of one engagement per year. The engagements followed fixed timelines

[1:52:14] and scope. Which can support predictability. But action plans were

[1:52:20] not required and follow - up was usually not performed.

[1:52:24] Under the current in - house model, the team maintains

[1:52:28] independence while offering stronger organisational knowledge and cross - functional

[1:52:32] insight. An average of three engagements have been completed per

[1:52:37] year. Action plans are required and actively monitored. Follow -

[1:52:42] up work is performed regularly, and the program is more

[1:52:45] responsive to emerging priorities. So overall, the in - house

[1:52:51] model provides continuous oversight ongoing reporting to council rather than

[1:52:56] point in time reporting. So to wrap up the in

[1:53:01] - house value for many program continues to strengthen the

[1:53:04] city's governance and accountability framework through improved engagement capacity, enhanced

[1:53:10] oversight through structured follow - up. And supports continuous improvement

[1:53:15] across the organisation. Overall, the program provides counsel and senior

[1:53:20] management with independent evidence - based insight. And clearer visibility

[1:53:25] into whether improvements are being implemented and sustained. Thank you.

[1:53:31] That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Council, do

[1:53:36] we have any questions? Councillor Lovegrowth. Thanks, you worship. And

[1:53:43] I really appreciate this report. Thank you very much. So

[1:53:47] one thing I don't see in here is talking about

[1:53:49] data quality. And so the legacy, we would have a

[1:53:53] consultants asking, we need this, this, this, and this. Can

[1:53:56] you get it for us? And then there'd be a

[1:53:58] pause and staff would get what they could get. And

[1:54:00] it went back and forth until the consultant was satisfied.

[1:54:03] They had all the stuff they needed. Is that the

[1:54:05] clumsiness of the process previously in the legacy. Yes, to

[1:54:12] an extent. I think that fairly describes what the process

[1:54:15] would look like. Right. Whereas if you've got inside staff

[1:54:18] doing this, then it's an easier transfer. And it's also

[1:54:21] controlled in terms of confidentiality and anything else. So it's

[1:54:25] streamlined data transfer. Is that a fair comment? That's a

[1:54:28] fair comment. Yeah. And the quality of data, same in

[1:54:31] both cases. It would be the same in both cases.

[1:54:34] Okay. And then did we add staff? Oh, sorry, did

[1:54:37] someone want to say something? I'm sorry. Nope. I just

[1:54:40] saw a look over somewhere. I wasn't sure. The cost

[1:54:45] of the program, one, the legacy would be an outside

[1:54:48] contract that would have a beginning and an end for

[1:54:52] internal. Did we add staff to begin this process in

[1:54:55] - house? Selling Mr. Sass, please. Thank you, your worship.

[1:55:00] Uh, it was a combination. There's three people on the

[1:55:03] team right now. Two of them were redeployed from internal

[1:55:06] finance staff. Uh, when we came in and moved things

[1:55:08] around a little bit, uh, and there's currently one, uh,

[1:55:12] two year term. That was approved through council. Um, that

[1:55:15] will be up, I believe after next year. So there's

[1:55:17] one additional temporary resource that was approved as part of

[1:55:20] this, uh, to be relitigated next year. Okay. So is

[1:55:25] it a fair interpretation. Thank you Mr. Sass. Your worship

[1:55:29] one net. Staff edition on a two year contract. That's

[1:55:35] correct your worship. Okay. Thank you. And then, um. Follow

[1:55:39] up. I'm really surprised that once a department doesn't get

[1:55:44] whatever, whoever's audited, whether it was an internal experiment, that

[1:55:48] somebody in - house isn't in charge or doing that

[1:55:51] once a year follow - up. Is that something at

[1:55:55] least theoretically that we could have done or should have

[1:55:57] done, maybe. Mr. Sass, please. Thank your worship. It's a

[1:56:03] good question. It's really the difference between, um, an internal

[1:56:07] and an external model. So for, for medium and large

[1:56:10] size organisations, uh, and internal audit function, we call it

[1:56:13] our value for money function, uh, is actually a core

[1:56:17] part of the governance process. Um, and with the establishment

[1:56:21] of an internal audit function, there are professional standards that

[1:56:24] we are required to meet, uh, and part of that

[1:56:26] would be ongoing follow - ups and regularly reporting through

[1:56:30] audit committee and through, um, council. And so, um, it

[1:56:34] is unquestionably a better practice to do it. Um, but

[1:56:38] we had historically not had that, um, as part of

[1:56:41] our overall governance framework. And when this council came in,

[1:56:44] uh, and I came in, we, we made that change.

[1:56:46] Okay. Thank you for that. You're worshiping. I think it's

[1:56:50] fair to say we're receiving this for information. But going

[1:56:52] forward, that sounds to me like a great lesson learned,

[1:56:55] no matter which way we do going forward. So thank

[1:56:57] you, worship. Council Walberge, please. Thanks to worship. And thanks

[1:57:01] to the team for this, uh, this program. It's been,

[1:57:04] it's been helpful over the, over the course of this

[1:57:06] term. One question when we talk about continued improvement, um,

[1:57:11] that I've pondered, um, as we look to expand the

[1:57:15] value for money program is how do we quantify social

[1:57:17] capital versus monetary. Mr. Sass, please. Thank you.

[1:57:27] Workshop. So for a value, so far we've done largely

[1:57:30] value for, for money engagements. And so if, if we

[1:57:33] were to look at, um, valuing social capital, I would

[1:57:38] say it changes the nature of the engagement a little

[1:57:40] bit from like a core value for money to what

[1:57:42] I would call like a performance, uh, engagement. Uh, and

[1:57:45] through that scoping of that engagement, you would identify the

[1:57:48] criteria to audit against social capital. Uh, I don't know

[1:57:53] that that's been our, our focus of the program to

[1:57:55] date. But in the future, if we did, it would

[1:57:57] be a different set of, um, standards that we would

[1:58:01] adhere to through what would be called again, more of

[1:58:03] a performance audit versus a financial audit. Thanks for that.

[1:58:07] And I think it's something that we need to consider

[1:58:09] because while we're sustained by business principles, we're not a

[1:58:12] private corporation. Um, so we need to make sure that,

[1:58:15] uh, when we're investing, whether that's through taxation or, or

[1:58:19] staff time, that it does have a social impact. For

[1:58:21] example, arts and culture, um, are never going to turn

[1:58:23] a profit. Um, you know, supporting people in poverty are

[1:58:27] never going to turn a prophet. Um, but we know

[1:58:30] that an emergencies that social capital are what to actually

[1:58:33] sustain resilience in communities. So, um, while I support value

[1:58:37] for money, I don't want it to be lost on

[1:58:39] us that, um, as a government organisation, as public servants

[1:58:43] that we need to be focused on building social capital,

[1:58:46] especially for underprivileged. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Weber, do you

[1:58:53] have, uh, just a comment. So just comments and we

[1:58:56] just had comments now. Um, so seeing that, I'll get

[1:58:59] this moved, please. And seconded it, thank you. Uh, comments,

[1:59:04] councillor Weber comment. Well, I thought we were at comments.

[1:59:08] Yeah, just, you know, when it first, when I first

[1:59:12] learned about the value for audit and so forth, and

[1:59:15] the process, you know, I kind of had the feeling

[1:59:17] when I was first on council that, no, yeah, we're

[1:59:20] going to have the city reporting on the city and

[1:59:22] they're going to come back saying, boy, the city's doing

[1:59:23] great every time. And but being on the audit committee

[1:59:27] and seeing how they burrow into the various projects and

[1:59:30] how money could have been spent better or how the

[1:59:32] setup could have been better or the follow - up

[1:59:33] could have been better. And I have a great deal

[1:59:35] more confidence about it. And I think in terms of

[1:59:37] what, um, councillor, well Ridge was saying, you know, it's

[1:59:41] not necessarily in my mind a matter of value for

[1:59:44] money. Should we spend the money? It's the money that's

[1:59:47] being spent. And are we getting the most out of

[1:59:49] it? Which does benefit things like arts and places that

[1:59:52] things that aren't necessarily profitable. But if we're going to

[1:59:54] put mining in to help them, are we doing it

[1:59:56] in the best way? Right. And so I don't think

[2:00:00] value for money is saying not have that, not have

[2:00:02] the department or the money necessarily. Right. That's just my

[2:00:06] comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments. Just closing

[2:00:10] up with regards to myself on this. This is, um,

[2:00:14] an action that the audit committee has been involved in.

