[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.