[2:00:18] Um, when you look at the number of reports that

[2:00:20] have been completed and the decisions on what should be

[2:00:23] audited within this city. Um, it's played a key role

[2:00:28] in understanding, um, the transparency and the accountability of the

[2:00:32] services that we offer. Everything from potential cash at the

[2:00:36] landfill through to cash at Parkinson recreation centre through to

[2:00:41] all of those other monetary type of items. This council

[2:00:44] made a choice to look at needing to make certain

[2:00:48] that it ends up being, we did these money for

[2:00:50] value audits. And we did these internal out. So we'd

[2:00:53] advance them. If there is a different lens that we

[2:00:56] need to kind of put on this, whether it be

[2:00:58] a social or something like that, that would be something

[2:01:00] that probably would come up at a council priority session

[2:01:03] so that it ends up being that we have exactly

[2:01:06] to know exactly what we're doing. But through our term

[2:01:10] of basically the last, you know, period of time, it

[2:01:13] has been extremely valuable to go through all of the

[2:01:15] different areas to make sure. And I thank Mr. Sass

[2:01:19] and his team, uh, for the work that they've done

[2:01:21] to look at, uh, putting together these value for money

[2:01:24] audits because they have made that accountability that much more

[2:01:27] important on the Capitol that we're spending. So thank you,

[2:01:30] Shelly. Marina for the work that you have done. Saying

[2:01:33] that council, all in favor, receiving this report opposed. Thank

[2:01:36] you. And to the both of you, thank you very

[2:01:38] much. All three of you. Thank you very much. Now

[2:01:42] on item 6. 3 on the agenda and we have

[2:01:45] staff from the social development department to present on a

[2:01:47] proposed expansion of the community care program. Good afternoon, Colleen.

[2:02:15] In response to, uh, recent direction from council. I'm pleased

[2:02:19] today to bring forward a report on the community care

[2:02:21] project. Uh, the resolutions on the screen before you, uh,

[2:02:27] provide the basis for today's short presentation. As council may

[2:02:36] recall, the community care program was initiated in 2024 through

[2:02:41] the city's service agreement with people lived experience society and

[2:02:45] joining us today is Wes from people lived experience. Thank

[2:02:48] you very much for being in attendance today. The program

[2:02:52] began in December of 2024 down, sorry, began in 2024

[2:02:59] in downtown Kelowna. And then later that year expanded to

[2:03:02] the Rutland business district. This program was co - created.

[2:03:08] By people and the city's social development. Department and provides

[2:03:14] peer - supported work opportunities for individuals experiencing homelessness. Through

[2:03:21] the program, participants are paired with pure navigators. For one

[2:03:26] hour shifts focused on litter pickup and general cleanup in

[2:03:31] assigned areas. In addition to improving neighbourhood cleanliness, the program

[2:03:36] is designed to support social connections, confidence building, and pathways

[2:03:41] back to employment. Funding for the current service is provided

[2:03:46] through the social development department's based budget. You'll see on

[2:03:52] the screen before you, what our current service delivery model

[2:03:55] is. The program is incredibly popular with both downtown and

[2:04:00] Rutland locations consistently having to turn folks away, uh, that

[2:04:05] are prospective participants. Program guidelines have been altered to meet

[2:04:11] this demand to ensure that as many people as possible

[2:04:15] can participate. For example, we are of prioritized folks who

[2:04:20] haven't previously been involved to make sure that we have

[2:04:25] more and more individuals take part. Current service delivery provided

[2:04:31] in the Rutland business district. Is three days a week,

[2:04:36] two shifts per day. For 10 months of the year.

[2:04:40] Shifts are approximately one hour in length and include five

[2:04:43] team members. Of note, the shifts are not pre -

[2:04:47] assigned. And terms of, uh, who will take part individuals

[2:04:52] interested in working can intend this schedule locations for selection.

[2:04:57] I'll note that the cleanup roots are typically around transit

[2:05:02] because most of the participants rely on this mode of

[2:05:04] transportation to and from. Your consideration today is a proposed

[2:05:12] program expansion for Rutland. Staff are seeking budget to support

[2:05:18] the expansion of services, specifically to five days per week

[2:05:23] extending delivery through to the end of 2026 with an

[2:05:27] associated budget request of 34, 000 dollars. To support this

[2:05:36] request, I'd like to just share briefly some information regarding

[2:05:39] the impact of this program. The stats on the screen

[2:05:43] before you are from the first quarter of this year.

[2:05:47] In addition to this data, however, I can share over

[2:05:50] the course of the last 12 months, cleaning efforts in

[2:05:54] downtown and in the rutland districts have involved nearly 2,

[2:05:59] 500 hours of participant work. Collection of roughly the volume

[2:06:03] of 35 full - sized pickup truck beds filled to

[2:06:08] the top with litter. And in terms of collection of

[2:06:13] sharps and glass, the teams have collected roughly the volume

[2:06:17] of eight water coolers full. But there's more to this

[2:06:21] story than just the collection of waste. Feedback from our

[2:06:25] participants, service providers, and the community reveals promising social returns

[2:06:32] on investment. Michael, who is part of our people program,

[2:06:38] one of the peer navigators, has shared with us that

[2:06:40] through the project, we're seeing increasing positive connections, providing motivation,

[2:06:47] boosting self - worth. It's also contributed to the transitions

[2:06:51] of folks into employment and housing. He shares that numerous

[2:06:56] participants have felt empowered to develop new friendships, build confidence,

[2:07:01] and improve their self - worth. And the program has

[2:07:05] contributed to individuals finding more stable employment and even finding

[2:07:09] housing to transition out of homelessness. Couple of quick highlights.

[2:07:15] As one peer navigator shared, and I quote, I ran

[2:07:19] into a man who had done the program quite a

[2:07:21] bit, but we never saw him again. Then suddenly he

[2:07:26] approached us very excited and thanked us for helping to

[2:07:30] remind him that even though he is struggling, he can

[2:07:34] still work and do something with his time. He got

[2:07:37] a job as a roofer and has been working there

[2:07:40] ever since. Another peer navigator reported that in the first

[2:07:44] quarter of this year, they received nine requests for job

[2:07:48] references. And out of those four employers reached out. 17

[2:07:54] program participants are actively seeking employment beyond the program and

[2:07:58] approximately 20 people in the first quarter of this year

[2:08:01] have gone on to temporary agencies. Lastly, we hear about

[2:08:08] the pathways to recovery. In the fall of 2025, at

[2:08:13] least six participants that we're aware of have been accessed

[2:08:18] treatment and participants have moved into successful housing. As indicated

[2:08:26] in the written report, council's support with council's support, staff

[2:08:30] will advance the exploration, uh, for a 2027 expansion as

[2:08:35] well. Um, potentially to advance this program in Rutland and

[2:08:40] in the downtown core, uh, which align with the mayor's

[2:08:43] task force recommendation on crime and safety. And what we

[2:08:46] heard earlier this year at the business forum. I'd like

[2:08:51] to reiterate a great appreciation for people and all of

[2:08:55] their participants, their dedication to this work. And importantly, their

[2:09:00] drive for the city and our partners to rethink service

[2:09:04] delivery. To incorporate wherever possible the voices of lived and

[2:09:09] living experience in the way we develop and deliver services

[2:09:13] in our community. Your worship, that concludes my presentation. Colleen,

[2:09:17] thank you very much for that council. Um, questions first,

[2:09:21] if the questions more so than comments, we can go

[2:09:23] to comments after that, councillor Hodge questions. Thank you, Mr.

[2:09:27] Mayor. Um, great presentation. Glad to see it. Thank you.

[2:09:31] Um, the 34, 000 tagged through the entire program. Let's

[2:09:39] try to figure it out. That's to you your worship,

[2:09:41] the 34, 000 would be to expand from three days

[2:09:44] to five days of service delivery in Rutland. And, uh,

[2:09:48] that would go instead of just till October, it would

[2:09:50] go to the end of December. Well, so I was

[2:09:53] going to ask, it was like, now what happens, or

[2:09:55] are you going to go in year round. Right now,

[2:09:58] both programs in Rotland and downtown only operate till the

[2:10:01] end of October. Right. So it's a 10 month program.

[2:10:05] Well, in the program, it says 10 months. So I

[2:10:07] accustomed to you is for both foregrounds go year round.

[2:10:11] The request before you is for only an expansion for

[2:10:14] Rutland to the end of the year. So downtown will

[2:10:17] only go till the 10 month to the end of

[2:10:19] October. Okay. What too much do you not do it.

[2:10:23] November and December. Called ones. I'm interested in why. The

[2:10:29] current is based on service delivery is based on base

[2:10:32] budget. So we were able to balance out what social

[2:10:34] development had to develop those two programs. Um, and so

[2:10:38] we were able to get it for a 10 month.

[2:10:42] At the current service delivery. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:10:45] Mr. Merritt. Thank you. Um, seeing no further questions, do

[2:10:49] I have a mover, please? Move by council to heart.

[2:10:51] Seconded by councillor sing comments. Councillor Stock, please. Thank you,

[2:10:56] worship. And I'm so glad when this was raised a

[2:10:58] couple of weeks ago that we had an opportunity to

[2:11:00] have you come back with a staff report because what

[2:11:02] it does is really remind myself and emphasize the good

[2:11:06] work that people's doing and what a significant benefit this

[2:11:09] is to the community. So I think we're all richer

[2:11:11] today for hearing from you as to why this program

[2:11:15] is being recommended. And I think the mayor for bringing

[2:11:18] it forward because I think it is a worthwhile thing

[2:11:21] and I'm very happy to support it. Um, I think

[2:11:23] what it also does is give us an early heads

[2:11:25] up for our budget for next year because clearly this

[2:11:30] is a one - time fill the gap budget. And,

[2:11:33] you know, if it goes today and the support from

[2:11:35] council, it would be an indication that we may want

[2:11:37] to look at this program in next year's budget, um,

[2:11:41] maybe funding it beyond what we have this year. So,

[2:11:45] but overall, very excited to see this program continue. And

[2:11:48] thanks to all those that are behind it. Council Wolbridge,

[2:11:51] please. Thanks for worship and thanks Ms. Cornock for turning

[2:11:54] this report around so quickly. The work of people is

[2:11:57] something I've supported for a long time. And I think

[2:11:59] it's a great way of, um, addressing the social challenges

[2:12:02] that we have in Kelowna. And, you know, when we

[2:12:05] look at value for money, like I spoke about in

[2:12:06] the last item, we look at the 34, 000 dollar

[2:12:09] costs that are helping make our community more beautiful. Um,

[2:12:15] and that's the social capital of connection that I was

[2:12:17] referring to in the last presentation. So I think it's

[2:12:19] important when we work in public service that we continue

[2:12:22] to remind ourselves of that. Um, you know, when we

[2:12:25] see how far 34, 000 reaches, I think it would

[2:12:28] be a great budget discussion to have around how we

[2:12:30] have a more equitable reach throughout the city. To incorporate

[2:12:35] the people program, um, through all different neighbourhoods because that

[2:12:39] social return on investment is really intangible. So I wholeheartedly

[2:12:42] support this, um, look forward to, um, having that discussion

[2:12:46] around the budget table around how we can incorporate this

[2:12:48] into a larger base budget. Thanks for your worship. Councillor

[2:12:52] Hart, please. Well, thank you, worship. This is actually one

[2:12:55] of my favourite items that have come forward. And you

[2:12:59] know, all you have to do is look at the

[2:13:02] slide showing impact. And I think I agree with councillor

[2:13:06] stack. I think when we see what's happening and we

[2:13:09] see what this does that we should actually take a

[2:13:13] real closer look at it. And I hope we can

[2:13:15] do that in our next year's budget. Because I think

[2:13:18] it's, there's no downside to this at all. There's so

[2:13:20] many upsides, you know, in helping both the organisations and

[2:13:26] the people. So there's just so many upsides. Councillor Cannon,

[2:13:30] please. Thank you. Um, echo my colleagues comments. I did

[2:13:33] have a chance to meet with the organiser earlier this

[2:13:35] year. And I think one thing that really stuck on

[2:13:38] the conversation is a lot of these people who are

[2:13:41] trying to clean their lives around. I think everybody wants

[2:13:47] an opportunity and hope and a sense of purpose. And

[2:13:50] for maybe it's an hour or two a day and

[2:13:52] it works as our, this cornucoluded to some people have

[2:13:56] moved progressed into day jobs and, you know, they have,

[2:14:00] um, build the skill set. So it's a transition. It's

[2:14:04] part of a social investment. It's considerable virtual alluded to

[2:14:07] intercommunity. I really applaud that. And I also want to

[2:14:10] recognise other individuals in our community. There's lots that you

[2:14:13] see them on a regular basis on clonarette and rave.

[2:14:17] I've had people say they're, you know, the one gentleman

[2:14:19] drives around in those little scooter and picks up every

[2:14:21] day. And his block and another person I was in

[2:14:24] Rutland with a revenge yesterday and a lady, she's telling

[2:14:27] them she's almost eight years old every day. She has

[2:14:29] her own little street and area that she cleans up.

[2:14:32] And so everybody can help pitch in because it isn't

[2:14:35] community. The cleaner community is against community pride is more

[2:14:39] pelvin. So I thank you very much to Chris and

[2:14:42] others in the community that, um, help make our community

[2:14:45] cleaner and safer for all. Thanks. Councillor Singh, please. Thanks,

[2:14:50] you worship. I just want to say every time our

[2:14:53] staff member, colleague comes up, reports are so, have such

[2:14:57] a human face to them. It just makes us feel

[2:15:01] that though we're taking small steps forward. We're still inching

[2:15:07] forward. In a positive way. This is very necessary. And

[2:15:12] extending it will indicate how successful it is and want.

[2:15:18] It looked like for next year, much needed rutland as

[2:15:20] well. So I will be sporting this. Thank you. Thank

[2:15:24] you. Um, end of comments, councillor. Just from myself, um,

[2:15:30] just, did you want to, you said something, Councillor? Oh,

[2:15:33] I originally asked a question because I wanted to make

[2:15:36] the motion. To focus forward. It's such a fantastic. Event

[2:15:42] that when I was a kid, if I let my

[2:15:45] house get too messy, my dad would give me a

[2:15:48] bag and a stick. Or it may whoop and down

[2:15:51] the neighbour and pick up garbage off the road. And

[2:15:54] so I've had affinity for your program ever since. Um,

[2:15:57] but it's a wonderful, wonderful program. And thank you for

[2:16:01] what you do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um,

[2:16:04] and seeing that council, I just want to say thank

[2:16:06] you for your support. Um, this was, um, I very

[2:16:10] much appreciate it. Um, and moving this forward, um, I

[2:16:13] sat down with Michael, um, a series of months ago.

[2:16:17] And, um, he had asked if this is possible and

[2:16:21] something that can happen. And I did tell him that

[2:16:23] I would bring it forward. So Chris also being here.

[2:16:27] And the, um, you know, the advancement with regards to

[2:16:31] providing more services up in Ratland. And when we're looking

[2:16:34] at putting this into our budget, if we could also

[2:16:37] look at our, you know, midtown area and potentially extend

[2:16:41] it to maybe seven days from five days because I

[2:16:44] understand the number of, um, possible applicants, our substantially larger

[2:16:49] than, you know, the 10 that they use at this

[2:16:51] particular point in time. So just a couple of comments

[2:16:54] from myself on what it could, you know, what it

[2:16:56] could turn out to be within the community and how

[2:16:58] we're supporting this program. So thank you. And once again,

[2:17:02] council, thank you. Saying that all in favor. Opposed carried.

[2:17:06] Thank you. Colleen, thank you. Thank you, your worship. That

[2:17:14] brings us to item 6. 4 on the agenda. And

[2:17:17] we have staff from the real estate department to present

[2:17:19] on a series of non - market lease agreements.

[2:17:38] Good afternoon, Melissa. Good afternoon, your worship councillors. And Doug

[2:17:46] also. Good afternoon, Doug.

[2:18:02] We are here today to talk to you guys about

[2:18:03] the non - market lease agreement sport. The city of

[2:18:10] Colono recognises the importance of our local sports sector. It's

[2:18:14] the year of sport. And the opportunity it provides for

[2:18:16] healthy living and social engagement. The benefits of a vibrant

[2:18:20] sports scene ripples through all ages and backgrounds, contributing to

[2:18:24] both individual and community well - being. The non -

[2:18:29] market sports leases presented today are intended to support strategic

[2:18:33] partnerships foster sports development ensure responsible stewardship of city facilities

[2:18:39] and maximize reach and impact. Each of these five.

[2:18:49] Sorry one second. Each of these five non - market

[2:18:56] sports lease agreements have been previous community partners. The agreements

[2:19:00] have been slightly amended to tighten up the reporting process.

[2:19:03] Increase oversight and responsibility. And change how the capital reserve

[2:19:07] fund is collected and allocated. The terms have also been

[2:19:11] amended. They allow for optimal property performance and maintenance, all

[2:19:17] while working within the delegation authority by law parameters. I

[2:19:26] will let Doug speak to the actual agreements. Thank you,

[2:19:33] Melissa. Your worship. Uh, I'll just start with, uh, the

[2:19:37] central Okanagan minor baseball association. They provide organised baseball opportunities

[2:19:41] for youth across Kelowna and the Central Okanagan. Their primary

[2:19:46] operations are based out of edith gay park and Lombardi

[2:19:49] Park at, they lease a small clubhouse with offices, a

[2:19:55] meeting room storage and concession. And at Lombardi Park, they

[2:19:59] leased a small concession in storage space. Their programs range

[2:20:03] from house league to competitive development, supporting both broad participation

[2:20:07] and athlete growth. And they're a strong example of a

[2:20:10] community supported sport driven by families, coaches and volunteers. Next,

[2:20:18] we have the clone of minor fastball society. They provide

[2:20:21] organised fastball opportunities for children and youth primarily female, uh,

[2:20:25] in Kelowna. They're operating out of high noon park. And

[2:20:29] the club helps activate a key community sport facility through

[2:20:31] regular practices, games, and competition there. The least space includes

[2:20:36] eight softball diamonds, washrooms, change rooms, storage space, and a

[2:20:41] small clubhouse with an office in a meeting room. Their

[2:20:45] program support athletes from introductory levels to competitive play, helping

[2:20:49] develop confidence, teamwork, and skill. And the society is a

[2:20:52] volunteer - based organisation. It also contributes to the local

[2:20:56] sport community by hosting numerous tournaments events that I'm sure

[2:20:59] you've seen out by the airport there. Next, the cologne

[2:21:05] of lawn bowling club is one of Kelowna's oldest recreation

[2:21:08] organisations established in 1909. Located in city park at his

[2:21:13] long provided a welcoming place for residents to gather, compete.

[2:21:17] And stay active. Their lease space consists of an eight

[2:21:21] - lane lawn bowling green, storage space, and a small

[2:21:24] clubhouse with washrooms and change rooms, a meeting room, and

[2:21:27] a small kitchen. The club supports both recreational play and

[2:21:32] community introduction to the sport. And as a low barrier

[2:21:35] activity, lawn bowling offers social connection, active living, and broad

[2:21:40] accessibility. Next is the clonabocce club. The bocce club has

[2:21:48] been a valued part of Kelowna's recreation community for many

[2:21:51] years also. A located at Cameron Park. They have helped

[2:21:55] keep bocce active and accessible through year - round programming

[2:21:59] and regular competitions. They're leased space includes a three -

[2:22:03] lane indoor bocce facility and a clubhouse with washrooms, meeting

[2:22:06] space, storage, and a small kitchen. The club provides a

[2:22:10] welcoming low barrier space for recreation, connection, and community participation.

[2:22:15] It also adds cultural and social value by preserving a

[2:22:18] community - based sport with deep local routes. And finally,

[2:22:25] the fifth sport lease we're here today is the mission

[2:22:28] tennis club, another longstanding recreation asset with tennis played on

[2:22:33] that site for more than 100 years. It operated by

[2:22:37] the Okanagan Mission Community Hall Association. It is recognised as

[2:22:42] clona's oldest and only charity run tennis facility. Their lease

[2:22:46] space consists of three outdoor tennis courts. And they're located

[2:22:51] at the heart park. Adjacent to those three courts are

[2:22:55] their three additional courts and a clubhouse owned and operated

[2:22:58] by the association, making this a fantastic facility for tennis

[2:23:03] lessons, camps, leagues, tournaments and social play. The club serves

[2:23:08] both members and the broader community through coaching, youth programming,

[2:23:12] and volunteer support. And the lease terms for each of

[2:23:16] these five organisations is for five years with an additional

[2:23:19] five - year renewal option. You worship these nonprofits, board

[2:23:26] organisations provide strong local leadership by planning programs supporting volunteers,

[2:23:32] maintaining day - to - day operations and creating welcoming

[2:23:35] environments for participants in families. Their leadership helps ensure these

[2:23:39] facilities remain active, well - managed, and responsive to community

[2:23:43] needs. Having these organisations operate municipal, sport, assets brings out

[2:23:48] in value through volunteer capacity, sports - specific expertise, community

[2:23:54] relationships and programming that would be difficult to replicate through

[2:23:58] municipal service delivery alone. This model supports efficient use of

[2:24:02] public facilities while strengthening access, participation, and long - term

[2:24:07] community benefit. And that concludes our presentation today, your worship.

[2:24:12] Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Melissa. Uh, with regards to

[2:24:15] it, it's one of those good news stories with regards

[2:24:18] to maybe a completely unfair question and just let it

[2:24:20] pass if you choose to. But when we look at

[2:24:23] these organisations collectively, when you think of youth baseball and

[2:24:27] fastball and the rest of them, ballpark, um, for your

[2:24:31] best guesstimate, collectively, how many individuals are we looking at

[2:24:34] supporting with advancing these leases. I think your worship, the

[2:24:41] cumulative membership there. Is approaches probably about 4, 000. And

[2:24:48] then from there, it just, uh, families, events, other things.

[2:24:53] It's significant. The social region, the economic reach that these

[2:24:58] facilities that these board organisations connect with and have. Thank

[2:25:01] you. Thank you very much. Councillor Lovegrove, please questions. Thanks,

[2:25:05] your worship. And don't forget about the generations of coaches.

[2:25:07] I think you were mentioning at lunch that you've coached

[2:25:10] in. He's now recognising former players he coached. And I

[2:25:14] totally, like this in the previous report, the reflection on

[2:25:17] building us stronger and more resilient cologna and community is

[2:25:21] not lost on me. So I'm ecstatic about what I'm

[2:25:24] seeing here. And I have a couple of questions. Um,

[2:25:27] the amounts and the lease agreements. I mean, some folks

[2:25:30] having this come at them. I'm sure it's no surprise

[2:25:33] to them, but I'm hoping we're taking us a kid

[2:25:36] glove approach, so to speak, from a sports analogy, um,

[2:25:40] the amount, the whole idea of a formalized agreement, uh,

[2:25:44] that's not been sprung on them. They've been full participants

[2:25:47] and partners in this. They support this, I hope. Yeah.

[2:25:52] Your worship. This is a very collaborative process with them.

[2:25:54] We've, uh, we've been taking some time to renew these,

[2:25:58] these templates, these lease templates in general. And work closely

[2:26:01] with the groups on, on, um, the parameters around it

[2:26:05] and building them out. Excellent. Excellent. And I had no

[2:26:10] idea. That the Okanagan mission community hall had been used

[2:26:14] for over a hundred years for tennis. But it kind

[2:26:17] of speaks to the value of Tenicilla. I mean, the

[2:26:19] other tennis courts in and around the city. I mean,

[2:26:22] I think of in my neighbourhood. And badminton, uh, Wally

[2:26:27] light bodies tennis court. Is it my understanding? We're going

[2:26:29] to keep that or what's going on with that one.

[2:26:33] That's another discussion, councillor. Okay. So out of order, but

[2:26:37] it's in our neighbour and it's extremely valuable. Uh, that's

[2:26:40] my point. This creates community. So I just want to

[2:26:43] thank you for that. And I really appreciate this report.

[2:26:46] Thank you. Um, any other questions. Seeing none, do I

[2:26:51] have a mover, please? Move by Councillor Hodge, seconded by

[2:26:54] Councillor Singh. Any further comments, Councillor, please. Thank you, worship.

[2:27:00] I just wanted to comment on this, um, so I

[2:27:04] am very familiar with all these. But one I'd like

[2:27:08] to comment on is the lawn bowling. Uh, honestly, I

[2:27:13] was sort of introduced to it a few years ago.

[2:27:17] They owned and asked if that could help them with

[2:27:19] some advertising in the coal. And all of them have

[2:27:21] watched. And I said, of course. And so they invite

[2:27:24] me out all the time. And I, that photo that's

[2:27:27] here, I cannot believe the age of lawn bowling is

[2:27:30] going honestly really, really young. Matter of fact, the city

[2:27:34] had a team last year, the year before. It was

[2:27:36] great. They came all dressed up. And, you know, and

[2:27:39] that's what they do. And it is, it is an

[2:27:41] incredible, incredible, um, I'm so glad that I saw that

[2:27:45] there because this group is incredible. And same like the

[2:27:48] bocce, but this long bowling, people think, Oh, it's, you

[2:27:51] know, like it used to be addressed in white. It

[2:27:54] was for a more mature. It's all changed. And it

[2:27:57] is so much fun. So I'm really glad to have

[2:28:00] seen this. And just wanted to highlight that. Cause sometimes

[2:28:03] the public, they don't know right because they haven't gone.

[2:28:07] But if you ever get the chance to drop down,

[2:28:09] uh, they're starting now all there. And they do a

[2:28:11] lot of charity event work there. Like the one coming

[2:28:14] up, uh, for women's heart health. And they raise a

[2:28:17] lot of money. So just take a chance or, you

[2:28:19] know, and go down and visit them sometimes. They're, they're

[2:28:22] there with open arms and they, you know, they really

[2:28:24] would like anybody to join. And I hope to see

[2:28:27] that maybe the city and some other groups all have

[2:28:30] a team in it again. So thank you. Thank you

[2:28:32] seeing that. No further comments. All in favor receiving this

[2:28:35] report. Thank you. And, uh, Doug and Melissa to the

[2:28:37] work that you're doing with these organisations. So very much

[2:28:39] appreciated. Mr. Gabriel also. Thank you very much with the

[2:28:43] team. Thank you, worship. We're now on item 6. 5

[2:28:49] on the agenda. And we have staff from the utility

[2:28:52] planning department to present on a local area service petition

[2:28:55] for water service on Chamberlain Road.

[2:29:20] Good afternoon, Luke. Good afternoon. Thank you, worship. Gaffnoon council.

[2:29:26] I'm here today to introduce the Chamberlain Water Local Areous

[2:29:29] Service project and update to you on process. Um, what

[2:29:34] is a locally area service? It is where, residents, uh,

[2:29:37] petition to bring either water or sewer upgrades into their

[2:29:42] area. And thus far, we have received an official petition

[2:29:46] that has been certified by our city clerk's department. And

[2:29:50] we're asking council to support the bylaws to implement that

[2:29:54] local area service. Just an overview of the project area.

[2:30:00] Chamberlain Road is just south of Kaelo Road and west

[2:30:04] of Ben Vulin Road. Consists of 16 properties. Uh, that

[2:30:08] are currently serviced by onsite water wells and septic fields

[2:30:12] for sanitary disposal. Uh, this work is, uh, installing 580

[2:30:18] metres of water main looped from KLO back to Ben

[2:30:22] Vulin with two fire hydrants and services to each property.

[2:30:32] In forthcoming, uh, weeks, we will have the official local

[2:30:35] area service establishment bylaw coming back to council. Which we

[2:30:39] will then be finalising construction through July and August and

[2:30:44] in September and in the fall, we will be compiling

[2:30:47] all of the costs, uh, as far as the project

[2:30:50] is completed, which will then allow us to tabulate our

[2:30:54] parcel tax bylaw, which will be implemented for 2027, uh,

[2:31:00] tax rule. Just in conclusion, we want to highlight that

[2:31:05] we've received a sufficient petition from these residents that represent

[2:31:10] over 50 percent of the property owners and over 50

[2:31:13] percent of the assessed values. And we ask counsel to

[2:31:16] support the future bylaws to implement this local area service.

[2:31:20] I can conclude my comments. Thank you. Um, questions please

[2:31:24] questions of council. Council saying please questions. Does this include

[2:31:29] the homes that are in front of the St. Charles

[2:31:33] Garnier church that are on Ben Voland? There are about

[2:31:36] five, six homes. The agricultural lots that are just east

[2:31:43] of Benvolin Road are currently not included in this process.

[2:31:46] As those are agricultural lots outside of the permanent growth

[2:31:50] boundary. Thank you. Councillor Weber, please. Yeah, for me, this

[2:31:55] is sort of a new process. I haven't seen it

[2:31:57] come up too often where petition is officially filed to

[2:32:00] get this kind of service. And when I first started

[2:32:03] reading it, I wondered how it was going to fit

[2:32:04] into our, our existing budget since apparently wasn't planned for

[2:32:08] when we, there are budget last year. Uh, so I

[2:32:11] looked at up here and it says that the, um,

[2:32:15] expansion of 500, 264, 000 is funded by the provincial

[2:32:19] housing accelerator fund. The fireflow upgrade program and the offsite

[2:32:24] and oversized program. So we have money standing by various

[2:32:27] programs. I guess my question would be if we didn't

[2:32:30] have those, like for instance, the, um, the half program,

[2:32:34] let's say that wasn't around anymore. What would happen if

[2:32:37] they came to us and said, well, we're, we're willing

[2:32:38] to spend our 316, 000 dollars. Where would we get

[2:32:41] our money from. Previously, uh, this area has expressed interest

[2:32:47] in water service. Uh, and, and estimates were provided back

[2:32:51] then at well over 50, 000 dollars per property. So

[2:32:55] without, um, housing accelerator funding or other funding sources, uh,

[2:33:01] the project would not really be viable for servicing. Um,

[2:33:04] the 316, 000 is, is shared amongst the residents, uh,

[2:33:10] of which this, uh, local area service petition represents. So,

[2:33:14] so that means they happen to apply at the right

[2:33:17] time when we have money standing by. That's correct. From

[2:33:21] funds. Okay. City manager, please. Yeah, I think you worship

[2:33:27] maybe just add a little bit. The residents would always

[2:33:31] have the option to pay the entire thing themselves. If

[2:33:33] funding wasn't available, we have seen projects of lower value

[2:33:37] proceed over the years. And under that premise. But we

[2:33:39] would not typically tax other residents. Um, and use taxation

[2:33:44] funds to supplement a program like this. It's usually grant

[2:33:47] programs of provincial participation that supports it. Councillor Lovegrove questions?

[2:33:55] Yes. Thank you. Um, so this is within the permanent

[2:33:59] growth boundary. That is correct. And what density, what zoning?

[2:34:05] Are you building the services to. Zoning is currently RR2

[2:34:10] in this area given there on site wells and septic

[2:34:14] fields for sanitary disposal. Correct. So, so, um, it's not

[2:34:20] being sized for any future up zoning or anything like

[2:34:23] that? Uh, the moment the water is proposed to loop,

[2:34:27] uh, from KLO back to Ben Vulin to provide adequate

[2:34:30] fire flow. So we are adding fire hydrants on this

[2:34:32] water main. Uh, the sizes that are going to properties

[2:34:36] will be a 50 mil service, which is standard for

[2:34:39] any infill work that we do within the city. Okay.

[2:34:42] Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further questions. Do I

[2:34:45] have a mover, please? Put by councillor stack, seconded by

[2:34:48] councillor to heart, seeing no further comments, all in favor.

[2:34:52] Thank you. And Luke, thank you very much for that

[2:34:54] presentation. Your worship item 6. 6 as a presentation also

[2:35:00] from utility services to present on the extension of a

[2:35:03] waste discharge permit. Good afternoon, Rod. Good afternoon, new worship.

[2:35:11] No presentation today. Just a quick summary. Good afternoon and

[2:35:16] good afternoon, council. This report seeks approval to extend sander

[2:35:20] fruit packers temporary waste discharge permit to, uh, May 31st,

[2:35:27] 2027. The permit allows agri - industrial wastewater from the

[2:35:31] packing facility located outside our jurisdiction east of the airport

[2:35:35] to be transported to an approved discharge site for collection

[2:35:39] and treatment. This temporary arrangement now in its third year

[2:35:43] was established following failures in the facilities on - site

[2:35:46] disposal system resulting in an environmental enforcement by the province.

[2:35:51] The owner has identified a permanent wastewater solution and is

[2:35:55] working towards implementation by spring of 2027. The extension is

[2:35:59] time limited cost recovered and includes city sampling and testing

[2:36:02] at the owner's expense. We're a wastewater operations team has

[2:36:06] confirmed their sufficient system capacity and treatment to manage the

[2:36:10] short - term discharge. SCNMI report. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:36:14] Um, questions with regards to it. Um, I remember when

[2:36:16] this initially came forward and it was a concession that

[2:36:19] we made, and this is an area which is outside

[2:36:21] the city of Kelowna in the regional area. Um, and,

[2:36:26] um, it was head a specific time frame on it

[2:36:29] at that point in time. And it has been extended

[2:36:32] beyond that, um, maybe just if you could speak to

[2:36:35] that, uh, formula, please. The work is ongoing this issue

[2:36:44] is not a city issue, although we are providing that

[2:36:48] service, uh, on, uh, we are providing and by doing

[2:36:53] the right thing in the temporary servicing, um, we do

[2:36:56] have an expectation that they are going to finish that

[2:36:59] off this year. We have been provided assurance from the

[2:37:02] regional district and the ministry that has applied the permit

[2:37:08] now or that has provided the permit. And we expect

[2:37:12] this to be done. How this goes beyond that, should

[2:37:16] that work not happen? Is that of our jurisdiction. Thank

[2:37:19] you. Mr. Logan. Thank you, worship ball. I would just

[2:37:26] got a response from the regional district on Friday and

[2:37:28] they did confirm that a building permit has been issued,

[2:37:31] but they don't have any specific timing on construction. Thank

[2:37:35] you. Um, just thank you for the collaboration with regards

[2:37:37] to the district on taking care of something that sits

[2:37:40] outside the city. Councillor Singh. Comments. Um, any further questions.

[2:37:47] Councillor Cannon, did you have a question? Yes, sir. We

[2:37:49] should just, um, you mentioned in your comments, cost recovery.

[2:37:54] This is a bit of an anomaly, right? Cause it's

[2:37:56] outside the regional district. It's outside the city boundaries. We

[2:37:59] don't really do this for any other type of business.

[2:38:01] So I just wonder how you calculated the fee that

[2:38:06] we're charging. Well, this, the fee is consistent with bylaw

[2:38:10] 3480 right now for a discharge of, uh, of wastewater.

[2:38:15] Within the permit, the permit itself is very specific to,

[2:38:19] uh, types of discharge and types of, uh, and, and

[2:38:23] whether storm drainage, which cannot go in. So it's rather

[2:38:28] specific. The permit itself we've reviewed it to see if

[2:38:32] there was any changes required. And from what we've seen,

[2:38:36] we, uh, we feel that's unnecessary for this particular extension.

[2:38:42] Thank you. Thank you. Seeing that I'm looking for a

[2:38:45] mover, please move by councillor Woolridge, seconded by councillor Singh

[2:38:50] discussion. Councillor Singh. Thank you, Worship. Um, I did go

[2:38:54] down to the site and speak to the applicant about

[2:38:57] the situation. The whole thing is the province. I just

[2:39:01] want to share this. My council colleagues, the province came

[2:39:03] up with new legislation, new requirements for them. And the

[2:39:07] issuance of the permits took longer than it took long,

[2:39:12] put it that way. They have hired alpine engineering are

[2:39:15] in the process. They've got that design works, everything in

[2:39:18] order. They plan to have everything done and dusted by

[2:39:21] the end of October. However, cherries will not say, all

[2:39:26] right, we won't grow till your permits come. So the

[2:39:28] permit, the cherries are ready to be harvested in the

[2:39:31] next three weeks. Living, uh, the producers in a pickle

[2:39:35] in terms of how they're going to wash the cherries

[2:39:38] and package them. And just, um, just to share an

[2:39:44] extra bit of, uh, pressure on the producer, according to

[2:39:48] the CFI, which is a Canadian food inspection agency. Yes.

[2:39:54] Yes. Even though they could be other backing houses that

[2:39:58] could pack the fruit, their permit only allows them to

[2:40:02] pack their fruit at that particular site. So they couldn't

[2:40:07] ship the fruit somewhere else. To be washed and packaged

[2:40:12] for market. So as per the CFI rules, they have

[2:40:15] to, uh, package their own fruit at their side. So

[2:40:19] it has to be the water has to be discharged

[2:40:21] somewhere else. And that's the problem. But so to wrap

[2:40:27] it all up, they've assured us showed me anyway that

[2:40:30] they should have a facility up and running by the

[2:40:32] end of October. Thank you, councillor, for your comments. Seeing

[2:40:35] no further comments, all in favor. Opposed. Carried, thank you.

[2:40:41] City clerk, please. Thank you, worship. That brings us to

[2:40:44] item 7. 1 on the agenda. And we have a

[2:40:46] draft resolution following a notice of motion regarding the Abbott

[2:40:50] Street Heritage Conservation area and the transit - oriented area.

[2:40:54] And Councillor Cannon may wish to speak to it. Thank

[2:40:56] you. Worship, whereas the Apple Street Heritage Conservation areas is

[2:41:00] designated heritage conservation area established under the local government act

[2:41:04] to preserve and protect the area's historic character, cultural heritage

[2:41:07] and unique streetscape. And whereas portions of the Heritage Conservation

[2:41:10] Area located within the Clone of General Hospital Transit area

[2:41:14] - oriented area, or otherwise known as the TOA. And

[2:41:17] whereas the province of BC is confirmed in writing that

[2:41:19] the OA legislation doesn't supersede heritage conservationry protections and guidelines

[2:41:23] established under the local government act. And whereas the Abbott

[2:41:26] Street Heritage Conservation Area situated within the Milk Creek and

[2:41:29] Okinagan Lake floodplains for which provincial legislation provides exemptions from

[2:41:34] TOA requirements in certain circumstances. And whereas council recognises that

[2:41:38] the continued inclusion of the Avistreed Heritage Conservation area within

[2:41:41] the transit - oriented area may undermine the long -

[2:41:43] term preservation of the area's heritage character and integrity. They

[2:41:47] moved that council - direct the mayor to rate to

[2:41:49] the province of BC, including the Minister of Housing and

[2:41:52] Municipal Affairs, as well as the Minister of Transportation in

[2:41:55] Transit, requesting the immediate removal of the Abstraed Heritage Conservation

[2:41:58] Area from the Klona, General Hospital Transit - Oriented Area

[2:42:01] Designation, and further staff report back to Council with an

[2:42:05] implementation. Timeline for council consideration. And I just wanted to

[2:42:09] say a worship, I believe, a council truly believes that

[2:42:11] the Administrate Heritage Conservation Area is worth protecting than we

[2:42:16] should support this motion. It'll reinforce the message that Heritage

[2:42:19] Conservation Areas were created to preserve the character, history, and

[2:42:22] identity of unique neighbourhoods and supporting this motion. Demonstrates the

[2:42:27] council's prepared to stand behind those principles and ensure that

[2:42:30] heritage protection remains meaningful, not merely symbolic. Thank you, worship.

[2:42:34] Thank you. Councillors, do we have any questions. Um, of

[2:42:42] course, councillor Singh, do you have questions or comments? Councillor

[2:42:47] Weber, do you have questions? Yeah, question. You know, the

[2:42:51] first part of the motion, which the rest of it

[2:42:54] would have followed if this motion was, I mean, what

[2:42:58] he's doing is he's asking us to write a letter

[2:42:59] to the ministries. And, uh, everything else in the rest

[2:43:04] of the motion may or may not happen depending on

[2:43:06] the results you get back from the ministry. So on

[2:43:08] the surface, it seems like a fairly simple request. I

[2:43:11] guess my question is in a pragmatic way, have we

[2:43:13] already written that letter in the past? I mean, it's

[2:43:15] not like we haven't sat around law being about this

[2:43:18] over the past number of years, but are we sending

[2:43:20] a letter that says, what we've already said so many

[2:43:23] times? And is that, I don't know if that's a

[2:43:25] good or bad idea if it's true. So I don't

[2:43:27] know, I'm asking the city manager, perhaps. You know, have

[2:43:30] we communicated this exact message that is being suggested. I'm

[2:43:36] not sure I can give you a direct answer to

[2:43:38] that question, but yes, there has been numerous efforts by

[2:43:42] that both this council and by staff in the past,

[2:43:45] um, to gain clarity on the issue. And we have

[2:43:47] received that and tried to communicate that both to council

[2:43:50] and to the community. Um, and there have been efforts

[2:43:52] to determine whether or not the TOA that was designated

[2:43:56] by the province has a likelihood of being changed by

[2:43:59] the province. And we have received responses to that in

[2:44:02] the past. And the answer was no. We've heard no

[2:44:06] quite a few times. And I'll make some, I'll make

[2:44:08] some comments to that council. Sure. So, uh, I guess,

[2:44:12] I mean, I don't know whether it's a good thing

[2:44:14] or a bad thing to write again. I'd like to

[2:44:16] hear my other councillor, colleague say. Do we have any

[2:44:20] other questions. Questions, are these questions coming up or are

[2:44:25] these comments, questions councillor love growth. I'd just like some

[2:44:29] clarification for the city manager on his last response, who

[2:44:32] worship, because I'm just wondering if in the light of

[2:44:36] the last sentence in the second paragraph under councillor cannon's

[2:44:42] comments. Provincial correspondence has confirmed that transit oriented area legislation

[2:44:47] does not override existing municipal heritage projections or eliminate the

[2:44:51] city's ability to apply its heritage conservation guidelines, heritage, or

[2:44:55] other. So is that answer given in the context of

[2:45:00] that? Or were those letters sent before the most recent

[2:45:06] provincial correspondence? Yeah, you worship. I'm not sure it's my

[2:45:10] role to interpret what was submitted by Councillor Cannon. Perhaps

[2:45:15] you worship, I'll ask that to Councillor Cannon. Let him

[2:45:18] respond then. I think you worship. Yeah, the provincial government

[2:45:21] has indicated that bylaws, but their density of the two

[2:45:24] - way density supersedes a heritage. We can still have

[2:45:26] our heritage. But the issue is it can still put

[2:45:29] the density. So that's why we're asking to move the

[2:45:31] TOA. And we have never written as a mayor and

[2:45:34] council. Staff have conversations and all the rest. I'm asking

[2:45:37] specifically for mayor and council to rate to the province.

[2:45:41] And we have it black and white. And so we

[2:45:43] have it clear. So it's not, he said, she said,

[2:45:45] they said, we asked directly, we heard from the province,

[2:45:48] if they say no, then we heard. We're advocating, we're

[2:45:51] supporting heritage. And if not, then we know it'll happen.

[2:45:55] Next steps. I just think it's time that we get

[2:46:00] it in black and right. Thanks. I'm writing. Are there

[2:46:04] any, and councillor, just as a point there on that,

[2:46:07] that is incorrect because I have written, and I will

[2:46:09] read my comments out because I have written the housing

[2:46:12] minister and the province already. So, um, councillor Hodge, please.

[2:46:16] Was there any other comments? Well, yeah, I was actually

[2:46:20] going to ask Councillor Can, because you had it so

[2:46:26] quick it could already hear you, to be honest with

[2:46:30] you. Um, but I think I know what you're going,

[2:46:33] but I want to support the idea try to get

[2:46:40] the Trasnorance area protected. But I'm not sure where you're

[2:46:44] questioning ends in your. Goals, your hopes for. What you

[2:46:53] would get from it start. As a council, Weatherport know

[2:46:56] that. It's like you only ask for half. And then

[2:47:02] they'll know. You. And then you fill in what you

[2:47:04] would like to see happen. I'm trying to understand clearly.

[2:47:08] What is it that you're asking? What is your clue

[2:47:11] to your ask for the scouts and due to the

[2:47:13] province. To your worship? Absolutely. I'll speak louder then in

[2:47:19] clear and slower. The fact it's simply a request for

[2:47:23] mayor and council to direct to the mayor to write

[2:47:25] to the province. And the two ministries as it's in

[2:47:29] rating in the staff report presented, Ministry of Transportation and

[2:47:33] the municipal affairs minister and minister housing asking them to

[2:47:37] remove the transit - oriented area from the heritage conservation

[2:47:41] area. I've never seen the letter from Mayor and Council

[2:47:46] with this motion directing. The mayor to write to the

[2:47:48] province. But that was your last. That's all it is.

[2:47:52] And we get it in black and whiteing from the

[2:47:55] province. And thank you. Once and for all. Deal with

[2:47:58] it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any other questions.

[2:48:05] Seeing none, can I put a moat? Can I put

[2:48:07] this on the floor, please? Move by councillor sing, seconded

[2:48:10] by councillor Weber. Um, so let me comment and add

[2:48:14] a little bit of clarity. Go back to this and

[2:48:17] where we're at right at this particular point in time.

[2:48:19] You know, the province determines TOA designations, not the city.

[2:48:24] And the city has fulfilled its legislative obligations and continues

[2:48:27] to implement the framework locally by balance provincial requirements with

[2:48:32] community context. Heritage protection and public transparency. City council has

[2:48:38] taken numerous steps on this matter. And I know that

[2:48:41] staff have as well. Council considered and adopted the required

[2:48:46] bylaws to implement provincial small - scale multi - unit

[2:48:50] housing. And the TOA legislation back in 2024. Directing staff

[2:48:55] to proceed with implementation. The city notified the province in

[2:49:00] June of 2024 confirming that the city had adopted the

[2:49:03] appropriate bylaws to ensure compliance with provincial housing legislation. Council

[2:49:09] provided continued direction on heritage conservation area matters through multiple

[2:49:14] resolutions. Adopted, updated HCA guidelines. And considered governance changes to

[2:49:22] heritage decisions in February of 2026. On behalf of council,

[2:49:29] I engaged the province with our local concerns and considerations,

[2:49:35] including the hospital area constraints that we continue to hear

[2:49:38] from residents. And also questioning why, when we're looking at

[2:49:42] transit - oriented areas, Queensway was not one of those

[2:49:45] areas that was considered. The province confirmed in November of

[2:49:50] 2025 that the TOA designations, including the KGH bus exchange,

[2:49:55] our provincially determined and would not be reconsidered. Staff then

[2:50:00] prepared some additional materials and brought them forward to council

[2:50:03] to provide public clarification. This information clarified the distinction between

[2:50:08] the provincial designation authority and the city's rule in implementation.

[2:50:13] Staff advanced the requirement by - law changes tailored implementation

[2:50:17] to local conditions and coordinated with interior health on operational

[2:50:22] constraints. Staff have made maintained direct communication with the province

[2:50:26] to ensure compliance with regulations and to aid in responding

[2:50:30] to emerging concerns related to the heritage and TOA overlap.

[2:50:35] The province has advised that the city of Kelowna is

[2:50:38] in full compliance. Staff have developed and refined the HEA

[2:50:42] guidelines prepared council reports and produced a for the record

[2:50:45] materials to address misinformation and ensure accurate messaging. In all

[2:50:50] saying of that councillor with regards to this, um, there

[2:50:53] is no hesitation that I have in drafting a letter

[2:50:57] once again and supporting what you've done. And we have

[2:50:59] drafted letters. We have drafted them to the mall. I

[2:51:02] think it was a little bit of a question why

[2:51:04] it was the hospital area as opposed to the Queen's

[2:51:08] way and where it was kind of coming into play.

[2:51:10] And there's no reason for us not to look at

[2:51:14] doing it again if you'd like us to do it

[2:51:15] again. But staff and upon counsel's direction have taken this

[2:51:20] step newer as times and have received confirmation back that

[2:51:23] it ends up being this provincial decision will stay. So

[2:51:27] just from a clarification standpoint so that council is aware

[2:51:30] of the work that has been done to try to

[2:51:32] make it all work out. Councillor Singh, you had comments.

[2:51:36] The worship, thank you. You spoke very eloquently to this.

[2:51:39] Um, is the heritage area worth protecting? Of course it

[2:51:43] is. Uh, but I'm not sure. The problem is going

[2:51:47] to budge from its position. Let's send them a letter.

[2:51:51] Um, we did have a meeting with, uh, a few

[2:51:53] members of the heritage society who felt those new information,

[2:51:59] new energy, new attitude. So maybe, maybe there'll be something.

[2:52:04] Um, let's send a letter. Let's see. But honestly, I'm

[2:52:08] not that confident that the province will change its position.

[2:52:13] But it's worth a try. It's worth a try. I

[2:52:15] will support sending a letter. But I'm not super confident.

[2:52:20] That's all I'm saying. Thank you. But I could be

[2:52:21] proven wrong. Councillor Heart, please. Thank you, worship. Well, here's

[2:52:26] my take. Um, I know that this is really an

[2:52:29] emotional thing. And we all do care about heritage. Councillor

[2:52:34] Stack and Councillor Singh and myself have met with a

[2:52:38] variety of people and the heritage conservation. I have spoke

[2:52:42] to many, many of them. And so here's my take.

[2:52:47] Absolutely what you said, uh, Mayor is true. We have

[2:52:49] gone twice. We have heard Mr. Smith speak about it.

[2:52:54] I have no problem with supporting this motion to go

[2:52:57] forward one more time. Uh, cause it's just the people

[2:53:02] do not feel satisfied with what the government is telling

[2:53:06] us. Um, so if we could, I think we could

[2:53:10] do it one more time. Let's get it really like

[2:53:14] right out there. We've tried this. It'll be our third

[2:53:16] time, third time you're out. Um, I don't know how

[2:53:19] that's going to end up, but if the, the people

[2:53:22] are very emotional about it. And they have really been

[2:53:25] coming forward to us to get more clarity. And I'm

[2:53:28] not sure how much more we'll get. But I'm willing

[2:53:31] to give it another try. And let's see what happens.

[2:53:35] And if staff could do that or mayor and council,

[2:53:38] I think we could give it one more try and

[2:53:40] go for it. And then, and then we could either

[2:53:43] way either work to the advantage or it won't. And

[2:53:47] but we could let to rest. But I'm happy to

[2:53:49] give it one more try. And just to clarification there,

[2:53:52] we'll be coming from mayor and council as the, as

[2:53:55] an outlined with regards to that councillor, do you had

[2:53:57] comments? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Very pleased to hear

[2:54:02] your response to, uh, to Councillor Canna's comments. Um, I

[2:54:09] think, who's this, uh. Protect the heritage conservation components, Marseille,

[2:54:16] as much as I can anytime we can. And I

[2:54:19] think it shows great leadership on the sort of councillor

[2:54:24] cans of being a forward again and great leadership on

[2:54:27] your part. We will to look at it again. And

[2:54:29] so I say nothing venture, nothing gate. Let's give it

[2:54:32] one more world. One more time from the top. After

[2:54:36] that, no more wideness living the gold. But as far

[2:54:41] as I concern, this is worth the fight. And it's

[2:54:44] worth the effort. And I, uh, probably both are fighting

[2:54:48] this one. So let's go fight the fight. Thank you.

[2:54:51] Thank you, Mr. Merritt. So saying that all in favor.

[2:54:54] Opposed carried. Thank you. Um, so, um, I will, um,

[2:55:02] thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. Um,

[2:55:05] it was, uh, some of you have been here since

[2:55:07] the beginning of this at, at 1 30. So I

[2:55:10] truly appreciate the time and energy that you put in

[2:55:13] to make certain that that message was carry forward to

[2:55:15] council. Thank you for being here. Um, it's just Mayor

[2:55:19] and Councillor items. Usually they're not all that exciting. So

[2:55:21] you don't have to stay for that if you don't

[2:55:23] want to. Um,

[2:55:33] and saying that I'm going to start, um, city clerk

[2:55:36] am I correct on that. Nothing else. Councillor Wolridge, please.

[2:55:43] Thanks, your worst, that. S your worship. Um,

[2:55:52] uh, starting on a bit of a sad note today,

[2:55:55] but I just wanted to draw council's attention. Um, to

[2:55:58] the passing of Kevin Flynn, who passed away recently. He's

[2:56:04] been a 22 year councillor in salmon arm. And he

[2:56:08] served as the board chair of the Columbia Shushwap regional

[2:56:11] district from 2019 through 2024. I need a short battle

[2:56:16] with cancer here this spring. And unfortunately he passed away.

[2:56:21] Um, so I just wanted to pass on our thoughts

[2:56:23] to his wife, Kathy and their family. Um, I know

[2:56:25] that they both love to dance at every event I

[2:56:28] was at and raise money for their community. And, uh,

[2:56:31] and all those emails he signed off that hug your

[2:56:34] friends, love your family and live every minute. So I

[2:56:37] just wanted to share that with council and pass on

[2:56:39] my condolences to his family. Council, what were you, if

[2:56:43] I may, thank you for sharing that. Kevin and I

[2:56:45] have been in the same business and probably knowing each

[2:56:47] other for about 40 years. Um, so, um, it's been

[2:56:51] a, you know, yeah, sudden surprise because I just saw

[2:56:55] him last year and seemed, you know, I know time

[2:56:58] flies, but quick, but it seems, you know, unreal that

[2:57:02] that kind of took place. So I truly appreciate you

[2:57:04] bringing that up. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor.

[2:57:07] Uh, Counciled Hart, please. Thank you worship. Um, just like

[2:57:11] to do a few things. I know it's kind of

[2:57:13] getting the end of the day, but being Deputy Mayor,

[2:57:15] we had some really a lot of stuff going on.

[2:57:17] So I just quickly want to say, and cause a

[2:57:19] lot of councillors did attend things too. So, um, I

[2:57:23] did attend a chamber meeting with several of the safety

[2:57:25] ministers and the solicitor general, uh, last week on Friday.

[2:57:30] I was, because I am the representative for the chamber

[2:57:33] I did attend that. And, um, Minister Callen was there

[2:57:36] too. So that was a great meeting. And we did

[2:57:39] have some guests there. And it went very well. Uh,

[2:57:41] we did attend the food bank, the new premises at

[2:57:44] Pure Mac for, for their storage. I know, um, I'm

[2:57:48] just going to remember what councillors were there, but we

[2:57:51] did attend that. It was just great. A lot of

[2:57:54] the farmers came and that's the whole thing about this.

[2:57:57] We're the farmers where they give food and they needed

[2:57:59] a storage place. So in a nutshell. So we did

[2:58:01] that. Um, we did a lot of us did, um,

[2:58:06] go to the fire department, the recruit for the fire

[2:58:08] department. That was just great. It was a great day.

[2:58:11] And we had 11 recruits. So that was really good.

[2:58:14] Hoopfest was incredible. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Man, and I

[2:58:20] tell you, the thing with hoop fest is young people

[2:58:22] go like basketball young people. You see a different hockey

[2:58:27] and other things, but basketball. And these kids and, oh

[2:58:31] man, it was just fantastic. We had a, it was

[2:58:33] so great to have this in our neighbourhood. And hopefully

[2:58:36] something more will come of that. I did attend for

[2:58:39] on behalf of mayor as deputy mayor, the genealogical society.

[2:58:43] I did a speech there last Saturday morning. And I

[2:58:46] did do the pride proclamation just before that. I also

[2:58:50] did attend the tombud. And I know Councillor Cannon was

[2:58:53] there. And I know you wrote Councillor Lovegrove in Tom

[2:58:58] Buds in his memorial ride. He did raise 250, 000

[2:59:02] dollars that day. And there was over 800. I thought

[2:59:05] it was 800. It was 850 close to 900 riders

[2:59:09] and walkers that day. So good on, on, um, on

[2:59:13] Mr. Bud on Tombud. We did attend the chamber 120th

[2:59:17] anniversary. Of course, our mayor has been president of the

[2:59:20] chamber. And several of us went to that. It was

[2:59:23] a great, great celebration. Uh, I did attend on behalf

[2:59:27] of mayor and council, the LS walk yesterday. And Mac

[2:59:31] Logan, our deputy city. Oh, he just left the city

[2:59:36] manager. He attended. I got a great picture with him.

[2:59:39] And he, he, he went in the walk. And then,

[2:59:42] um, actually I went to the BBI event that afternoon

[2:59:48] on behalf of Mayor and council, I just wanted to

[2:59:51] say this week we're having our huge top 40 under

[2:59:55] 40 for the chamber and I'm seeing that with one

[2:59:58] of my colleague, my media colleagues from 99. 9 and

[3:00:02] also on behalf of mayor and council, I'm cutting the

[3:00:05] ribbon for the new mech mountain interior. Um, MEC. Yeah.

[3:00:12] That's right. Co - op. Um, on Saturday morning. And,

[3:00:17] uh, we have some other things going on that day,

[3:00:19] but I will be attending those on behalf of Mayor

[3:00:22] and Council because I know Mayor has some other things

[3:00:24] in the afternoon. He will be attending and speaking at.

[3:00:27] Thank you. Councillor, thank you. And thank you for your,

[3:00:31] um, great assistance and trying to make certain that I'm,

[3:00:34] um, making it too, or at least represented at all

[3:00:37] the functions. You're very, um, a great partner in willing

[3:00:40] to kind of, and some councillors can speak to how

[3:00:43] much, how much that is you have to dig in

[3:00:45] at times. Cause it's, uh, it's pretty constant. Councillor Lovegro,

[3:00:50] please. Thanks, your worship. Um, indeed 100 kilometers. I finished.

[3:00:58] That was job one. Number two stayed alive. I finished

[3:01:01] in the top three. If you count backwards. If you

[3:01:07] count backwards. Seriously, I was very honoured. I was invited

[3:01:14] and I attended the, uh, OKIB fourth annual PAOA. And

[3:01:18] with thanks to Chief Dan Wilson, an amazing event. If

[3:01:21] you haven't gone to a POW, I encourage everybody we

[3:01:24] are in indigenous people's month, right? And I want to

[3:01:28] wish everybody June 21st happy national indigenous day. And we've

[3:01:31] got a turtle I'm festival happening at 1. 30 in

[3:01:34] waterfront park. The day before Saturday is rotary day in

[3:01:39] city park in addition to the deputy mirror launching or

[3:01:42] relaunching mech. And looking forward to being with you tomorrow

[3:01:47] at the Urban Call Launch program. I think it's you,

[3:01:51] Mr. Mayor, that's for relaunching that. I'll be attending on

[3:01:53] behalf of a council, the Silka board meeting in Peachland.

[3:01:57] And just before our pre - budget meeting on Wednesday,

[3:01:59] I'll be trying to sneak in to get to the

[3:02:01] Okanagan museum AGM. Thanks, your worship. Thank you. Uh, Councillor

[3:02:07] Singh, please. I just want to remind all my council

[3:02:11] colleagues that on the 20th, nine o'clock yoga in the

[3:02:15] park. And it's heartfulness. I'll see you there, Rick. I

[3:02:20] know how much you love yoga. And to get up

[3:02:22] first thing in the morning. And the yet ratiyastra, the

[3:02:27] Hindu parade. So I'll see you all there. I think

[3:02:30] it'll start about 11 o'clock. You get to sweep the

[3:02:33] floor. Yoga starts at nine, I think. Yes, Yoga starts

[3:02:37] at nine. But you get to sweep the streets. With

[3:02:40] the golden broom. Putting me to work. Councillor Cannon, please.

[3:02:46] Thank you. Worship on Saturday. I was invited to be

[3:02:48] part of a panel with George Greenwin from SEAL from

[3:02:52] the chamber and Dr. Lee from the UBCO. And the

[3:02:56] economic director general from economic division from Taipei. And it

[3:03:00] was about the Taiwan, the chip industry. I talked about

[3:03:03] how the long - term vision took about 50 years

[3:03:07] of planning. And it's really interesting. And it was how

[3:03:10] we can, as a city, look at planning in the

[3:03:13] future. And it was what can Kelowna be like in

[3:03:17] 10, 20, 30 years. And it was a very good

[3:03:19] discussion. In the director general from Taiwan. Economic development out

[3:03:24] of Vancouver. Asked me to present this beautiful artwork to

[3:03:31] council and yourself, your worship as a foot on display.

[3:03:36] Yeah. Beautiful piece of artwork. So I'd like to present

[3:03:38] it to you and half of that Tywin second. No.

[3:03:44] Yes. I'm going to. Give it to her. Oh, you

[3:03:48] want to get all counsel in it? Yeah, that's good.

[3:03:50] It all counts. Well, can we finish up in the

[3:03:53] book? Yeah. Finish up and then we'll go down and

[3:03:55] take it off. True to that. Anything else to say,

[3:04:00] council. Saying not. Councillor Cannon, thank you for attending that.

[3:04:07] And thank you for this. And I think a good

[3:04:09] picture with all of us out front would be, uh,

[3:04:11] work. So saying that we are adjourned.

PM Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript