[0:02] Thank you. Good evening everyone. This

[0:05] is a regular meeting of council Monday,

[0:07] May 26, 2025 with a call to order at

[0:10] 7:00

[0:11] precisely. And I look to councelor Stock

[0:14] for the uh territorial acknowledgement.

[0:19] Thank you, chair. Uh we acknowledge uh

[0:23] that with respect the Wasanic people on

[0:26] whose traditional territory the district

[0:29] stands today and the Wasanic people

[0:32] whose territorial

[0:34] uh and historical relationships I should

[0:37] say with this territory continues to

[0:39] this day. Thank you very much. Thank you

[0:42] chair. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move

[0:44] on to item three which is introduction

[0:46] of late items. Are there any late

[0:48] items? Before we through the chair,

[0:51] before we go into the late items, should

[0:53] I move the agenda issue? No, the agenda

[0:56] is after late it. Okay. Um, yes, there

[0:59] are two late items 8 AI and 8 A2. So

[1:04] that instead of three

[1:08] um except sorry, what about the items

[1:11] that you wish to move that's coming the

[1:15] agenda.

[1:17] So I've changed the order of uh what's

[1:20] in the late items. So late item number 8

[1:24] AI remains as is. The second item item

[1:27] number 8 A3 should become 8 A2.

[1:32] Okay.

[1:34] And 8 A1 V.

[1:38] Oh no. Which one is 1 B? This is all one

[1:42] A.

[1:47] So you move 8 A1 remains as it is. Yes.

[1:51] Which is the variance report. Yes. And 8

[1:57] A 3 in here moves to 8

[2:02] A2 8

[2:04] A2 and the agenda items move around. Now

[2:09] what about the OCP? That's coming that

[2:11] will become B which is where it's two

[2:14] rather than

[2:17] three. Can I do the agenda report moving

[2:21] of it because that will clarify which

[2:25] items are moving here because there is a

[2:28] it says 8A3 which should actually be

[2:30] 8A2.

[2:34] Okay. We we've got a late item which is

[2:37] a move was a movement of three items on

[2:40] the current agenda.

[2:43] Okay.

[2:45] Um two in the report.

[2:48] Are there three reports?

[2:53] Hold on.

[2:55] Uh yeah, sure. Uh it's through the

[2:57] mayor. So I my understanding is there's

[2:59] two late items and there are items of

[3:01] correspondence pertaining to two agenda

[3:02] items and so the the the second item was

[3:06] in your package was numbered incorrectly

[3:08] item number 8 a three it was numbered

[3:11] and it would then be number two at this

[3:13] point because council is just simply

[3:15] dealing with the addition of late items.

[3:18] Yeah. Is that okay? Yes. Okay staff. You

[3:21] got that? Okay. Thank you.

[3:25] And uh just just a confirmation on

[3:28] uh late items 8A an inclusion to item

[3:32] 8A1 and item 8

[3:35] A3. Um there will be a separate motion

[3:38] when we get to those particular agenda

[3:41] items. Okay. Thank you. So I look for

[3:45] approval of the agend agenda with late

[3:46] items included stock. Sorry chair. Now I

[3:50] would like to move some items from the

[3:52] agenda.

[3:54] Okay, let's go back. Okay, so u if we

[3:57] can move item for with regards to the

[4:00] staff report item 8 um 8 A1 remains as

[4:06] is. That's the variance application. The

[4:09] OCP which is currently 8 A 6 moves to 8

[4:17] A2. Then the third item uh the foot hub

[4:20] which is currently numbered as 8

[4:23] A54 moves to 8

[4:27] A3. Um the current item of ECOM 911

[4:31] which is labeled as 8 A5 moves to 8 A4.

[4:38] um of the fireworks which is currently

[4:41] lab labeled as 8 A3 moves to 8

[4:45] A5 and the final final one the

[4:48] loneliness survey which is 8 A2 moves to

[4:51] 8 A6

[4:54] okay that's what I was trying to

[4:57] get sorry

[5:01] council oh council

[5:04] Clint Sorry.

[5:08] Yes. Thank you. If you can hear me, I'd

[5:09] also like to make an agenda item uh

[5:12] change from item

[5:15] 11B. Move to item 10 10 C.

[5:23] Okay.

[5:35] Okay. Then obviously before we can uh

[5:37] move forward on those we'd have to do a

[5:39] motion. Perhaps if I split the motion

[5:41] into two uh we do the motion that's

[5:42] based on what councelor Sanjief has

[5:45] required and again I won't get councelor

[5:48] Sanjief to to repeat them but staff has

[5:50] got them. Thank you very much. So I look

[5:52] for a motion to move those items only.

[5:56] Councelor Stock seconded councelor

[5:58] Mconi. Those in favor of moving those

[6:01] items

[6:02] only. Uh motion carries. Sorry. Um

[6:06] Council Clint, is that a yay or a nay?

[6:13] That's

[6:14] um that's in support of the motion.

[6:16] Thank you very much. So it carried

[6:18] unanimously. Now we move on to the

[6:20] second motion which is a motion with

[6:22] regard to councelor mccllintok uh with

[6:24] regard to the the movement and again

[6:26] staff has got the uh moving the

[6:29] 11 B.

[6:32] Do we have a motion?

[6:36] Well, that was my motion. Uh, chair

[6:39] moving it from 11.

[6:43] Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second?

[6:48] Okay. Second for discussion. Um, I'm not

[6:51] sure we want any discussion, but is

[6:52] there any discussion? Council Clint,

[6:55] would you wish to motivate for it? Well,

[6:57] I can certainly support it. Um I don't

[6:58] know why the uh why council would not uh

[7:01] support moving it um into the

[7:04] correspondence so this council can have

[7:06] a wholesome discussion

[7:08] um with the correspondence. It's uh very

[7:11] valid. It's point it's timely. It's in

[7:14] uh connection with uh matters that are

[7:16] on the council table today and uh for

[7:18] the future of the district. Um, I really

[7:21] can't imagine why council would object

[7:24] to moving an item so that we can have a

[7:28] wholesome discussion, but uh, it kind of

[7:31] stands on its own. Thank you. Anyone

[7:34] else wish to

[7:36] comment? No comment. Uh, those in favor

[7:38] of the

[7:42] motion. Okay. Those

[7:44] opposed? Motion fails. 4 42 with council

[7:49] sorry with councelor Marshall councelor

[7:51] Sanjief mayor Jones and councelor mcconi

[7:55] in

[7:56] opposition so now I look for an approval

[7:59] of the agenda based on the approved

[8:03] motion

[8:04] items councelor Marshall second

[8:07] councelor Sanjief any comments no

[8:10] comments those in favor

[8:13] uh passes unanimous thank you very much.

[8:16] Now we look at item five which is public

[8:18] participation period. We have a number

[8:20] of people from the public here. Before

[8:22] you get up I want to ask the question.

[8:23] You've already answered it but would you

[8:26] please put your hand up those that wish

[8:27] to speak at the public

[8:29] participation. Okay. I just want to

[8:31] check the numbers see if 20 minutes is

[8:33] enough. Thank you very much. So before

[8:34] you get up I have to make a statement

[8:37] unfortunately if I can find

[8:39] it. So it's rules of procedure. Uh

[8:43] persons wishing to address council must

[8:45] state their full name and municipality

[8:48] of residents for identification and also

[8:50] the topic involved. Questions and

[8:52] comments must be on topics which are not

[8:54] normally dealt with by municipal staff

[8:56] as a matter of routine. Questions and

[8:59] comments must be addressed through the

[9:00] chair and answers given likewise.

[9:03] Debates with or questions of individual

[9:05] council members will not be allowed. No

[9:08] commitments shall be made by the chair

[9:10] in replying to a question. Matters which

[9:13] may require action of the council shall

[9:16] be referred to a future meeting of the

[9:18] council. Each speaker during public

[9:20] participation period must use respectful

[9:23] language and refrain from making

[9:24] offensive

[9:26] gestures, excuse me, or signs and is

[9:29] limited to speak in for three minutes

[9:31] unless authorized by the chair to speak

[9:33] for a longer period of time. And last

[9:36] item, 20 minutes will be allotted for

[9:38] the public participation period unless

[9:41] extended by vote of the

[9:44] council. So the first person wish to

[9:47] come forward.

[9:53] Good evening, mayor, council, and

[9:55] district staff. Uh thank you for the

[9:58] opportunity to speak. My name is Jim

[9:59] Wolford and my wife and I live in uh and

[10:03] work in North Sanage. Um this is just

[10:06] not our home. It's our community and we

[10:09] know it's quite well and we care deeply

[10:11] about policies that uphold the values

[10:13] and vision outlined in the upcoming uh

[10:16] official community plan. Uh my wife and

[10:19] I believe that developing a short-term

[10:21] rental policy guided by the provincial

[10:23] short-term rental um accommodation act

[10:26] that was passed in 2023 offers a

[10:30] reasonable and responsible effective

[10:32] framework to make to meet several of our

[10:36] OCP uh goals. uh a well-crafted policy

[10:39] can strike the right balance by

[10:42] supporting local economic activity,

[10:44] encouraging innovative housing

[10:47] solutions, and helping address

[10:48] affordable home ownership. And I'll give

[10:50] an example. There's many seniors who

[10:53] wish to age in place in North Sanage and

[10:56] by leveraging their homes for additional

[10:59] income is one example of the OCP looking

[11:02] for innovative ways to raise income. The

[11:06] legis the legislation

[11:08] uh of the uh provincial short-term

[11:10] rental accommodation act uh is aimed to

[11:13] strike a balance protecting long-term

[11:17] housing challenges by limiting the

[11:19] short-term rentals to principal

[11:22] residents. The registry provides

[11:25] transparency. It provides accountability

[11:28] and enforcement, which is so important,

[11:31] ensuring only legal listings remain on

[11:33] the platform.

[11:35] As hosts, my wife and I have welcomed on

[11:38] a personal note uh many visiting

[11:40] professionals that work in the uh uh

[11:45] health care that provide support for

[11:48] work people in North

[11:49] Sanage. Uh they are essential

[11:52] contributors to our region and they rely

[11:54] on a safe regulated accommodation within

[11:58] the community of North Sanage. By

[12:00] establishing clear and thoughtful

[12:01] guidelines, the district can preserve

[12:04] neighborhood character while also

[12:07] allowing short-term rentals to

[12:08] contribute positively, economically,

[12:11] socially, and

[12:13] sustainably. And thank you for your time

[12:16] and your commitment to a balanced

[12:18] community focused approach to housing in

[12:20] North Sage. Thank you.

[12:26] Next person wish to come forward.

[12:35] My name is Kathy Leehy and I'm getting

[12:37] up on behalf of myself and my partner

[12:39] Gary Hartwig. Uh we live in Nor Sanich

[12:42] and we're agenda item which has been

[12:44] referred to a lot of times here. Um 8 I

[12:47] think 1A or we are asking for a variance

[12:51] on our property and we just wanted to

[12:53] let you know that we're here if you have

[12:54] any questions for us. Okay. Thank you.

[12:57] Thank you.

[13:06] Good evening, council. I am David Tonkan

[13:08] and I live on Lanzen Road. I'm on the

[13:11] public record from last week uh

[13:14] discussing the marine uh the marine and

[13:18] foreshore areas in the OCP.

[13:21] Um, I just wanted to say that after uh

[13:25] we I had an opportunity to address you

[13:28] last week that uh Feliche did reach out

[13:32] and we had a wholesome conversation much

[13:35] of which is uh in the uh next draft that

[13:39] you will see of the OCP. It is um

[13:43] extremely gratifying to be heard and to

[13:46] be able to participate in the OCP

[13:48] process. Um so I wanted to say thank you

[13:51] for that and thank you Feliche. Um we

[13:55] also have uh invited uh members of

[13:58] council that would like to come to our

[13:59] AGM. Uh that is still open to you to

[14:02] come along. Um the the draft is is still

[14:06] a draft even though uh you'll take it to

[14:08] first reading or at May uh today. So um

[14:12] there are some changes that we are still

[14:14] looking for but I just wanted to say

[14:16] thank you very much for listening. Thank

[14:18] you.

[14:26] Good evening, mayor, council, and staff.

[14:29] My name is Julie Thorson. I'm here with

[14:31] my husband, John Christensen, along with

[14:34] other residents who operate short-term

[14:36] rentals here in North Sanich. We um

[14:39] issued a letter dated May 23rd, which is

[14:42] on this evening's agenda, as well as a

[14:45] informative report on short-term rentals

[14:47] in North Sanich a few weeks back. I'll

[14:50] make this very short, I promise. So, in

[14:53] light of the many changes that you've

[14:54] made to the OCP draft, particularly

[14:57] section 5.4.19 4.19 on temporary

[15:01] accommodations. Excuse me. It's

[15:03] important our concerns be voiced in

[15:05] person here tonight. As highlighted in

[15:08] my letter, the landscape of vacation

[15:10] rentals has changed significantly in the

[15:13] past decade. It is a diverse model made

[15:16] up mostly of self-contained

[15:18] units. Our review of online platforms

[15:21] found 58 listings listed on the

[15:24] provincial registry. There are three

[15:27] room only BNBs as per bylaw 1349. I have

[15:31] to remember all these bylaws. Nine are

[15:34] full houses. Some offer both rooms and

[15:36] suites within that dwelling. 46 were

[15:40] operated in secondary suites, guest

[15:43] cottages and carriage houses. Those with

[15:47] occupancy permits could not be validated

[15:50] but would be further reducing these

[15:52] numbers. So, we don't know how many have

[15:54] valid occupancy permits. Losing these

[15:58] small communityrooted short-term rentals

[16:00] would be a loss for the entire

[16:03] community. It will not add significant

[16:05] numbers to long-term housing, but it

[16:08] will remove a vital source of income to

[16:11] enable seniors and families to remain on

[16:14] their rural properties.

[16:16] Many hosts, for many hosts, monthly teny

[16:20] revenues will not begin to cover their

[16:22] rising property and retirement costs.

[16:25] This is the issue for my husband and I

[16:27] in

[16:28] particular. Thoughtful regulation and a

[16:31] fair licensing policy is needed once the

[16:34] OCP is

[16:35] finalized. In the interimm, a policy

[16:38] could be put in place without burdening

[16:42] staff or creating new bylaws and

[16:45] enforcement

[16:46] measures. Short-term rental operators

[16:48] would simply need to meet two basic

[16:52] requirements, a provincial short-term

[16:54] rental registry number and a valid

[16:57] occupancy permit from the district. Once

[17:01] the OCP is finalized, a more

[17:03] comprehensive framework such as Sydney's

[17:06] could be developed down the road. Thank

[17:09] you so much for your time. Thank you.

[17:15] Do we have anyone else else that wishes

[17:17] to speak? I'm seeing no one. Oh, yep.

[17:26] Good evening, council, mayor, and staff.

[17:29] Um, my name is Doug Noctal and I live on

[17:32] North Savage Road and I'm part of the

[17:34] short-term rental group of people here

[17:36] tonight to say that uh the short-term

[17:39] rental has been kind of a lifeline for

[17:41] my wife and me as well. Has allowed her

[17:43] to have a job that allows her to stay at

[17:45] home cuz she's been having some issues.

[17:47] So, it's been very important to her and

[17:50] uh as part of the community, we've part

[17:53] of the reason that we've done it is we

[17:55] want to be part of the sharing

[17:56] community. we've opened up our house to

[17:57] people and guests and they all ask us,

[18:00] "Why would you open up your house cuz

[18:02] it's beautiful?" And we said, "Well,

[18:04] haven't you ever driven in a nice

[18:05] neighborhood and wanted to know what it

[18:07] would be wondered like to know what it

[18:09] to live there?" And they said, "Well,

[18:11] absolutely. We drive through all these

[18:13] beautiful neighborhoods. We never get a

[18:14] chance to see them." We said, "Well, we

[18:15] wanted to give you that opportunity."

[18:18] and the smiles and the gratefulness that

[18:20] we've gotten from the people who've

[18:22] stayed, especially the medical staff

[18:24] during CO who came and stayed. They were

[18:27] coming in tired and run down and we had

[18:30] a nurse from Calgary who was on the

[18:32] front line of CO and she came and there

[18:34] was no life in her and she stayed for 8

[18:36] days and went back and basically hugged

[18:39] us and said, "Thank you. You've given me

[18:40] my life back." So the value of

[18:43] short-term rental is there for people

[18:46] who are looking for places to to uh

[18:50] escape the daily life and to refocus and

[18:54] rebuild their mental fortitude. So we've

[18:57] seen so much of that from our

[18:59] perspective. So I thank you for your

[19:01] time and for the work that you guys do.

[19:03] Thank you.

[19:09] Is there anyone else that wishes to

[19:10] speak?

[19:17] Good evening, staff and council. I'm uh

[19:20] Hans Kman and I live here in North

[19:21] Senate. I'm here with my wife tonight,

[19:23] Emma Domen. And uh we're also part of

[19:26] the short rental short-term rental

[19:30] uh group. And uh we believe that

[19:34] short-term rentals have been around for

[19:36] so long now that they're an integral

[19:38] part of a community, having been

[19:40] existence for well over a decade

[19:42] already. And uh we would encourage

[19:45] council and staff to explore further the

[19:48] possibility of what they bring to our

[19:49] district in terms of housing diversity

[19:52] and flexibility. Thank you. Thank you.

[19:59] And anyone else wishes to speak? I'm

[20:03] seeing no one rising. So I'll call the

[20:05] closure to the public participation

[20:08] period and we'll move right on to

[20:12] adoption of minutes. Any additions,

[20:14] deletions, errors, council, I look at

[20:17] Jack. No. No. I look for a motion based

[20:21] on Thank you, Councelor Marshall. Second

[20:23] councelor Sanjie.

[20:26] Uh, I move that council adopt the

[20:27] minutes to the special meeting of

[20:29] council held May 12th, 2025. Thank you.

[20:33] Any

[20:34] comments? No comments? Those in

[20:37] favor? Unanimous. Thank you. We move on

[20:40] to item seven, which is petitions,

[20:41] delegations, and presentations. And this

[20:44] presentation by Mary Winssper Center.

[21:18] Thank you. That's

[21:20] fine. Good evening, mayor, council,

[21:23] staff. I'm pleased to have this

[21:25] opportunity to be here to update council

[21:27] on our last year's operations for the

[21:30] year 2024. I would like to first

[21:32] introduce our board members that are

[21:33] here this evening. We've got uh Sheila

[21:36] Fay, Ryan Traford, Patrick Brown, Dell

[21:39] Elgma, um Linda Pendre, and Maya

[21:43] Pollson. And also one of our stellar

[21:46] volunteers just happened to be here,

[21:47] Shirley Moner. So, thanks Shirley.

[21:51] Uh I would venture that there are very

[21:53] few people who live in this community

[21:58] uh

[22:00] there who have not stepped foot in our

[22:03] facility at the Mary Winspair Center. I

[22:06] daily have so much appreciation for the

[22:08] visionaries who work tirelessly to see

[22:10] the center realized. the financial

[22:13] benefit of the visitors we attract is

[22:15] huge and one of the projects that I want

[22:18] to be able to work on this year is to

[22:20] measure that impact. So, um we are

[22:22] looking at developing some metrics and I

[22:24] hope that next year I'll have those

[22:26] statistics to present because I think

[22:28] that it's really important to

[22:30] um to be able to measure those kinds of

[22:33] things and and see what it is that uh

[22:36] our operation is contributing to the

[22:38] community.

[22:42] I wanted to mention first off the good

[22:45] news that we received in March that our

[22:46] charitable statuses were reinstated for

[22:49] both the Sanich Peninsula Memorial Park

[22:51] Society and the Mary Winspair Center

[22:52] Foundation. For those of us that or

[22:55] those of you who've been following along

[22:56] with us on this journey, it was

[22:59] arduous. Um it really took a patient

[23:02] village, a legal team, and an age to

[23:05] accomplish.

[23:06] So, um I appreciate just the patience

[23:10] that the community and our board and

[23:13] volunteers really everyone um showed

[23:16] while we went through this

[23:19] process. Uh I'm not going to go through

[23:22] all these statistics, but I did want to

[23:24] point out that in 23 and 24, we had some

[23:27] pretty good years.

[23:29] Um we are anticipating a netneutral

[23:32] result for 2025 given uh the kind of

[23:36] uncertain economic climate. We're really

[23:38] not sure how um the economy is going to

[23:42] impact people's willingness to spend

[23:44] money on going to shows and that kind of

[23:46] thing. Uh so I don't know that we can

[23:50] anticipate seeing anything like that net

[23:53] cash gain for

[23:56] 2025. That particular gain for 2024 of

[24:00] the

[24:01] 449778 will be funneled into funding our

[24:04] capital upgrades. I'll talk a little

[24:05] more about that uh as I proceed here,

[24:08] but um there are a lot there's a lot

[24:12] that needs to be done in that respect.

[24:14] and then anything that's remaining will

[24:16] be set up as a

[24:18] reserve for our theater. We continue to

[24:21] see soldout audiences at many of our

[24:23] events and we're excited to continue

[24:25] building audiences for some more diverse

[24:28] programming and offering additional

[24:30] support for artists who might not

[24:31] otherwise have opportunities to perform

[24:33] in the area. We are reinstating our

[24:36] bursery program that gives financial

[24:38] support to children who are not able to

[24:39] afford to see shows or register for

[24:41] programs. Um, we're really proud of that

[24:44] program. It's been a while since we've

[24:45] been able to offer it, but our

[24:47] foundation board is working on changing

[24:49] some of the regulations that we've had

[24:52] in place and we're hoping to be able to

[24:54] launch that fairly soon so that families

[24:56] who are have a little bit less

[24:59] um are able to participate in some of

[25:03] the offerings that we have both for

[25:05] programming and for

[25:06] shows. It was another busy year for

[25:09] conferences and rentals in our building.

[25:11] 2025 is shaping up to be even busier

[25:14] with more weddings and dance

[25:16] competitions. Uh we end we did kind of a

[25:21] check just to see of all of the rentals

[25:23] that we had to turn down and we expect

[25:26] that we could expand by 20% at the very

[25:30] least to accommodate the additional

[25:33] requests that we get for space rentals.

[25:36] It's a busy place.

[25:38] Uh, I did want to mention a couple of

[25:41] things about Blue Heron Park. We're

[25:42] continuing to seek partners to assist us

[25:45] with park maintenance and potentially

[25:47] add to the activities that are possible

[25:49] in the park. Ideally, we would

[25:51] appreciate support from the district's

[25:53] park staff to help us with maintenance.

[25:56] Our staff make weekly visits to walk the

[25:58] trails and make sure it's safe and that

[26:00] we don't have any unhoused camping or

[26:02] having fires or leaving garbage. We do

[26:05] rely heavily on our park neighbors and

[26:07] trail users to bring issues to our

[26:09] attention. We don't have um resources

[26:12] either financial or personnel that can

[26:15] spend a lot of time in the park. So, we

[26:18] do really um rely on our neighbors to

[26:21] let us know when there are things that

[26:22] we need to be attending

[26:26] to. And a little bit about our building

[26:28] at the Mary Windspear Center. Most of

[26:30] the mechanical systems and well really

[26:32] everything in the building um are from

[26:35] the original construction in

[26:37] 2001. Over the years some things have

[26:40] failed and have not been replaced. So

[26:42] beginning with some of the most

[26:44] important our facility staff have begun

[26:46] catching up with those repairs. We're

[26:48] very fortunate that we've got a

[26:50] facilities manager right now with a lot

[26:52] of skills. So, he's been uh able to take

[26:54] care of a lot of those things, and we

[26:55] haven't had to call into the contracts

[26:57] that we would have had to in the

[27:00] past. Beyond general repairs, there are

[27:03] several important items in need of

[27:05] replacement, the roof and the HVAC

[27:08] system being the most critical. We will

[27:10] be considering a fundraising campaign to

[27:12] assist with that project as preliminary

[27:14] costs are estimated at a million

[27:16] dollars.

[27:19] uh readerboard. For those of you that

[27:20] remember the reader board that used to

[27:22] be the digital signage that was up in

[27:24] the um tower, that is a project that's

[27:28] still very high on our priority list. We

[27:30] have found that retrofitting that space

[27:32] in the tower is going to be a high-cost

[27:34] endeavor. So, we are looking at some

[27:36] other options that might give us more

[27:38] flexibility and

[27:40] visibility. Um so, there will be more

[27:43] information about that forthcoming.

[27:46] I did want to mention that we actually

[27:48] have more than one window that needs to

[27:50] be replaced in the future. So, um, yeah,

[27:54] and that's about it. I'm really happy to

[27:56] answer any questions if anyone has

[27:58] questions. Thank you, council.

[28:02] Questions? Councelor Stock, you are

[28:04] already is on.

[28:07] No, I just think that uh we we are very

[28:11] fortunate as the communities here on the

[28:14] peninsula to have the Mary Windspear

[28:16] Center and the Memorial Park Society and

[28:19] the board is amazing the number of

[28:22] volunteer hours and Denny is

[28:25] also she's the one really uh along with

[28:29] the board but mainly Denny who got our

[28:31] our charitable status back and that was

[28:34] so difficult really really a very hard

[28:38] uh arduous uh process. So I think uh

[28:43] that you know we're very very lucky to

[28:46] have Mary Windspear center and that we

[28:49] do uh I know there's a lot of things a

[28:52] lot of capital projects that we're you

[28:55] know need to do plus the park

[28:57] maintenance is very difficult uh because

[28:59] it it is a large park and uh lots of

[29:03] people use it. So anyway, I and also the

[29:07] Peninsula Singers. We have sold out

[29:10] shows. I have to I have to do a plug for

[29:13] our Peninsula

[29:15] singers and our Christmas show is coming

[29:18] up.

[29:20] Pull the mic on that one.

[29:23] Anyway, thank you, Denny, and thank you

[29:25] to the Memorial Park Society board

[29:27] because, as I say, without you, we

[29:30] wouldn't have all the arts and culture

[29:33] and entertainment we have. Thank you.

[29:36] Thank you, Council

[29:38] St.

[29:39] Council. Excuse me, I'm losing my voice.

[29:42] Council Clint, do you have anything to

[29:44] add because we don't see you on the

[29:45] screen?

[29:51] No, nothing to add, mayor. Thank you for

[29:53] asking. Thank you, councelor. Further

[29:56] questions?

[30:00] Nope. She's leaving.

[30:17] Oh, we cleared the room

[30:21] again. Okay. Um, now we move on to item

[30:25] eight. I got to make sure that I'm not

[30:27] jumping

[30:29] anything. Yes, we move on to item eight,

[30:32] which is reports. And the first item is

[30:34] A, which is a staff report on

[30:36] development various permit, DVP. And

[30:39] before we ask staff to comment, I'll

[30:42] stand up the motion so that we can put

[30:44] these two emails

[30:46] uh on record so that they can be

[30:48] discussed. So the motion is is that um

[30:51] that we receive uh email May 22, sorry,

[30:57] from the town of Sydney with subject

[30:59] line DVP application 9140 Creswell Road

[31:03] and second email dated May 25th, 2025

[31:07] from B. Jones and E. Jones with subject

[31:09] line regular. Do I have a seconder? Um I

[31:12] saw councelor Marshall first. Any

[31:18] comments? Any comments? No comments?

[31:20] Those in

[31:21] favor? Unanimous. So now we move on to

[31:25] the main item which is staff. Anything

[31:27] to add?

[31:30] Thank you through the chair. Um just uh

[31:34] the only thing I'll add is that the um

[31:36] the owner is has been and the applicant

[31:39] have been working with staff to bring

[31:41] the property into compliance. Uh and uh

[31:45] this issue came about uh when we do our

[31:47] property check for uh for other things

[31:50] on the property. Um they've already got

[31:52] uh uh some approvals and this is one

[31:56] that ended up coming up in the process.

[31:59] So, uh, staff is recommending, uh,

[32:01] approval on this variance. Thank you.

[32:03] Thank you, council.

[32:09] Questions? Not seeing any

[32:12] questions. So, based on the fact I see

[32:14] no questions, I look for a motion.

[32:17] Council council me seconded. Councelor

[32:19] Sanjief. Council Makoni. Uh, thank you,

[32:22] chair. I'll make the recommendation that

[32:24] one council approve the issuance of

[32:26] development variance permit DVP

[32:32] 2025-0249140 Creswell Road attached to

[32:35] staff report number

[32:37] PCS-25-011 as attached one varying the

[32:40] following section of the zoning bylaw

[32:42] number 1255 section A very zoning bylaw

[32:46] number 1255 section 501.3.4

[32:50] 4 C3 to relax a minimum required

[32:53] interior sideyard setback brackets east

[32:55] side for one existing accessory

[32:57] structure in the RA3 zone from 7.6 m

[33:01] bracket 25 ft to 5.7 m brackets 19.3 ft

[33:07] for the purpose of permitting the

[33:08] existing deck structure. Thank you. Um

[33:12] before we go for a vote any questions?

[33:15] No questions. the those in

[33:18] favor unanimous. Thank

[33:21] you. Now we move on to the next item.

[33:24] Instead of using the number, I'll go by

[33:26] title. And um the next item is the

[33:28] official community plan review. And

[33:32] again, because we've got laid items on

[33:34] this, I will stand up the motion so it

[33:36] can be discussed on the floor. And uh my

[33:39] motion is to

[33:41] receive letter

[33:43] dated whoop sorry letter dated May 20,

[33:48] 2025 from D. Josephson with subject line

[33:50] support for short-term rentals and

[33:52] opposition to draft number two of the

[33:55] OCP. Email dated May 22nd, 2025 from D.

[33:59] Gregory with subject line support a

[34:02] balanced approach to short-term rentals

[34:03] in North Sanich.

[34:05] Letter dated May 22, 2025 from C Kerr

[34:09] with subject line support for

[34:10] responsible short-term rentals in North

[34:12] Sanage. And item last item is letter

[34:15] letter dated May 23rd, 2025 from Jay

[34:18] Thorson and and Jay Christensen with

[34:21] subject line in support of short-term

[34:23] rentals OCP draft 3. Do I have a second?

[34:28] Councelor Sanjief. Um any

[34:33] comments? I see no comments. Those in

[34:37] favor? Unanimous. So now we move to the

[34:40] actual item. So again,

[34:43] staff. Thank you through the chair. Uh

[34:47] thank you, mayor and council. Uh this is

[34:51] um uh a draft of an OCP that is finally

[34:54] coming to uh council uh in the form of a

[34:58] bylaw uh for first reading.

[35:01] Uh it has been a long time coming. Um it

[35:05] follows up uh previous uh meeting by

[35:08] council uh and another open house that

[35:11] was uh conducted on May the 14th and we

[35:15] in which we had a lot of um a lot of

[35:17] input uh and planning staff have

[35:21] received

[35:23] uh as I as as Mary has noted in the

[35:25] report a robust amount of public uh

[35:29] input uh between the last council

[35:32] meeting and this one And so, uh,

[35:35] planning staff have been very busy, uh,

[35:37] meeting internally, uh, making

[35:40] clarifications in the document, updating

[35:42] the document. Um, we have included a

[35:45] redline version and a complete version

[35:47] for council this evening. Uh, both have

[35:50] been added to the, um, uh, municipal

[35:53] website for people to see so they can

[35:55] track the changes. Um, and it is, uh,

[35:59] the first reading in a four reading

[36:01] process. Uh the second reading will come

[36:04] later on in June in the second week of

[36:06] June on the 9th. Uh we'd like to bring

[36:09] the bylaw back uh to second reading. But

[36:12] in the meantime, this uh first reading

[36:14] will give us authorization uh to uh do

[36:17] our referrals uh take this um uh OCP to

[36:22] our uh lawyers for review uh as well as

[36:25] get uh more input uh from the community

[36:28] as well. Um Mary has been extremely busy

[36:32] uh

[36:33] condensing uh a lot of information down

[36:36] um to an OCP concentrate which you have

[36:40] in front of you tonight. Um she's going

[36:42] to go through uh a number of the

[36:44] updates, a number of the changes uh try

[36:47] she'll try to be brief because it is uh

[36:50] um there has been a lot of information

[36:52] uh collected and then um we'll be here

[36:56] as staff to answer any questions that

[36:57] council may have. Thank you.

[37:01] Thank you, Feliche, and through the

[37:02] chair. Good evening, everybody. Hope

[37:04] everyone's doing well tonight. Um,

[37:06] right, as Feliche said, we um did

[37:09] receive quite a few people to come to

[37:11] our open house and um on May 14th where

[37:14] we heard from about 35 people, I think,

[37:16] were in attendance. And we've received

[37:18] quite a few written responses,

[37:19] obviously, many on the short-term

[37:21] rentals. Um and we also spoke with our

[37:24] committees and committee members outside

[37:26] of um the committee to some degree as

[37:28] well and we've had input from various

[37:31] district staff. So, you know, I I'd say

[37:33] it's like continuous refinement here a

[37:35] little bit. Um but I would say in

[37:37] general I would there's about three

[37:39] areas that we've been hearing more

[37:40] strongly than um others. One is around

[37:42] the short-term rental policy which

[37:44] you've heard a little bit about tonight.

[37:46] Um another is around just the densities

[37:48] around McTavish area. And then I would

[37:50] say the the third main kind of um like

[37:54] sort of area of concentration if you

[37:55] will of input was around the marine

[37:57] policy. So you'll see some of the red

[37:59] line reflects some of that. But that

[38:02] wasn't the only there was there were

[38:03] other comments and I'll go through a

[38:05] little bit more but in general there was

[38:06] comments just for clarity as well or

[38:08] reinforcing certain points adding a

[38:10] little bit more here or there. That's

[38:11] where you might see some things um added

[38:13] in the red line. Um I guess the

[38:17] um the main thing sorry the other thing

[38:20] the other major area of of input was

[38:22] around in from the southeast quadrant

[38:24] and that desire for um smaller uh lots

[38:28] minimum lot sizes in relation to

[38:29] subdivision. Um so I'll just go through

[38:32] each sort of section that had that what

[38:34] the main input was and and sort of how

[38:36] we handled it. You've also had that in

[38:37] your staff report but I'll just sort of

[38:39] put that in uh for now. And so yes, so

[38:42] the first one was reducing minimum lot

[38:44] size to 0.25 acres in the southeast

[38:46] quadrant. And I think last time we had a

[38:49] motion that that where that was

[38:50] defeated. So uh you will not see that uh

[38:52] in this in this draft. Also some desire

[38:56] to talk a little bit about increasing

[38:57] density specifically in the in that new

[39:00] designation which is the um fund

[39:02] planning term attached ground oriented

[39:05] residential designation also sort of

[39:07] known as town homes and that sort of

[39:09] thing. Um so we have recommended a

[39:12] couple of edits to that one one where we

[39:14] where we're keeping basically the um

[39:16] existing uh dwelling units per acre etc.

[39:20] But adding some of degree of flexibility

[39:23] where we might be able to where council

[39:25] might be able to increase the density

[39:27] according to certain conditions and we

[39:28] have inserted what those conditions

[39:30] would be in a general sense in terms of

[39:32] amenity provisions and site conditions

[39:35] being preserved. thinking here about uh

[39:37] cover tree tree canopy and trying to

[39:39] balance that kind of um the the

[39:41] interests. So just to give you a sense

[39:43] of that um and this would be addressed

[39:45] in the zoning by a lot of this more

[39:46] specifics

[39:48] um but we didn't make changes to the

[39:50] number of

[39:51] stories. Okay, thank you. Um and then

[39:54] some uh you know edits for clarity

[39:57] generally in that land use section. So

[39:58] that's section four. Then going uh to uh

[40:01] the clim environment and climate change

[40:03] section. Um just some more explicit

[40:06] making more explicit some of the implied

[40:07] concepts in there. There was emphasis on

[40:09] trees importance in in a wild uh climate

[40:12] as well as um wanting to really see we

[40:14] talked a lot about ecosystem integrity

[40:16] but also the wildlife um being

[40:19] prevalent. We had some comments around

[40:21] fire um uh internally and carbon

[40:23] accounting there. So we generally tried

[40:25] to reflect those edits where we could

[40:27] and uh yeah sim similarly for the

[40:31] general development policies there's um

[40:33] you know just again that reinforcing of

[40:35] the the um wildlife water harvesting. So

[40:38] there were some concepts with that

[40:40] that's concepts that were already in

[40:41] there but we just sort of reinforced

[40:42] some of those and I would say the same

[40:45] about from agriculture

[40:47] um specifically there was one um just

[40:50] some discussions around size of the

[40:52] residential farm farm plate um as well

[40:56] as um uh sustainable food production

[40:59] including the marine environment.

[41:02] And then when it comes to the short-term

[41:04] rentals, um I think generally if I were

[41:07] to summarize, I think and I think it

[41:09] it's reflected here from the comments we

[41:11] received is just a desire really to

[41:14] reflect what the provincial um

[41:16] legislation states. Uh and so we what

[41:20] we've done is we've really tried to

[41:23] maybe not get as specific in the OCP but

[41:26] really used the OCP because it is that

[41:28] general overarching policy do document

[41:31] to really try to say uh you know that

[41:33] emphasize that balance between what

[41:36] we're what decisions are supposed to do

[41:38] is balance that need for the h local

[41:40] housing with the economic benefits that

[41:42] have been cited. um and that we are

[41:45] going to look to develop a more specific

[41:47] policy uh to come basically. So that

[41:51] that's where we've gone. We've we've um

[41:53] and I think that that sort of echoes

[41:55] quite a bit about what what people are

[41:56] saying. Uh yeah, the specifics will come

[41:59] later and we'll hear more and we'll be

[42:01] able to um understand a little bit more

[42:03] about how other local governments are

[42:05] threading the needle on this very

[42:06] important topic um because of course all

[42:10] interests are so valid. So, uh, that's

[42:12] what we've done with that one. Um, when

[42:15] it comes to the commercial and

[42:17] industrial, we really, we heard quite

[42:19] strongly from the marinas about liabs

[42:21] being permitted on in marina areas. So,

[42:23] we we have added that edit. Um and

[42:27] then yeah, a few more again making a

[42:31] little bit more clarity and explicit

[42:32] around some of the implied comments um

[42:35] concepts in the parks, recreation and

[42:36] culture specifically talking about kayak

[42:39] launches and this sort of thing where it

[42:41] may have already been implied in our

[42:43] minds but to make some things explicit.

[42:47] Um when it comes to other land use,

[42:53] um just that recognition that BC fairies

[42:57] and the airport and other uh federal

[42:59] lands play such a key employment and

[43:01] public transportation hub. And so that

[43:03] was um important for us to just

[43:05] reiterate that. In the infrastructure um

[43:09] section, we made some changes around um

[43:11] connecting water supply supply more

[43:13] explicitly to fire flow requirements and

[43:16] um in the marine and freshwater section,

[43:19] we've uh tried to really um tie the

[43:23] balancing of the foreshore development

[43:25] sorry again strive to find a balance

[43:28] between foreshore development and

[43:30] environmental and visual sort of values

[43:32] that are held dear by so many residents.

[43:35] we've heard over the engagement um and

[43:37] we will be looking to improve the

[43:39] clarity of that and the intentions in

[43:42] the implementation so in the zoning um

[43:45] that will come later. Uh and then we

[43:48] also removed some of the references to

[43:50] the 2100 or all of them actually to the

[43:53] 2100 reference in relation to the high

[43:55] water water mark again in the

[43:57] anticipation that we'll be looking at

[43:58] this more closely with the sea level

[44:01] rise um flood control bylaw that's

[44:03] anticipated to be done. Um I think

[44:07] mostly the the other development permit

[44:10] areas again just edits for clarity. The

[44:13] de development permit area maps we did

[44:16] um make some uh edits uh where we could

[44:20] show that this we the we where we were

[44:22] able to confirm that some of these

[44:24] streams were actually non-fish bearing

[44:26] and so we've removed those from the map

[44:28] and there's more work to be done uh you

[44:30] know as we as we go forward. Um, and so

[44:32] we've also, I think, added some detail

[44:34] around some of the the research that we

[44:36] want to do moving forward to make these

[44:38] these maps even more precise.

[44:42] Um, I think the only note on schedule B,

[44:45] which is the one that's the the land use

[44:47] designations uh was we were we updated

[44:49] one parcel from community uh to

[44:51] community use from a split designation

[44:54] of agricultural and rural and that was

[44:56] uh to accommodate the I think broad and

[44:57] gun club is the name of it. Yeah.

[45:00] So I think that's that's the details and

[45:02] um happy to accept any questions or

[45:04] comments um as always. Okay. Thank you.

[45:08] Thank

[45:09] you. Councelor Stock is ready. Okay.

[45:12] Councelor Stock.

[45:14] All right. Uh thank you chair. Uh well

[45:17] my question relates to the short-term

[45:19] rentals. So, I think that what I've

[45:22] gleaned from May uh Miss Startzer's uh

[45:26] comments is that there'll be sort of a

[45:29] general outline in the OCB because it is

[45:32] a a broad policy document and there'll

[45:35] be a policy later

[45:37] on specifically related to short-term

[45:41] rentals uh that will be enacted pursuant

[45:45] to the OCP and the bylaw. And am I

[45:49] correct in that

[45:51] interpretation just because I know

[45:53] probably other Yeah. people in the

[45:56] audience may have also want that type of

[46:00] clarification. Thank you chair and thank

[46:02] you staff. Yeah. Yeah. Through the

[46:04] chair. Absolutely. That's our intention

[46:06] is to state the broad intention which is

[46:08] that that we will be balancing those

[46:11] very important interests both local

[46:13] housing as well as and that should be

[46:15] the intention of council going forward.

[46:17] Right. And so this is the that's the

[46:19] long-term thinking broad like oversight

[46:21] policy that will be set here. And then

[46:23] we we talk about uh by developing a more

[46:28] specific policy. And that is our exact

[46:30] intention is to be able to develop that

[46:32] more specific policy when we can do a

[46:33] little bit more engagement and a little

[46:34] bit more research to really understand

[46:37] there's there's there's there's soup to

[46:38] nuts of what local governments are doing

[46:40] out there to thread this needle for

[46:41] themselves and we want to take a little

[46:43] bit more time to also do that.

[46:47] Um for the in the

[46:50] interm regulation that is in place and

[46:52] that regulation would be intended to

[46:54] stay until we replace it with uh policy

[46:58] and other so so so it's sort of status

[47:01] quo as is with this being the

[47:03] overarching currently in you could

[47:05] almost say that our you know we need to

[47:08] look at what the status quo is but this

[47:10] OCP policy today maybe is trying to do

[47:13] that uh will fit under that if that's

[47:16] I'm I'm not sure I'm explaining myself

[47:17] very clearly, but basically it's broad

[47:19] enough that it can accommodate for what

[47:21] we have, but we'll be looking at more

[47:22] specifically.

[47:25] Okay. Thank you uh very much. Okay. No

[47:27] follow. Thank you chair and thank you uh

[47:30] Miss St. Okay. Thank you council

[47:32] councelor Marshall. So my uh thank you

[47:35] just through you chair to staff. My

[47:36] question is along the same lines as what

[47:38] councelor Stockton and I know that

[47:39] you've just answered it but I just want

[47:41] to make it clear.

[47:42] Um, so I understand that policy will be

[47:45] coming, but I believe that part of the

[47:47] change that we have incorporated is that

[47:49] high level view of balancing the

[47:51] economic benefit of short-term rentals

[47:53] with housing. So we have that currently

[47:56] changed now in this OCP draft. So that

[47:58] is the direction to council when we

[48:00] consider decision-m here. It's not

[48:02] specifically just housing needs. It's

[48:04] our economic benefit for our short-term

[48:05] rentals. Do I have that correct? Okay.

[48:08] Thank you. Thank

[48:10] you. Counc.

[48:13] Yes. Thank you. I I just thought of

[48:15] something else. I know that with regard

[48:17] to it's not really a question short

[48:20] comment with regard to short-term

[48:22] rentals also many of them aren't

[48:23] suitable for long-term accommodation and

[48:26] I've experienced that myself and also

[48:30] having neighbors and friends who have

[48:33] short-term rentals in North Sanage and

[48:36] really I can't see anyone you know want

[48:40] it wouldn't be appropriate to or that

[48:43] comfortable for like a long-term term

[48:46] say a year lease or something. Uh and so

[48:50] I think that's part of the balance too

[48:52] which houses or carriage houses or

[48:55] suites uh have the appropriate

[48:58] accommodation for longer term housing in

[49:02] instead of just short-term rentals.

[49:04] Thank you very much. Thank you council.

[49:06] Further

[49:08] questions? Nope. Um I'll bring up a

[49:10] couple of questions. One, I'll just

[49:12] comment on the

[49:13] um I call them the BMBBS, the short-term

[49:16] rentals. Um based on the fact that the

[49:18] OCP is just an overarching document, I

[49:22] assume that

[49:23] the the short-term rental owners will

[49:26] have another opportunity to talk to

[49:27] staff and that's during the process of

[49:29] producing the policy. So, I just want to

[49:33] make sure that they they're aware that

[49:35] that's going to happen. Absolutely.

[49:37] Yeah. through the absolutely that that

[49:39] is the intention I think you know just

[49:41] recognizing we need to hear from a few

[49:43] more people specifically on this issue

[49:44] issue well as many people who want to

[49:46] speak about it to us so uh before I go

[49:49] Thank you very much before I go to my

[49:50] next question I'll go to councelor

[49:52] mccllintok

[49:55] yes thank you mayor uh through you staff

[49:58] uh would you say that the our OCP is

[50:01] being

[50:03] um is following the guidelines of the

[50:04] province as opposed to being made in

[50:06] North Sanage

[50:07] to um creating a a policy in relation to

[50:11] short-term rentals that um would be

[50:13] unique to us. I know that we have to

[50:15] bear all things in mind, but um as

[50:17] councelor Stock already mentioned, there

[50:19] are many short-term rentals that uh

[50:21] would not be suitable for a long-term

[50:23] lease type arrangement. And um the year

[50:26] is getting on, summer's coming. Is there

[50:30] anything we can offer those short-term

[50:31] rental people um at this time to um to

[50:35] encourage them to that they're that

[50:37] they're um their business is not at

[50:40] risk?

[50:41] And I have another question as well.

[50:46] Staff, do you want do you have a

[50:48] response? I mean, at this point, like we

[50:51] have our rules. So, I guess that that's

[50:54] the that that's like if you know,

[50:57] assuming everyone's good with what our

[50:59] rules are right now, then there's no

[51:01] one's businesses at risk at this point.

[51:03] I mean, I think what we'll need to do is

[51:05] we're allowed to be more restrictive.

[51:07] That is what we're allowed to do. Um, in

[51:09] terms of attending to long-term housing

[51:12] needs. Sorry, I should have said through

[51:13] the chair. um uh you know and so that

[51:16] we're not we're not allowed to be more

[51:19] uh open with our policies, right? So at

[51:20] a minimum it would be what the

[51:22] provincial policy is. People can know

[51:24] that as a bound um and there may be some

[51:27] interest for council and um staff's

[51:29] recommendation

[51:31] around creating these variations that

[51:34] we're allowed to kind of do that make it

[51:36] slightly more restrictive. For example,

[51:38] currently it's we define short-term

[51:40] rentals as under um 30 days and uh

[51:44] whereas the province defines as it as

[51:46] under 90 days. So that's an example, you

[51:49] know, where where we would be allowed to

[51:51] do something like this. There's other

[51:53] ways you can uh limit them or not decide

[51:56] to in terms of principal residence only,

[51:58] secondary suite, uh

[52:01] cottage. So I think I think what we're

[52:03] saying is the rules are what they are. I

[52:05] don't know if that's helpful to people

[52:07] uh that that feel comfortable with that.

[52:10] And then it definitely won't be um any

[52:12] less restrictive than what the province

[52:14] has. Uh and then we're going to have to

[52:15] find that balance um between the the

[52:18] long-term housing. And so I maybe Flee

[52:20] you have more to add. Before I go back

[52:22] to council, just a comment on that bas

[52:25] basically it's status quo right now.

[52:28] That's right. And

[52:30] if staff were to come and with a more

[52:33] restrictive policy, council would have

[52:36] the opportunity to vote on it and more

[52:39] importantly the public would have an

[52:42] opportunity to speak on it. Okay. Thank

[52:44] you. Um council k you have another

[52:46] question or you want wish to follow up.

[53:00] Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm um I

[53:02] missed I missed the click on the button.

[53:06] Um my question is because we're talking

[53:09] about housing on the OCP, I have to

[53:12] refer to a letter that was sent

[53:15] by Minister Khan. Uh

[53:18] he council I know that sorry council

[53:21] mccllintok that that's that's for

[53:23] information only. That's not for

[53:25] discussion. There was a motion on it.

[53:27] No, no. There was a motion not to move

[53:29] it, but we can we can talk about

[53:31] whatever is on the agenda. I would just

[53:33] the matter that's on the agenda.

[53:38] Uh through your some clarification from

[53:40] procedures if you like, but this is a

[53:42] matter that was brought to our attention

[53:44] in council. I asked to move it uh so we

[53:47] could talk about it within council, but

[53:49] because it was brought to my attention

[53:51] in in the agenda, I can't turn a blind

[53:54] eye.

[53:56] And staff, if I'm out of order, then let

[53:59] me

[54:00] know. Mayor, I mean, as chair, that's

[54:03] your call to make. Um, my understanding

[54:05] of the convention of this council in

[54:06] relation to the items that are received

[54:08] for information only is that that's what

[54:10] happens with them. and and in in this

[54:12] particular instance, there was a motion

[54:14] that failed to bring that letter forward

[54:15] for discussion. So, um again, I believe

[54:18] you would be within uh your uh rounds of

[54:21] appropriateness to to disqualify that

[54:24] conversation at this point. Okay. Thank

[54:26] you.

[54:27] Or if I'm clear, were to ignore

[54:29] information that's in the agenda, I'd

[54:32] have to challenge the chair's decision

[54:34] on that.

[54:38] That's that's fine. And do you wish to

[54:39] motion motivate why you want to

[54:41] challenge the chair's position? And do

[54:42] you wish to do it as a point of order or

[54:45] just a challenge? Well, I'd like to

[54:47] challenge and uh and put it to council

[54:49] to see if they continue to uh um ignore

[54:52] information that's on council as far as

[54:54] bringing it into the public realm. Um

[54:57] because it is there, because it's on the

[54:59] agenda, we are at liberty to talk about

[55:01] anything on the agenda, no matter what.

[55:05] So whether or not I talk about it now or

[55:07] whether or not it goes in the

[55:08] correspondence is irrelevant. It's

[55:11] information that's been provided to

[55:13] us and I would and again I would

[55:16] challenge that. Okay. Thank you. Uh

[55:19] staff

[55:20] um mayor. So through you then that would

[55:22] be uh you would immediately put that

[55:24] question of the challenge of your

[55:26] decision to the council for a vote. Yes.

[55:29] Agreed. Okay. Do we need a motion and

[55:31] second on it or just a just a mo just a

[55:33] vote?

[55:35] It's just a vote. Thank you very much.

[55:38] Okay. Thank you. Um again, based on

[55:40] advice advice from staff, we have a

[55:42] challenge of of the mayor's position

[55:44] that that um it's a a motion earlier

[55:49] that it was for information only. Um

[55:52] there is a challenge of that. So the

[55:53] vote is those in favor of council

[55:55] mccllinto please raise your

[55:57] hands. Those

[56:01] opposed it fails. uh the six of us 51

[56:06] with councelor Marshall, councelor

[56:07] Sanjief me Jones, councelor Mconi and

[56:11] councelor stock in

[56:14] opposition. Thank you. So we move on to

[56:18] any further

[56:20] questions. Um okay, I'll move forward

[56:23] and sorry.

[56:27] Oh, sorry, didn't see you. uh through

[56:29] the chair just following up uh with

[56:31] councelor uh mccllintok's uh question

[56:34] and uh uh m Mary stoer's very balanced

[56:38] answer um which is good uh there there's

[56:42] the enforcement part as well and uh

[56:45] right now um just to reiterate that we

[56:49] only act uh in terms of complaints uh

[56:52] from the public uh and in terms of

[56:55] consultation with uh short-term rental

[56:58] um uh group, we would um we would invite

[57:03] their um their input um and and and make

[57:07] sure that they're not feeling like uh

[57:09] they're going to be we're taking names

[57:11] and and and and faces at meetings uh for

[57:15] enforcement. Uh we want to hear from

[57:17] them. So uh that's how we would uh treat

[57:20] that engagement as collaborative. So

[57:23] just wanted to add that. Thank you very

[57:25] much, council. Further questions?

[57:28] Councelor Marshall? Uh, I just have one

[57:31] question. It's a really simple question.

[57:32] Uh, page

[57:33] 375, the last bullet point there. When

[57:37] we're talking about housing and

[57:38] community, it just says requiring a

[57:40] minimum 10% of total of any proposed

[57:42] Bearland or strata single family

[57:43] residential subdivisions are affordable

[57:45] housing lots as defined by the North

[57:47] Sanich dot dot dot. I think it's

[57:50] probably the housing needs assessment,

[57:51] but I'm not sure because there's

[57:52] something missing there. So, can we just

[57:54] clarify what that document is? Thank

[57:56] you.

[58:01] I I would agree with that. There's

[58:03] definitely something behind those dots.

[58:05] So, uh that would be it. You are

[58:08] correct.

[58:10] Thank you. Further questions. I'll put

[58:13] up a a question. It's on one of my

[58:16] favorite topics. Uh staff, would you

[58:18] wish to comment on any housing on the

[58:21] airport?

[58:25] Uh yes uh thank you uh through the

[58:28] chair. Uh just to follow up uh with uh

[58:32] Mary's comments as well. Uh we have

[58:34] included we have included um policy in

[58:38] the OCP that uh that reflects um

[58:43] um suggestions andor um requirements uh

[58:49] for the airport. uh in terms of um

[58:54] uh contributing to solving our our

[58:56] housing issues uh here in North Sanage.

[59:00] Uh there is some general policy in the

[59:02] OCP right now. Um staff have gone over

[59:06] uh the airport in in quite a bit of

[59:09] detail.

[59:10] Um it is a very complex

[59:14] uh issue dealing with

[59:16] multi-jurisdictional entities in North

[59:18] Sanage. um not just the airport and

[59:21] federal government but with the province

[59:23] and and the ferry terminal and we've met

[59:25] with both parties uh and we've got input

[59:28] from both parties uh with regard to um

[59:31] uh um getting feedback. So we have some

[59:36] um uh some information uh that's in the

[59:40] latter part of the OCP in terms of

[59:42] general policy but that is all that we

[59:44] have uh put in so far.

[59:49] Um, a question arising out of that, um,

[59:51] have you, unless it's an inc camera

[59:53] issue, have you received any legal

[59:55] opinions with regard to whether or not

[59:57] the airport can or cannot build housing

[1:00:00] on the the pro on their

[1:00:02] land? But remember, if it's if it's an

[1:00:04] inc camera issue, just say, yeah. Um,

[1:00:08] yes. Uh we have and uh uh our um our

[1:00:15] legal opinion has been yes uh we can

[1:00:18] include information like that in the OCP

[1:00:21] as other communities have started doing

[1:00:23] that throughout the province. Uh so um

[1:00:26] we've been given some examples of that.

[1:00:28] So, uh yeah, that that is um that that

[1:00:33] is one of the things that I needed to

[1:00:35] get some pre preliminary confirmation on

[1:00:37] as we build this OCP because it is very

[1:00:40] very important and the airport is uh a

[1:00:42] very important partner in our community.

[1:00:47] Okay, another question arising out of

[1:00:49] that. Would staff consider putting a DP

[1:00:51] on the airport in the OCP?

[1:00:58] uh through the

[1:01:02] chair. Yes, I think we would consider

[1:01:05] that if it was um a motion from council.

[1:01:10] uh we would uh do some investigation on

[1:01:13] um what kind of controls or influence we

[1:01:18] could have with regard to form and

[1:01:21] character through the LGA

[1:01:24] uh on the uh federal property on the

[1:01:27] airport based on that legal opinion.

[1:01:30] Thank you. Okay. Ju just a comment. I'm

[1:01:32] not going to be doing a motion tonight,

[1:01:34] but you may see a

[1:01:36] motion at a future council meeting. Uh,

[1:01:40] so any further questions or questions

[1:01:41] arising out of discussion? Sorry, before

[1:01:43] I do that, um, staff, good evening,

[1:01:46] mayor and council and to the chair. Um

[1:01:48] just wanted to clarify on the previous

[1:01:50] comment about um page

[1:01:52] 375 the uh um councelor Marshall's

[1:01:55] question and the clarity about what was

[1:01:58] missing in that and with that bullet

[1:02:00] under after the housing needs report.

[1:02:04] Um I I'll have to go figure out what

[1:02:08] what's missing through the chair if

[1:02:09] that's okay. I think I think it was too

[1:02:12] but I don't have it right in front of

[1:02:13] me. Apologies. I thought I just didn't

[1:02:14] hear it and we were going to that could

[1:02:16] have been an amendment for for this for

[1:02:17] tonight but we can also do that at a pre

[1:02:20] at a at a subsequent meeting. So thank

[1:02:23] you and councelor Sanji. Thank you chair

[1:02:27] to the chair. Um thank you first of all

[1:02:29] for the report that is in front of us.

[1:02:33] Um I think it's quite a good document

[1:02:36] that we have have and it's seen that

[1:02:40] it's uh quite devote uh dedicated

[1:02:43] towards agriculture and environment

[1:02:45] policy which is wonderful to see. Um my

[1:02:49] question is with regards to page 393

[1:02:52] there is a table on page 393 table B and

[1:02:57] on page 394 there is another table as

[1:03:00] well. Uh in terms of the housing

[1:03:03] targets, the two of them have a total of

[1:03:07] different numbers. One is

[1:03:10] 2,493, the other one is

[1:03:14] 2,694. Just wanted to know, one of them

[1:03:17] refers to a report from

[1:03:21] uh the district's 2020 housing needs

[1:03:23] report, which is already 5 years old. Um

[1:03:27] is it still relevant to have it here?

[1:03:31] uh through the chair. So um that

[1:03:34] first table

[1:03:39] B. So that table is the inter is the the

[1:03:44] required number of housing units for the

[1:03:46] interterm housing needs report using the

[1:03:48] provincial methodology the updated one

[1:03:51] that we are required to do. So that was

[1:03:52] their most recent one that came before

[1:03:54] you maybe was it in the fall. Um the

[1:03:58] second table uh is actually our

[1:04:02] anticipated well basically the number of

[1:04:07] um units from the new designations that

[1:04:11] are contained in the

[1:04:13] OCP with the only exception being that

[1:04:16] there are many more accessory dwelling

[1:04:18] units that would be feasible. This this

[1:04:20] column for accessory residential

[1:04:22] dwellings is what we think will

[1:04:24] transpire which is about 20 per year.

[1:04:27] Whereas the other ones talks about how

[1:04:29] many units could be contained in the new

[1:04:32] designations of multif family, the new

[1:04:35] designation of attached ground oriented

[1:04:37] and then uh the exist the the um

[1:04:41] possible new single family lots. So it

[1:04:44] one was provided by our inume housing

[1:04:47] needs report following the current

[1:04:49] provincial methodology and the other is

[1:04:51] the representation of the units just to

[1:04:53] recap that are now currently designated

[1:04:56] with that one exception of the uh

[1:04:58] accessory dwelling.

[1:05:01] Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank

[1:05:03] you council. Further questions?

[1:05:06] No further questions then I look for a

[1:05:09] motion based on staff recommendation

[1:05:13] and council second to councelor Sanjief.

[1:05:16] Council kunky. Thank you chair. I'd like

[1:05:19] to make the recommendation that council

[1:05:20] give first reading to the revised north

[1:05:22] senate proposed north senate official

[1:05:24] community plan bylaw number 1587 bracket

[1:05:29] 2025 attached as appendix A of staff

[1:05:32] report PCS-25-013.

[1:05:36] Thank you. Any further questions?

[1:05:41] Since it's a reading, are we supposed to

[1:05:43] read the whole document as part of the

[1:05:45] council? Sorry.

[1:05:48] Nice try. We'll be here until tomorrow

[1:05:52] morning. Okay, put me off. So, any

[1:05:55] further questions? No further questions.

[1:05:57] Those in

[1:05:58] favor? Those opposed?

[1:06:00] Motion carries 51 with the council in

[1:06:07] opposition. Now we move on to the next

[1:06:10] item and staff tell me which is next

[1:06:13] item by name.

[1:06:15] Mr. Mayor, it's the food hub. Food hub.

[1:06:18] Thank

[1:06:19] you. I will find it. So question. Okay.

[1:06:24] So staff, anything to

[1:06:27] add? Nope. We'll just wait for people to

[1:06:29] leave.

[1:06:34] It's okay. Mary leaving.

[1:06:44] [Laughter]

[1:06:56] [Laughter]

[1:07:02] just by

[1:07:12] [Laughter]

[1:07:15] Okay, stop.

[1:07:19] Yes. Uh, I believe Barb Bob Barb is

[1:07:21] joining us on the screen here and I

[1:07:23] believe Barb is going to speak to this

[1:07:25] um tonight.

[1:07:37] Bob, anything you want to comment?

[1:07:39] You're muted right now.

[1:07:47] Sorry, I've got unstable internet here.

[1:07:48] No, I've got um the staff report before

[1:07:51] you um really lays out uh quite well um

[1:07:54] uh the information that we've

[1:07:55] accumulated to date uh with a number of

[1:07:58] our recommendations and uh given my

[1:08:00] internet access here, I'll uh I'll let

[1:08:02] Ben uh director of infrastructure add to

[1:08:06] it if he feels uh anything else needed

[1:08:08] to uh to be added to the report. Thank

[1:08:10] you. Thank you, Ben.

[1:08:13] Thank you, Mayor and Council.

[1:08:15] Um yes, just that what a what um what a

[1:08:19] what a wonderful opportunity to discuss

[1:08:22] um um and oftent times the devil's in

[1:08:26] the details. Um there is quite a bit of

[1:08:28] information that Barb's provided in the

[1:08:30] report and uh we're happy I'm happy to

[1:08:33] to answer further questions and also um

[1:08:37] provide further information for any

[1:08:38] discussion that might happen here.

[1:08:41] Thank you. Okay, council council

[1:08:43] Marshall.

[1:08:46] Okay, I'll start us off uh through you

[1:08:48] chair of staff. First of all, thank you

[1:08:49] very much um for the report. Uh I think

[1:08:53] like our acting CEO has said it's um

[1:08:55] very thorough. So I appreciate all the

[1:08:56] information. I appreciate the

[1:08:57] information that you shared from Central

[1:08:59] Sanich's feasibility study and sanit's

[1:09:02] feasibility study from those

[1:09:03] consultants. Um I've also been involved

[1:09:06] as many of us have with the community

[1:09:08] engagement through the agricultural and

[1:09:09] food security committees. the uh mayor's

[1:09:12] working groups when we talked about

[1:09:14] agriculture and had um many different

[1:09:16] sessions with communities and with the

[1:09:18] farmers and um producers in the in the

[1:09:20] community. So I myself um although I

[1:09:23] appreciate the opportunity for another

[1:09:24] feasibility study, I myself will not

[1:09:27] support that. Um I think we've had

[1:09:30] plenty of engagement with the community.

[1:09:32] I think we can uh speak specifically to

[1:09:34] farmers and producers if we feel we need

[1:09:36] a bit more information from them. Um but

[1:09:38] myself, I think we have plenty of

[1:09:39] information here. I know that we've had

[1:09:41] presentations from um groups that

[1:09:44] actually currently have food hubs.

[1:09:45] They've come to the agricultural

[1:09:47] committee and other committees have been

[1:09:49] invited to go to those locations as

[1:09:51] well. Um so I I'll just start us off on

[1:09:53] on that. But um I'm happy with the

[1:09:55] report other than I I won't support

[1:09:57] another feasibility study. Thank you.

[1:10:01] Council

[1:10:08] questions Sanjief. Thank you, chair. Um,

[1:10:11] I'm going

[1:10:12] to motivate towards an different motion

[1:10:17] or recommendation. Speak into the mic,

[1:10:19] please. Sure. Thank

[1:10:21] [Laughter]

[1:10:24] you. So, um, first of all, thank you for

[1:10:27] the report. Uh, it's taken almost a year

[1:10:29] to get it to the this particular rubrics

[1:10:33] to be formed. Uh thanks to the members

[1:10:36] of the agriculture and food security

[1:10:38] advisory committee to staff Barb Ben and

[1:10:40] Stephanie without fail the generous

[1:10:43] proposal of donation by Greg and Diane

[1:10:47] uh for moving this project forward.

[1:10:49] That's my first uh thank you to

[1:10:51] everyone. What I would like to see if

[1:10:54] possible is that in conjunction with the

[1:10:57] agriculture advisory committee develop

[1:10:59] the survey questions for the food hub in

[1:11:01] preparation for the start of the North

[1:11:03] Sanage farmers market on June 7th which

[1:11:07] is taking place very soon. uh that would

[1:11:10] act as a precursor to engaging

[1:11:12] interviews with farmers uh where there

[1:11:15] is an active ongoing farming on ALR land

[1:11:18] and as was mentioned by councelor

[1:11:20] Marshall we have already engaged the

[1:11:23] farmers in different platforms there has

[1:11:26] been the mock pack where the farmers

[1:11:28] were engaged with there was a specific

[1:11:30] event that took place where there were

[1:11:33] over uh for 62 people attended that

[1:11:36] event 42 of them were farmer farmers and

[1:11:40] they all had expressed a strong support

[1:11:44] and need for a food hub. So I think

[1:11:47] keeping that in mind I don't I agree

[1:11:50] that we don't need to do another

[1:11:51] physibility study. There is enough data

[1:11:54] already out there that we can embark on.

[1:11:57] So that's my first comment and I would

[1:12:00] conquer that we don't need to do another

[1:12:03] physibility study. I'll stop for now and

[1:12:05] then see if anyone has got something

[1:12:07] else to say. Uh, council.

[1:12:14] Yes, thank you. Uh, through your staff,

[1:12:15] I just have a few questions, please.

[1:12:19] Um, we talk about small and medium-sized

[1:12:23] agricultural producers.

[1:12:26] Um, do we have an do we have an estimate

[1:12:29] on how many um how many we've talked to

[1:12:31] or how many fall into that category in

[1:12:33] the district of North Sage and how many

[1:12:35] have uh come forward and expressed an

[1:12:38] interest in this type of thing. Uh

[1:12:40] staff, do you know the numbers?

[1:12:44] Sure, I can speak to that.

[1:12:46] Um thank you councelor and through the

[1:12:48] chair.

[1:12:49] Um that's a great question and something

[1:12:52] that staff focused in on right away. So

[1:12:54] if you read through the the uh the uh

[1:12:56] the phase one um criteria in the in the

[1:12:59] in the donor document and the generous

[1:13:01] donor document it does envision a

[1:13:03] certain size of farmer where the service

[1:13:05] would be

[1:13:07] um most valuable most used and it spoke

[1:13:10] to a small to mediumsiz farm with 10

[1:13:12] acres or less. So we were curious and as

[1:13:14] presented in the report how many of

[1:13:16] those farmers are here? Um so that's

[1:13:18] part of um I know I know the reluctance

[1:13:20] with the with the full blown feasibility

[1:13:23] study. I can understand that very much.

[1:13:25] Um staff are ultimately here to support

[1:13:27] mayor and council's decisions. But that

[1:13:29] was one of the questions that staff had

[1:13:31] about of those 105 I think there's 125

[1:13:34] folios with 105

[1:13:39] um that are less than 10 acres. Um so so

[1:13:43] that would be something that could be

[1:13:45] determined about how many of those

[1:13:47] property owners um are specifically

[1:13:49] interested in the service. So yes, sorry

[1:13:51] long-winded question, councelor Clint.

[1:13:54] We believe there's about 105 folios that

[1:13:57] would fit in that

[1:14:01] category. Council mint, do you have a

[1:14:03] follow-up question? Sorry. Yes.

[1:14:13] Um, you're on mute.

[1:14:16] Yes, I am. I'm sorry about that, Chair.

[1:14:19] Uh, thank you, Mr. Martin, for that.

[1:14:21] The, uh, so we have approximately

[1:14:23] 105 businesses that might be might show

[1:14:27] an interest in this. The um, population

[1:14:31] in the district of North Sanage is over

[1:14:33] 12,000. Are those 12,000 people, how

[1:14:36] have they been um, how have they been

[1:14:38] solicited? and how um have they has it

[1:14:40] been made very clear as to what this

[1:14:42] would end up costing them to support

[1:14:46] um um this particular um enterprise of a

[1:14:50] food hub. Um contrary to the other

[1:14:54] counselors, I don't believe that we do

[1:14:56] that we have enough information

[1:14:58] especially before me today. Um and I

[1:15:01] again I'm I'm very careful about what I

[1:15:03] refer to on in this agenda as to what I

[1:15:05] can talk about but uh what I uh what I

[1:15:08] see on this particular agenda item I

[1:15:10] don't see enough to make you satisfied

[1:15:12] that uh this is the the approach to go

[1:15:14] especially with the enormous cost. So um

[1:15:18] we what has been done as far as the um

[1:15:21] to reaching out to the general community

[1:15:23] the taxpayers of this community support

[1:15:25] this

[1:15:28] stuff. Thank you uh councelor mccllintok

[1:15:31] and to the chair.

[1:15:34] Um there's a lot in that question and

[1:15:36] perhaps I can start with offering uh

[1:15:38] Barb's knowledge just about um there has

[1:15:42] been um adjacent feasibility studies

[1:15:45] that are quite comprehensive that were

[1:15:47] reviewed by staff and in terms of the

[1:15:49] cost that that's to be determined cost

[1:15:52] and cost benefit. Um Barb has done some

[1:15:56] um high level um analysis on that. Barb,

[1:16:00] are you able to provide a bit of

[1:16:03] information about that?

[1:16:07] Yeah, I think there's a, you know, I I

[1:16:09] took the reports um that Central Sanage

[1:16:11] and Sanage did on their feasibility and

[1:16:13] tried to extrapolate that into uh what

[1:16:16] we know of the North Sanage farmers and

[1:16:18] there's a lot of assumptions in those

[1:16:20] reports and I don't know that those

[1:16:22] resumptions uh translate over to North

[1:16:25] Sanage. Um, so I, you know, it it

[1:16:28] doesn't paint a very pretty picture, but

[1:16:29] I wouldn't rely on that 100%. Um, and I

[1:16:32] wouldn't put that in front of council

[1:16:34] for them to base their decision on it,

[1:16:35] which is, um, why I think we need a

[1:16:38] feasibility study uh, a needs analysis

[1:16:41] to really understand what the farmers of

[1:16:44] North Sanich um, are interested uh, in

[1:16:47] uh, in terms of a food hub um, you know,

[1:16:50] um, service that could be offered by the

[1:16:52] district.

[1:16:55] Thank you, staff. I don't know if that's

[1:16:57] helpful or not, but that's okay. That's

[1:16:59] what I have at the moment,

[1:17:01] staff.

[1:17:03] Um, yeah, thank you. Thanks, Barb. Um

[1:17:08] um perhaps I'll um just um and through

[1:17:12] the chair, perhaps I'll just respond to

[1:17:15] some further questions from council.

[1:17:17] What I'm hearing is that there's a

[1:17:18] desire for some level of a needs

[1:17:20] analysis and that was in inferred to

[1:17:23] from councelor Shiva Stava about a

[1:17:25] survey um that survey could possibly be

[1:17:28] expanded to some capacity to capture

[1:17:30] some of these folio users and I'm

[1:17:33] hearing about a project plan and a

[1:17:34] timeline that are of interest. So I'm

[1:17:36] I'm I'm here to listen more to to the

[1:17:39] mayor and council discussion. Thank you,

[1:17:42] councelor Sanji, councelor Scott, then

[1:17:44] councelor Marshall

[1:17:46] through the chair. Uh just uh I'm

[1:17:48] looking at stats from 2021 and some of

[1:17:51] the data that was been acquired by South

[1:17:54] Vancouver Island Farmers Association.

[1:17:57] There are 41 farms that were registered

[1:18:01] by with CRA under 10 acres. uh for of

[1:18:05] the 41 that were under 10 acres when the

[1:18:09] mock pack uh had a farmers engagement we

[1:18:13] had 19 farms being represented at that

[1:18:16] point of which majority of them were in

[1:18:19] favor of having a food hub. So that's

[1:18:21] just one part that I wanted to make make

[1:18:24] a point on. Thank you. Thank you

[1:18:27] councelor Stark. Uh yes, thank you chair

[1:18:29] through you uh to staff and and just

[1:18:33] general comment as well. I think that

[1:18:36] what this Thank you very much for the

[1:18:38] report. It's I think it's really uh well

[1:18:41] done and I I like all the information

[1:18:44] from the central Sanich uh uh study as

[1:18:48] well as Sanich's study. But I think the

[1:18:51] reason that staff is recommending to us

[1:18:54] that there needs to be maybe one other

[1:18:58] sort of link in the chain here is that

[1:19:02] Central Sanage's study didn't result in

[1:19:04] a food hub. That's one. Two, there have

[1:19:08] been other studies and there's now two

[1:19:10] food hubs in the CRD. Right. So then

[1:19:14] three, I think what you're saying and I

[1:19:17] may I just want to clarify that through

[1:19:19] the charitative stuff is that three then

[1:19:22] is okay, what do our farmers need and

[1:19:25] want because we haven't I mean I don't

[1:19:30] think we've really determined that and

[1:19:31] there are two food hubs. Central San's

[1:19:34] study didn't result in a food hub. May

[1:19:37] you know do we need to get together with

[1:19:39] Central Sanage for instance? I think

[1:19:42] that's maybe what Ms. Webster is

[1:19:44] speaking about to have one that would

[1:19:47] benefit both farming communities who are

[1:19:50] both both Central Sanche and North Sanch

[1:19:52] have large quite large farming

[1:19:54] communities. Now, I know there may be a

[1:19:56] time um uh sort of that we're under some

[1:20:01] type of a time uh exigency, but I I

[1:20:06] just, you know, I'm not against doing

[1:20:08] further analysis, but I do agree with

[1:20:10] Council and Marshall that we have had a

[1:20:12] lot of analysis, but I think that what

[1:20:14] you're saying I got on page three of

[1:20:18] your report, which is page 125 in our in

[1:20:21] our binder, uh which talks about what

[1:20:25] I've just said. One, two, and three. So,

[1:20:27] I I'm kind of not um not quite decided

[1:20:32] what we need to do and I know we do have

[1:20:35] the funding at least to begin or to

[1:20:38] commence from the gift proposal. So,

[1:20:41] thank you very much, chair. Thank you.

[1:20:43] Thank you, Council Marshall. Uh yeah,

[1:20:46] just a couple things I guess to add to

[1:20:47] that. Um, just as a bit of background, I

[1:20:49] might have my math incorrect, but uh, I

[1:20:52] think in this district, we've been

[1:20:54] talking about a food hub for 15 years if

[1:20:56] I don't have that incorrect. I know

[1:20:58] we've been speaking about it for at

[1:20:59] least five. So, this is not a new idea.

[1:21:01] Certainly not something that a number of

[1:21:03] people that are non-farmers came up with

[1:21:04] and thought we needed to do. So, I think

[1:21:07] we are aware it is something uh that we

[1:21:09] need in the district. Certainly from all

[1:21:11] the engagement that we have done, I like

[1:21:12] the idea of doing a further survey to

[1:21:14] kind of identify additional needs. I

[1:21:16] also do want to point out and again

[1:21:18] thank you very much to the donor for

[1:21:20] donating that the money to do this. This

[1:21:22] is also someone who is a farmer, right?

[1:21:24] He's a farmer in this district and that

[1:21:26] is his background. So I I'm going to

[1:21:28] have some faith that he has spoken to

[1:21:30] the community members. I know he has and

[1:21:32] other farmers and producers and

[1:21:33] understands this is something that is

[1:21:35] required and needed. So we are getting

[1:21:37] that from a reputable source as well

[1:21:40] that has that knowledge. I like the

[1:21:42] survey idea certainly to find out the

[1:21:43] needs and and just to be clear in sort

[1:21:46] of what councelor Stock was saying is

[1:21:49] for me when I read feasibility study um

[1:21:51] as a consultant hiring a consultant to

[1:21:53] do a full feasibility study I am not

[1:21:55] going to support I don't think that is

[1:21:56] what we need. I could understand finding

[1:21:58] further needs for farmers and certainly

[1:22:00] the costing piece of it. So I but I

[1:22:02] would I would hope and have faith that

[1:22:05] our staff would be able to come up with

[1:22:07] what is the cost of servicing a food hub

[1:22:10] that's a thousand square feet which is

[1:22:11] sort of what we're talking about for the

[1:22:12] first phase. So I don't I I certainly

[1:22:14] agree that we need that information but

[1:22:16] I don't count that as a full feasibility

[1:22:18] study. So I would support more

[1:22:20] information around farmers needs from a

[1:22:22] survey and also that costing piece of

[1:22:26] it council further questions.

[1:22:30] No questions.

[1:22:33] Oh, it's councelor stock. Councelor

[1:22:36] Sanji, do you want You go ahead. All

[1:22:39] right. No, I was just going to say yes.

[1:22:41] I I concur with what councelor Marshall

[1:22:44] says. I I but I do think that that's

[1:22:48] what we're what it's not a full

[1:22:50] feasibility study but something where we

[1:22:52] need to know what the needs are what the

[1:22:55] costs would be for the thousand square

[1:22:57] foot uh one to begin with and and also

[1:23:02] you know what um what exactly are the

[1:23:07] benefits uh for farmers. I mean, I know

[1:23:10] we all we we have been speaking about it

[1:23:12] a long time and I kind of understand

[1:23:16] what some of the benefits are, but I

[1:23:18] think maybe we need to have that

[1:23:21] information as well. And I think we have

[1:23:24] it. It's not something that's it's got

[1:23:26] to be somewhere from all the work we've

[1:23:28] done. And uh it it's just kind of more

[1:23:33] uh direct information so that people can

[1:23:35] understand if we're going to do this,

[1:23:38] here's the cost, here's what it does,

[1:23:40] here's what how many farmers support it.

[1:23:44] And I think that's what maybe Miss

[1:23:46] Webster wants to comment, but I think

[1:23:48] that's what she means and what staff

[1:23:50] means when they're asking us to do a bit

[1:23:53] further analysis. Thank you,

[1:23:57] staff. Um staff, do you want to speak

[1:23:59] before I go to council?

[1:24:02] Okay, council.

[1:24:04] Yes. Thank you. Um first of all, I'd

[1:24:07] like to caution council. Let's not be

[1:24:09] tempted by the gift make a wrong

[1:24:12] decision and burden our

[1:24:14] taxpayers for years to

[1:24:17] come. Okay. We only have to look as far

[1:24:19] as the financial drain of sand down to

[1:24:22] see how quickly our money can be drained

[1:24:23] away.

[1:24:25] when we're talking about an exclusive

[1:24:28] group and I fully support agriculture.

[1:24:30] So don't get me wrong in in in the way

[1:24:32] I'm expressing this. I do support

[1:24:34] agriculture completely.

[1:24:36] However, if if our only survey group is

[1:24:40] the

[1:24:40] choir, then we're going to get answers

[1:24:42] that are helpful to the

[1:24:44] choir. We have to this has this has to

[1:24:47] be more broad-based. It's 12,000 people

[1:24:50] that I'm thinking about, not the 100 um

[1:24:53] and so on um farmers that that could be

[1:24:57] affected by this. And who wouldn't want

[1:24:59] to say if the district is going to fund

[1:25:01] a food hub, I'm all for it because I'm

[1:25:04] in the business of

[1:25:06] farming. What about those other 12,000

[1:25:09] people? Let's not forget those. Let's

[1:25:11] and again, let's not be tempted by this

[1:25:13] gift that we have to act quickly.

[1:25:17] Thank you. Okay. Councelor Sanjief

[1:25:23] I've lost all my train of thought.

[1:25:26] Um I I think we getting

[1:25:32] here acting on a lot of caution rather

[1:25:36] than being pragmatic about what the

[1:25:39] needs of the community is. And it has

[1:25:41] been pointed out by councelor Marshall

[1:25:44] and has been pointed out by several

[1:25:46] other former members who have served on

[1:25:49] agriculture commissions uh committees

[1:25:51] who have written the subliminal articles

[1:25:54] on the agriculture in the district that

[1:25:57] have all expressed that there is a

[1:26:00] critical need for a food herb or and a

[1:26:03] requirement in the area. There is a need

[1:26:06] for storage. There is need for

[1:26:09] processing that has been amplified over

[1:26:13] and over again. What another survey what

[1:26:16] the physibility study will do or whether

[1:26:19] we go and approach 12,500 people. I'm

[1:26:23] can at least assume that everybody eats

[1:26:26] food. That's the first assumption that

[1:26:28] we've got to make. Uh there might be

[1:26:30] those who survive on sunlight which is

[1:26:32] great for them. But the reality is that

[1:26:36] this is a critical need. There's just

[1:26:38] been an article or news article that

[1:26:40] occurred on May 24th, just two days ago,

[1:26:44] which talks about food insecurity is

[1:26:46] rising in Canada with nearly 10 million

[1:26:49] people, including many children worried

[1:26:51] about running out of food. This is a

[1:26:54] necessity that is coming to light.

[1:26:56] Having a food hub which does storage and

[1:26:59] in over time may go into processing is a

[1:27:03] critical need. I think this is a a time

[1:27:06] for us to make bold decisions and

[1:27:08] decisions that

[1:27:10] are two studies have already shown that

[1:27:13] there is a need for a food hub. for

[1:27:16] whatever reason, for land or what have

[1:27:18] you, the two districts have not been

[1:27:21] able to um go ahead with the process. We

[1:27:26] have had several presentations to the

[1:27:29] advisory committee to mock committees

[1:27:32] that have all shown that there is a

[1:27:34] critical need for it. I would certainly

[1:27:37] like to make a proposal if uh not yet.

[1:27:40] Not yet. Okay. So, okay, that's good.

[1:27:44] Then I just want to go back to the point

[1:27:46] of the needs uh survey. I'm looking for

[1:27:49] what I'm proposing in terms of the

[1:27:51] survey is a very simple one as to what

[1:27:54] activities the current farmers would

[1:27:56] require. Is it storage? Is it

[1:27:58] processing? Is it uh repurposing of the

[1:28:02] product? Will they actually use the

[1:28:04] facility or not? at the North Sanage

[1:28:07] farmers market every Sunday starting uh

[1:28:10] next Sunday Saturday onwards we will

[1:28:14] have access to farmers that we can

[1:28:16] easily approach and get answers to. So

[1:28:19] this is not a lengthy process that we

[1:28:21] need to go into. So it's a simple survey

[1:28:25] to get if there is a food hover around

[1:28:28] would they use it what kind of

[1:28:30] processing do they need simple as that

[1:28:33] draws the line then we go on to the next

[1:28:36] stage which is getting uh working

[1:28:39] towards the phase one that's right thank

[1:28:41] you ma'am before any further questions

[1:28:45] comments I'll give a a comment um what

[1:28:50] I'm looking at plain and simply is is

[1:28:53] Is a food hub and needed? I don't know.

[1:28:56] There's a lot of work to be done, a lot

[1:28:58] of governance to be done to find out if

[1:29:00] a food hub is required. What we're

[1:29:02] looking at here is the first phase of a

[1:29:05] number of phases. And the first phase is

[1:29:09] do the local farmers actually need

[1:29:12] storage and cooling. That's

[1:29:15] it. If we find that the numbers make

[1:29:19] sense to do a th00and square feet and we

[1:29:22] move forward on it and there's uptake of

[1:29:25] the service we can then look at phase

[1:29:28] two which is to expand that service I

[1:29:31] would anticipate but that by the time we

[1:29:33] get to a food hub and it's a pure guess

[1:29:35] because I'm not a farmer I'm just

[1:29:37] looking at this and saying by the time

[1:29:39] the district and we got to look after

[1:29:41] the shareholders as count shareholders

[1:29:43] my

[1:29:44] apologies the residents of of North

[1:29:47] Sanich so that we don't provide a white

[1:29:50] elephant for them and by doing this in a

[1:29:53] reasoned stage

[1:29:55] process I think we can finally get to

[1:29:57] having a food hub here without undue

[1:30:00] risk to our

[1:30:02] taxpayers. So next now councelor Sanjep

[1:30:06] did you wish to put a

[1:30:09] motion? Sure. Sorry before that any

[1:30:11] matter any sorry any comments questions

[1:30:14] arising out of what I've said? Nope.

[1:30:17] Okay. Councelor Sanjief.

[1:30:20] Thank you chair. Uh hold your breath. I

[1:30:22] hope I get it as

[1:30:24] a in conjunction that the council direct

[1:30:27] staff in conjunction with the

[1:30:29] agriculture food security advisory

[1:30:31] committee developed the survey questions

[1:30:33] for the food hub in preparation for the

[1:30:36] start of the north sanage farmers market

[1:30:38] on June 7th

[1:30:40] 2025. This would act as a precursor to

[1:30:43] engaging interviewing farmers where

[1:30:45] there is an active ongoing farming on

[1:30:47] ALRA land. Following the June 7th survey

[1:30:51] 2025, if required, modify the survey

[1:30:54] questions are posted on the district's

[1:30:56] website and mailed to all registered ALR

[1:31:00] folios. That's number one. Number two,

[1:31:04] direct staff to determine the cost of

[1:31:06] servicing the

[1:31:08] 92.903 square meters. Um, for

[1:31:12] conversion, it's 1,000 square ft of food

[1:31:15] hub for cold storage as phase one. The

[1:31:18] report to be brought to the agriculture

[1:31:20] food security advisory committee at the

[1:31:23] July 9th meeting to be later on

[1:31:26] submitted to the council's July 14th

[1:31:29] report. Thank you. Um, is there a motion

[1:31:32] with regard to coming forward with

[1:31:34] servicing of Yes, that's what it is to

[1:31:37] get the cost of servicing. Oh, okay.

[1:31:39] Thank you. Sorry, I missed it. Yeah. Uh,

[1:31:41] before I I asked for a second staff.

[1:31:47] Yes. Thank you. Thank you, councelor,

[1:31:50] for that for that motion. Um uh clearly

[1:31:53] there's a there's a there's motivation

[1:31:55] from mayor and council to to to continue

[1:31:58] developing this and I I I agree that

[1:32:01] there perhaps there can be a project

[1:32:03] plan and timeline

[1:32:05] uh initiative also a formalization of a

[1:32:08] needs analysis initiative um balancing

[1:32:11] the risk as the mayor mayor and fully

[1:32:14] understanding the costs going forward.

[1:32:17] Um there is a there is a staff without

[1:32:20] getting into more trouble or into it

[1:32:22] further. There would be a staff

[1:32:24] obligation with that's tied to your

[1:32:27] motion counselor. So we we we would need

[1:32:29] to be able to understand our current

[1:32:31] portfolio and what would have to be

[1:32:32] shifted or removed to try and service

[1:32:35] this motion. Um so that's one thing that

[1:32:37] comes to mind.

[1:32:39] Um and then some of the other things in

[1:32:42] terms of executing on some of this um

[1:32:45] there are a lot of variables and

[1:32:46] assumptions that would have to be made.

[1:32:48] Um but those are some of the details

[1:32:50] that we could work through going

[1:32:52] forward.

[1:32:55] Okay. Um did you wish to add to the mo

[1:32:58] motion with regard to the estimates as

[1:33:00] being a class A, B, C or

[1:33:03] D? Staff, what do you prefer coming

[1:33:05] forward with? Exact. Um, if I may, um,

[1:33:08] through the chair, trying to specify the

[1:33:11] accuracy of an estimate at this point

[1:33:14] when you really don't know where the

[1:33:15] site's going to be and site and

[1:33:17] servicing costs are largely dependent on

[1:33:19] the site. Again, it's a there's a there

[1:33:22] are quite a few variables still. Um, I

[1:33:25] guess we could anchor back to the scope

[1:33:27] itself was quite well defined in the

[1:33:29] gift proposal. So, that's a real benefit

[1:33:31] and that scope is expandable. Um um but

[1:33:36] I think that for the level of the level

[1:33:38] of estimate that would be required which

[1:33:40] which really would be an in indication

[1:33:42] in nature for the decision makers we

[1:33:44] would have enough information for that.

[1:33:47] Okay. Okay. Any before we go for the

[1:33:51] second because there was some comments

[1:33:53] in between. Do we have a

[1:33:55] second council Marshall? Do you wish to

[1:33:59] motivate further or should we just for

[1:34:01] general comments? General. Okay. Any

[1:34:03] further

[1:34:06] comments? Uh, no further com. Uh,

[1:34:09] Councilman Kent. Okay. Yes. I thought

[1:34:11] there was something

[1:34:13] coming. No, I I saw a little white hand.

[1:34:16] I thought there's a yellow one

[1:34:19] coming. Uh, you're on mute.

[1:34:24] I My comments were thank you very much

[1:34:26] for recognizing the chair. Um, I was a

[1:34:28] little slow on the button. Uh as far as

[1:34:31] the uh proposal by or this motion is

[1:34:34] concerned, would it be um form of a

[1:34:37] number of survey type questions or what

[1:34:39] are we going to give staff to move

[1:34:41] forward on this? If we are asking

[1:34:44] questions, I think a critical question

[1:34:46] might be if we're going out to the

[1:34:49] agricultural

[1:34:51] community, what would they be prepared

[1:34:53] to contribute to the cost of the food?

[1:34:57] uh if if we're if we're um brainstorming

[1:35:00] for for questions for a particular

[1:35:02] survey if that's where we're going.

[1:35:03] Thank you.

[1:35:07] Anyone have a comment?

[1:35:10] Oh, sorry staff. Uh thank you counselor.

[1:35:13] And if I may just um inter um offer I

[1:35:18] with my review limited review of the

[1:35:20] central sanage feasibility study um that

[1:35:23] their summary is quite clear about a

[1:35:26] lease rate and so obviously if we were

[1:35:29] to engage um with some farm operators

[1:35:32] we'd have to understand their need and

[1:35:34] their willingness to rent that space at

[1:35:37] that unit rate. And so that so that and

[1:35:40] that is really critical. Um and uh in

[1:35:43] the financials of this service um

[1:35:46] there's also other some interesting

[1:35:48] information about the five initial

[1:35:49] 5-year projections.

[1:35:52] Um it it is going to be a subsidized

[1:35:54] service and I think everyone's aware of

[1:35:56] that and that's and that would be okay

[1:35:58] as long as we're aware of that level. we

[1:36:00] just aren't we don't understand to what

[1:36:02] level that would be and that was and

[1:36:05] that's some of staff's reluctance um

[1:36:07] with any new service that's being

[1:36:08] considered whether it's this or

[1:36:12] um garbage service or any other thing

[1:36:17] so if I may comment there where I stand

[1:36:20] on this I think it's worth worthwhile

[1:36:23] going forward the motion as it stands

[1:36:24] right now because when we're looking at

[1:36:26] with regard

[1:36:28] to dollars per square foot and

[1:36:30] particularly what type of model would be

[1:36:32] used to operate the thousand square ft.

[1:36:35] That would be after we received this

[1:36:37] basic information and that would be by

[1:36:40] separate

[1:36:41] motion. So it's just a

[1:36:44] comment. Uh so we have a motion on the

[1:36:47] floor. Are there any other comments,

[1:36:50] questions? Council stock. Yes. Thank

[1:36:53] you, chair. Um, is is this motion then

[1:36:57] relating only to the first memo, the one

[1:37:01] that I had referred to on the food hub

[1:37:03] preliminary feas feasibility update or

[1:37:06] is it also relating to the second memo

[1:37:11] which is the preliminary feasibility

[1:37:13] study

[1:37:14] which talks about options and a

[1:37:17] nonprofit enterprise model and

[1:37:20] for-profit enterprise model. I'm just

[1:37:23] wondering if it's related to everything

[1:37:26] about the food hub. If if I may, what I

[1:37:29] believe and councelor Sanjie can

[1:37:30] certainly tell me if I'm wrong with

[1:37:32] this. We're simply looking at the basics

[1:37:34] of the thousand square ft. When we look

[1:37:37] at the models that you're looking at

[1:37:38] there, yes, it does apply to a full food

[1:37:41] hub and at some point which is in the

[1:37:44] very near future after staff comes back

[1:37:46] to us with regard to this motion. That's

[1:37:49] the questions that will then be part put

[1:37:52] to staff in the sense of council would

[1:37:55] decide okay look at this model or this

[1:37:57] model or this model we wouldn't we don't

[1:37:59] have to do it at this

[1:38:01] point my understanding that's correct

[1:38:04] chair so so right now it's just limited

[1:38:08] to the phase one of it it's not looking

[1:38:10] at the different models that are being

[1:38:12] projected and in any case the staff

[1:38:14] report is the recommendation are only on

[1:38:18] page

[1:38:19] 23. The rest are as attachment

[1:38:23] supplementing the report.

[1:38:28] Does that help counselor stock?

[1:38:31] Thank you, chair. Yes. Uh I see. Okay.

[1:38:36] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any further

[1:38:39] questions? I see no further questions. I

[1:38:42] look for a motion. Those in

[1:38:45] favor? Those opposed?

[1:38:48] Council Stock, I don't see a hand. That

[1:38:51] means you're in favor.

[1:38:53] Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh the motion

[1:38:57] carries. Uh 51 with council mcclentok in

[1:39:01] opposition and good discussion guys. I

[1:39:03] thank

[1:39:05] you. Uh, the next one I believe is a

[1:39:07] decom

[1:39:09] [Applause]

[1:39:14] stuff. E1.

[1:39:18] Yeah, that's I'm assuming. I just want

[1:39:19] to make

[1:39:21] sure. Okay. ECOM

[1:39:25] next. Thank

[1:39:28] you. So, this is ECOM 911 dispatch

[1:39:31] service agreement. Uh, staff, any

[1:39:34] comments?

[1:39:36] What do you mean no? You've been sitting

[1:39:37] there for three hours and you're going

[1:39:39] to say no.

[1:39:42] This wasn't my report. I can Steve can

[1:39:46] start and I can follow up. Let me just

[1:39:47] find the report. Just give me one

[1:39:48] second. Oh, thank you.

[1:39:52] Uh through the chair. So, um I don't

[1:39:55] even have it in front of me because I

[1:39:57] didn't realize I was going to report on

[1:39:58] this.

[1:40:00] Um so this is a interimm agreement um

[1:40:05] for dispatch services through ECOM 911

[1:40:09] just to get us through to the end of the

[1:40:10] year I believe and then we can have

[1:40:13] further discussions on uh future costs

[1:40:16] and where we're going with this as I

[1:40:18] understand it. Oh look there it is.

[1:40:22] I'm I'm back now and I can continue on

[1:40:25] Steve unless you want to continue

[1:40:27] um through the chair. So

[1:40:30] um so there has been some discuss

[1:40:33] previous discussions um with this

[1:40:35] agreement. Um so now it's now it's here

[1:40:38] at the regular council meeting to to um

[1:40:41] to staff seeking direction as to execute

[1:40:44] the interimm agreement which will

[1:40:46] provide service services from April 1st

[1:40:48] through to the end of the year. Um, and

[1:40:50] there's also um a recommendation to

[1:40:53] engage staff to to further negotiations

[1:40:56] um beyond for services beyond 2025. Um,

[1:41:00] I know there's a lot of questions about

[1:41:02] this um and uh I'll be able to hopefully

[1:41:06] answer most of them as they come. Okay.

[1:41:09] Thank you, council. Questions?

[1:41:13] Council Marshall?

[1:41:15] Uh, thank you, Chair. Yep. I'll start us

[1:41:17] off. I have a few questions and a few

[1:41:19] things to say on this particular item.

[1:41:22] Um, first of all, I think what we've

[1:41:24] asked as council previously, I believe

[1:41:27] has not been answered and I think that's

[1:41:29] alluded to in the report. So, I'm going

[1:41:31] to ask it again just to make sure that

[1:41:32] I'm I'm correct that we don't actually

[1:41:34] have the answers to. Um, so a question

[1:41:36] that's been asked many times is the fact

[1:41:38] that we now as municipality have to pay

[1:41:40] for this, but there are municipalities

[1:41:42] in this province that don't pay for

[1:41:43] ecom. and we've never really been given

[1:41:45] the actual answers as to why. So, I'm

[1:41:47] just curious if we if we know that. Um,

[1:41:50] we'll start with there and then I'll ask

[1:41:52] the other ones as well. So, I'll give

[1:41:53] you a chance to answer. Oh, yeah. Go

[1:41:56] ahead.

[1:41:58] Thank you, counselor, to the chair. My

[1:42:00] understanding and obviously I haven't

[1:42:02] been following this this uh this file in

[1:42:04] my portfolio directly, however, is that

[1:42:06] there are those questions are shared by

[1:42:08] other member municipalities and they

[1:42:10] haven't been full um fulsomely answered.

[1:42:14] Okay, thank you. And then I don't think

[1:42:16] we have any clarity on how the fees are

[1:42:19] actually calculated. I know there's a

[1:42:20] statement talking about authorized

[1:42:21] strength, but I don't think we actually

[1:42:23] have clarity on how the formula has been

[1:42:26] utilized.

[1:42:28] Um again to the chair, um I with upon

[1:42:31] review of the report, it does speak to

[1:42:33] that there isn't any further detail on

[1:42:36] the breakdown of the individual services

[1:42:38] based on size or capacity. And I could

[1:42:41] maybe look to look to my counterpart if

[1:42:43] there is if I've missed anything. Yeah,

[1:42:46] I'm not aware how it's it's broken down

[1:42:48] at this time. So,

[1:42:51] okay. Thank you. Um and then and and um

[1:42:57] you'll have to excuse my ignorance on

[1:42:58] this one. So, maybe somebody can help me

[1:43:00] out a little bit, but when I look at the

[1:43:02] report, uh it makes reference to RCMP,

[1:43:04] authorized strains policing, dispatch

[1:43:06] policing. So, we do if you call 911 and

[1:43:10] it's a 911 emergency call, it's going to

[1:43:13] go to a call taker. They're going to ask

[1:43:14] you if it's police, fire, ambulance.

[1:43:15] Fire is going to go to Siri, fire,

[1:43:17] dispatch to pay for ambulance is going

[1:43:19] to go to BCHS. Police is going to go to

[1:43:21] police call taker. Um, but we have to

[1:43:24] pay for that original call taker to

[1:43:26] route those calls. And I don't see

[1:43:28] anything in this about how much that

[1:43:30] costs or if that those costs are

[1:43:32] included. So, I don't know if we have

[1:43:33] any more clarity on on that or perhaps I

[1:43:35] have that incorrect.

[1:43:38] Um, I'll I'll I'll I'll start and then

[1:43:40] Steve can perhaps correct me into the

[1:43:41] chair. It's my understanding that that

[1:43:43] that the N Ecom 911 currently will is a

[1:43:46] emergency call answer

[1:43:48] um provider and a police dispatch

[1:43:51] service.

[1:43:54] And so yeah, so thank you for the

[1:43:56] question previous to to the meeting, but

[1:43:58] yeah. Okay. Thank you. So after all of

[1:44:00] that very painful exchange, I guess what

[1:44:02] I'll say is that none of us really have

[1:44:03] no idea what the fee structure is or

[1:44:06] what it is we are paying for because

[1:44:07] those answers those questions have not

[1:44:09] been answered. So we can see even by

[1:44:10] this discussion that we're not really

[1:44:12] 100% sure what we are what we're paying

[1:44:15] for. Um so I will be very honest this

[1:44:18] topic um we've talked about as a council

[1:44:20] many times. Many other municipalities

[1:44:22] have talked about it as well and they

[1:44:23] have a concern with the cost. ECOM uh

[1:44:27] keeps going up astronomically year after

[1:44:29] year. This year the provincial

[1:44:30] government ceasing to fund it for our

[1:44:32] residents in North Sanage and now we

[1:44:34] have to figure out that how that

[1:44:36] shortfall lands on us and how we're

[1:44:38] actually going to fund it. This is

[1:44:39] something that does keep me up at night.

[1:44:41] Um I get very concerned when I have to

[1:44:44] sit here and make a decision without

[1:44:46] information that's required to make that

[1:44:47] decision. I take the responsibility that

[1:44:51] the residents have given me by electing

[1:44:53] me here very seriously and I'm being

[1:44:55] asked to make a decision on something

[1:44:57] where I can't get information that I

[1:44:59] need to make a responsible and prudent

[1:45:01] decision. That's very concerning to me

[1:45:03] and that's not our staff's fault. They

[1:45:05] have worked tirelessly to try to get

[1:45:07] answers to

[1:45:08] this. We've asked a variety of

[1:45:10] questions. We're trying to get an

[1:45:11] in-depth understanding of funding

[1:45:13] formulas, why the costs have increased,

[1:45:14] and what future expenses can be

[1:45:16] expected. We do not have a transparent

[1:45:18] collaborative process that is allowing

[1:45:20] us to do

[1:45:21] that. In addition to that, we have also

[1:45:24] been told now that basically we have to

[1:45:27] vote yes on this. Otherwise, we have no

[1:45:30] 911 service to our residents. And then

[1:45:32] we are also told that we would be held

[1:45:34] personally responsible, not as

[1:45:35] counselors, but as people. So,

[1:45:37] personally responsible for our

[1:45:38] decisions. I have grave concerns about

[1:45:41] both of those comments. that's putting

[1:45:44] undue duress and coercion on us to make

[1:45:46] a decision as a council. And um I'm

[1:45:50] going to do something that I don't do on

[1:45:51] principle. I really don't believe in it.

[1:45:53] Um but I'm not really sure why we're

[1:45:55] here because we've basically been told

[1:45:57] the answer needs to be yes. Um and I

[1:45:59] cannot make a consionable responsible

[1:46:01] decision based on all the information I

[1:46:04] have and being told this is what I have

[1:46:05] to do. Vote yes for it. People don't

[1:46:07] have 911 service or you're held

[1:46:09] responsible. Uh so I am actually going

[1:46:12] to abstain from the vote which on

[1:46:13] principle I don't do but I cannot vote

[1:46:16] yes or no on this without the required

[1:46:18] information I need to be responsible to

[1:46:21] the citizens who elected me.

[1:46:26] Uh can council mccllintok you did have

[1:46:29] your hand up earlier.

[1:46:32] Nope.

[1:46:35] Uh yes, I did uh chair and thank you

[1:46:38] very much for recognizing me. Um uh

[1:46:42] thank you for your position, Miss uh

[1:46:43] Councelor Marshall. Uh it's very

[1:46:45] principled. However, if you do have

[1:46:47] seen, of course, you know, you have to

[1:46:48] leave the room uh when the vote comes.

[1:46:50] Now, I'm of the same opinion as uh

[1:46:52] council Marshall that

[1:46:55] um there's too many unknowns here and

[1:46:58] and anybody on council and anybody in

[1:47:00] the district knows I'm very um concerned

[1:47:03] when it comes to spending taxpayers

[1:47:04] money. So, I will not be abstaining from

[1:47:07] the vote. However, I know that under

[1:47:08] pressure that um something has to be

[1:47:10] done here this evening. My question um

[1:47:13] is to fire. Um we're still how much are

[1:47:16] we paying to Siri on top of all this? Uh

[1:47:20] three through you to staff

[1:47:23] staff.

[1:47:25] I don't have those numbers with me. I

[1:47:27] don't know if Barb could help, but

[1:47:35] Sorry, I know I don't have that number

[1:47:36] in front of me. It's um I Yeah, I don't

[1:47:40] have that at my fingertips. Okay. And

[1:47:42] what I'm getting at is we still have to

[1:47:44] pay it on top of this as well. That that

[1:47:46] hasn't gone away as far as our fire

[1:47:48] response is concerned. Um, point taken,

[1:47:51] Council Marshall. Um, and thank you for

[1:47:53] bringing up the points that you did.

[1:47:55] Thank you, Council Stock.

[1:47:58] Uh, yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Uh

[1:48:01] I've been at um many of the meetings

[1:48:04] with all council representatives from

[1:48:07] the CRD and is a very difficult issue as

[1:48:11] councelor Marshall has expressed

[1:48:14] but I uh feel that uh given our choices

[1:48:20] which are really not very good that I'm

[1:48:23] going to vote uh yes because otherwise

[1:48:27] people won't have we will not have 911.

[1:48:30] won and I remember that's um my father

[1:48:34] said that during the war the second

[1:48:36] world war which he was in that sometimes

[1:48:39] you have to hold your nose and think of

[1:48:42] Canada and in this case I guess I'll be

[1:48:45] holding my nose and thinking of North

[1:48:47] Sanage and the people uh in our uh uh

[1:48:54] community and uh I don't like being put

[1:48:57] in this position either but I really I

[1:49:00] don't after being at all the meetings uh

[1:49:03] I can honestly tell you and I think

[1:49:05] mayor you also were at many of them we

[1:49:08] didn't get answers at the mayoral level

[1:49:11] uh either when I was representing the

[1:49:13] mayor or when the mayor was there as the

[1:49:16] mayor and so I think it's not just our

[1:49:20] issue as council council here but it's a

[1:49:23] pro provincewide issue and one where the

[1:49:27] communities are saying we don't

[1:49:29] understand all all all the communities

[1:49:32] and we don't understand why we're being

[1:49:35] assessed all this and we don't really

[1:49:37] want to pay it but they've got us over a

[1:49:40] barrel which is another uh uh expression

[1:49:45] my father used to use. So

[1:49:48] I I am going to vote for this because I

[1:49:52] think we have to. Thank you.

[1:49:56] Thank you, Councilman McConi.

[1:49:59] Uh, thank you, chair, and first off, uh,

[1:50:01] through the chair to staff a question.

[1:50:04] Um, we had, um, previous, I believe,

[1:50:06] asked for some legal clarification as to

[1:50:09] whether or not the statement made by the

[1:50:11] province is that we chose not to sign

[1:50:12] this document, we would be held

[1:50:14] personally responsible. Has that legal

[1:50:17] advice been provided to staff? Thank

[1:50:19] you.

[1:50:21] Thank you for the question and through

[1:50:22] the chair. Um that was that was um

[1:50:26] earlier um that was considered earlier

[1:50:28] today as well. Um and so I did review

[1:50:30] some of the previous council minutes and

[1:50:32] camera as well and there was no motion

[1:50:35] to that I could find to engage in that

[1:50:38] legal review. So unfortunately with my

[1:50:40] knowledge I have tonight I can't I can't

[1:50:42] tell you if that was pursued but I don't

[1:50:44] think it was.

[1:50:47] Um thank you for that um Mr. Martin. So

[1:50:50] um appreciate the comments. Um, I echo a

[1:50:53] lot of concerns um from Councelor

[1:50:55] Marshall. I'm incredibly frustrated with

[1:50:58] the process to date and the agreement

[1:51:00] that's before us. Um, as councelor

[1:51:03] Marshall said, we've been told that if

[1:51:04] we don't sign this, we don't have 911

[1:51:07] and also the fact that we as counselors

[1:51:10] will be personally liable for that

[1:51:11] decision. So, in other words, we're

[1:51:13] being threatened and coerced into

[1:51:15] signing this agreement. and I feel like

[1:51:17] I've got a gun held to my head and that

[1:51:20] my rights to governor are being taken

[1:51:21] away from me. Sign it or

[1:51:24] else. You've answered that we have not,

[1:51:26] to your knowledge, been given legal

[1:51:28] advice. So, I have nothing to base the

[1:51:30] suggestions made um as to whether or not

[1:51:33] if we do not sign this, we would be

[1:51:35] personally liable. Um and I really feel

[1:51:37] that we're being backed into a corner at

[1:51:40] the expense of our taxpayers. So, when I

[1:51:42] was elected, I did sign an oath of

[1:51:44] office. I take it very very seriously

[1:51:46] and I cannot in good conscience allow

[1:51:48] myself to be held hostage in this manner

[1:51:51] and as a result I cannot vote in favor

[1:51:53] of the stack recommendation to execute

[1:51:55] this agreement. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:51:58] Any further

[1:52:00] comments? Okay. Based on the temperature

[1:52:04] I'm seeing in the room, I would suggest

[1:52:07] that we break this down

[1:52:10] into four

[1:52:13] motions. Okay. Sorry. Before I bring

[1:52:16] that forward, staff, sorry, sorry to

[1:52:18] interrupt, mayor and through the chair,

[1:52:20] just a reminder that for any counselors

[1:52:22] that are choosing to abstain, I believe

[1:52:24] uh procedurally they do have to leave

[1:52:27] the prior to the vote. Is that correct?

[1:52:29] I didn't hear that. Sorry. If for any

[1:52:32] counselors that are wishing to abstain

[1:52:33] from the vote prior to the vote, they'll

[1:52:35] have to um exit the exit the room.

[1:52:38] Sorry. Sorry, council. Do you understand

[1:52:40] that? Yeah, that would be me because I

[1:52:42] said I was going to abstain. Um so yeah,

[1:52:44] I definitely will once I uh hear what

[1:52:46] the motion is then then I'll leave the

[1:52:48] room. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the

[1:52:49] reminder. Thank you. What I would

[1:52:51] suggest that we have um again separate

[1:52:54] motions and they for them and we go with

[1:52:56] with item one um authorize the mayor and

[1:52:58] CEO to execute the agreement. So there

[1:53:00] would be a vote on that. Then item two

[1:53:02] would be as said here um direct staff to

[1:53:05] engage in

[1:53:06] negotiations and number three direct

[1:53:08] staff to explore altering dispatch

[1:53:09] services models. And I would add the

[1:53:12] fourth motion or suggest fourth motion

[1:53:15] that um that staff provide legal advice

[1:53:18] and report back to uh council ASAP.

[1:53:25] Council Marshall. Uh so if this works

[1:53:28] and and through you chair to staff. So

[1:53:30] if motion two, three, and four, if we

[1:53:32] could do those first. Yep. And the first

[1:53:34] motion last and then I will uh recuse

[1:53:36] myself for that motion. Thank you.

[1:53:38] Correct.

[1:53:40] So I can either do the motion. Sorry,

[1:53:42] councelor stock before we do them. Or do

[1:53:44] you want to wish to do Oh, you're go No,

[1:53:46] I was just going to make the motion, but

[1:53:47] Okay. Can you start with motion two

[1:53:48] first then, please?

[1:53:51] Certainly. Okay. Uh so I'd like to make

[1:53:55] uh the first part of the staff

[1:53:57] recommendation. direct staff to engage

[1:53:59] in negotiations with ECOM and partner

[1:54:02] municipalities to develop a long-term

[1:54:05] agreement for services beyond 2025.

[1:54:08] Okay, thank you. Uh do we have a

[1:54:12] second? Councelor Marshall, any

[1:54:15] comments? Councelor Sanjief through the

[1:54:18] chair. Uh this is a service agreement

[1:54:20] that we are seeking. Normally there is a

[1:54:23] tender put out whenever we seeking a

[1:54:25] service from any type of service. There

[1:54:29] has been no tender put out to say who

[1:54:32] else is competing for this particular

[1:54:34] service until we have an option like

[1:54:37] that. I find it difficult to vote for

[1:54:40] this particular motion unless we are

[1:54:42] asking the staff to find out who are the

[1:54:44] other service provider or putting in it

[1:54:47] a whatever it's called expression of

[1:54:50] interest towards providing services to

[1:54:53] the uh to the district. Uh I if I may

[1:54:57] comment if I may um what I'm

[1:54:59] anticipating is that um the next I next

[1:55:02] motion which is to direct staff to

[1:55:04] explore to dispatch service models might

[1:55:06] fit into the criteria that you're

[1:55:08] bringing forward or do

[1:55:10] you does that change your thoughts in

[1:55:13] any way? Um as it stands if we are

[1:55:18] already giving a go ahead to a single

[1:55:20] process single bidder to the service.

[1:55:24] This is no different to what we just

[1:55:27] went through some meetings ago. Okay.

[1:55:29] So, okay. Just bring it forward. Council

[1:55:32] councelor Stark. Uh, yes. Uh, thank you,

[1:55:34] chair. I just wanted to state that there

[1:55:36] isn't another provider. That's the

[1:55:38] issue. There's been no uh other per

[1:55:42] company or person or group of companies

[1:55:46] or anything come forward. And so, the

[1:55:49] province is also over a barrel for the

[1:55:52] everybody is. And um uh this is why this

[1:55:56] says you know to execute an agreement

[1:55:59] with ecom. So in my view uh you know I

[1:56:04] agree with that that there should be

[1:56:06] some more providers there should be an

[1:56:08] RFP. That's how we normally do things in

[1:56:11] government but in this case it's not

[1:56:13] possible or feasible.

[1:56:16] Council Marshall. Uh so I would just

[1:56:19] have to clarify. like I'd have to to

[1:56:20] look into that, but I believe the North

[1:56:22] Island does have a different uh dispatch

[1:56:24] service.

[1:56:27] Yeah.

[1:56:29] Okay. Any further questions? So, we have

[1:56:32] a a motion on the floor which is

[1:56:35] seconded that we direct staff to engage

[1:56:36] in negotiations with ECOM and partner

[1:56:39] municipalities to develop a long-term

[1:56:41] agreement for service beyond 2025 and

[1:56:43] further. Those in favor of that

[1:56:48] motion? Those opposed. The motion

[1:56:51] carries 42 with councelor Sanjie and

[1:56:54] councelor McConi in opposition. Um

[1:56:56] council councelor stop would you like to

[1:56:58] do which is now item three which is

[1:57:00] direct staff to explore. Yes. Thank

[1:57:03] sorry. Thank you chair. Um I would like

[1:57:06] to make staff recommendation number

[1:57:08] three to direct staff to explore alter

[1:57:11] alternative dispatch service models.

[1:57:15] Thank you. Second council Sanjief. Um

[1:57:20] comments. No comments. Then we'll look

[1:57:23] for a motion based

[1:57:25] on direct staff to explore alternate

[1:57:27] dispatch service models. Those in favor?

[1:57:32] Any opposed? Nobody opposed? Okay. Thank

[1:57:35] you. It's unanimous. Sorry, I lost track

[1:57:37] of the hands. It was unanimous.

[1:57:41] Terrible. Yeah.

[1:57:42] Um the third the third motion if you go

[1:57:46] go with which is the motion to staff to

[1:57:50] seek legal advice and report back to

[1:57:52] council ASAP.

[1:57:56] Um yes. Okay. Then the next motion uh

[1:58:00] would be and it's not part of the staff

[1:58:02] recommendation

[1:58:04] uh to seek legal advice on on this issue

[1:58:07] on this matter. Yes. on this matter and

[1:58:11] report back to uh to council. Okay,

[1:58:14] before I go for a second, councelor

[1:58:16] McCunki,

[1:58:17] uh sorry for that, councelor Stock, I

[1:58:20] think perhaps um councelor Marshall may

[1:58:23] be outside for the wrong motion. Yeah,

[1:58:26] that's a good point.

[1:58:31] She was last seen running to Sage.

[1:58:37] You You were in a You were in a rush.

[1:58:40] left too early. Legal advice. Is that

[1:58:41] what we're voting on? Well, we're So,

[1:58:44] there's a motion. The motion on the

[1:58:46] floor. The motion on the floor, just for

[1:58:49] clarification now, is that um we direct

[1:58:53] staff to seek legal advice on this

[1:58:56] matter and report back to council.

[1:58:59] Do we have a

[1:59:00] second council makoni? Any comments? And

[1:59:05] those in

[1:59:07] favor? Unanimous.

[1:59:09] Now we come to the fourth item which is

[1:59:11] authorize the mayor and CEO to execute

[1:59:14] an agreement and

[1:59:15] councelor Marshall exits. I have a

[1:59:19] question if I may through the chair. If

[1:59:22] you had two additional three people

[1:59:25] abstaining what happens then? There

[1:59:27] would be no quorum and the council

[1:59:29] meeting would end. No there be no it has

[1:59:34] to be in chambers.

[1:59:37] I wouldn't recommend we do that. We need

[1:59:41] something. Nice thought.

[1:59:46] Does the meeting end or does this

[1:59:48] particular item end? The meeting would

[1:59:50] end. That would be Yeah, that would be

[1:59:52] the end of the council meeting. Okay.

[1:59:54] So, that's a good way to finish the

[1:59:56] meeting early.

[1:59:58] Yeah. But you you're uh the OCP has gone

[2:00:01] through, the food has gone through.

[2:00:08] But your loneliness one hasn't gone

[2:00:10] through yet.

[2:00:12] I'm part of the lonely

[2:00:15] and poor Miles has been here all night

[2:00:18] waiting for the loneliness one.

[2:00:22] Um

[2:00:23] okay number one. Okay. So what what

[2:00:27] we're looking for is a motion based on

[2:00:29] um authorize the mayor and CEO to

[2:00:31] execute an

[2:00:32] agreement dot dot dot. Do you wish to

[2:00:35] make the motion? Yes.

[2:00:39] Um, so then I'm going back to the staff

[2:00:42] recommendation number one. Authorize the

[2:00:45] mayor and the CAO to execute an

[2:00:48] agreement with ECOM 911 for dispatch

[2:00:52] services as proposed in the staff report

[2:00:56] CS 25 017.

[2:01:00] Thank you. Do we have a second?

[2:01:06] Um well I'll sec I'll second for

[2:01:10] discussion. So again any further

[2:01:13] discussion Sanjie through the chair. Um

[2:01:16] I actually find that it's sad that an

[2:01:21] essential service like 911 has gone this

[2:01:24] route. To me, this is a service that's

[2:01:27] no different than a root service that

[2:01:29] comes into play or a health service or

[2:01:34] protection. And

[2:01:36] to be subjected to an system where we

[2:01:42] have no choice and there is no options

[2:01:47] given to us. I just find it in total

[2:01:51] undemocratic princip uh

[2:01:55] scenario. So in all consciousness given

[2:01:59] the mandate given to us by the residents

[2:02:02] to be fiscally responsible to be

[2:02:05] diligent in what we are approving and

[2:02:08] not approving. As much as I see the

[2:02:11] merit of having a 911 service, the way

[2:02:15] this is being imposed on to us with a

[2:02:18] myriads of hidden cost that we have no

[2:02:22] clue about, I will be reluctant in uh

[2:02:26] say um saying yes to this motion. Thank

[2:02:29] you. Any further comments?

[2:02:33] So, so we have a motion on the floor

[2:02:35] based on to authorize the mayor and CEO

[2:02:38] to execute an agreement with ECOM 911

[2:02:40] for dispatch services as proposed in

[2:02:43] staff report. Sorry, I'm just repeating

[2:02:46] it because this I I want to be no error

[2:02:48] in the vote of what we're voting

[2:02:51] on as proposed in staff report

[2:02:56] CS25017. That's the motion on the floor.

[2:02:58] Uh,

[2:03:01] councelor Stock, you have further

[2:03:03] comments. Uh, thank you, Chair. Yes. All

[2:03:05] I what I wanted to say is that

[2:03:09] this part that we're voting on now is

[2:03:12] for the period April 1st to December

[2:03:15] 31st, 2025. And and um I I think that

[2:03:21] even though you know I agree with what

[2:03:23] everyone said that sometimes in

[2:03:27] governance you have to be

[2:03:29] practical in practicum and you have to

[2:03:33] think about the fact that it's just for

[2:03:36] the last part of this year and we should

[2:03:39] be able to and the province is trying to

[2:03:41] get things sorted out. Many other

[2:03:44] municipalities besides us are trying to

[2:03:47] get things sorted out and you know we're

[2:03:50] if we say no to this then we're going to

[2:03:54] make a very complicated we're going to

[2:03:57] create an extremely complex

[2:03:59] and kind of frightening situation in my

[2:04:03] view and I I don't think that's what we

[2:04:06] should be doing as counselors. You can

[2:04:08] we can have our principles and that's

[2:04:10] true. I have the same principles but I

[2:04:13] think that you have to think about the

[2:04:15] reality of the situation. It's for a

[2:04:17] short well in government anyway short

[2:04:20] term. Thank you. Thank

[2:04:23] you Sanjief through the chair. Um,

[2:04:26] again, this is one of those amounts that

[2:04:29] there was a conscious effort made by

[2:04:32] councelor McConi and myself to defer

[2:04:35] this payment from a reserve fund that

[2:04:39] would have allowed us to continue this

[2:04:41] particular service which would have also

[2:04:43] impact saved our taxpayers money which

[2:04:47] was extremely denied by the council and

[2:04:50] that was a vote that was taken. That's

[2:04:52] perfectly fine. I'm not going to

[2:04:54] question that. But in all honesty, the

[2:04:57] amount that is being reflected. So it's

[2:05:00] talking about an agreement from April to

[2:05:02] December. We are about to be in June. We

[2:05:07] have already spent two months. So who

[2:05:09] has been covering for the 911 for the

[2:05:11] last 2 months. So that's question uh we

[2:05:15] have no answer to that. So are we now

[2:05:18] paying retrospect and are we signing a

[2:05:21] document in retrospect? Uh when how can

[2:05:25] we sign a document that's going in

[2:05:27] retrospect? Either it's an amount that

[2:05:29] starts from June June 1st onwards or it

[2:05:33] doesn't

[2:05:36] any further comments. Uh, chair, I

[2:05:39] haven't I I'm quite sure it will be in,

[2:05:44] you know, backwards in in in retro as

[2:05:47] well, but I don't know that. I mean, I'm

[2:05:49] just following what this memo says,

[2:05:52] unless staff can I mean, have we already

[2:05:55] paid April and May? I don't know.

[2:05:59] I'm just following.

[2:06:02] Staff, any comment?

[2:06:05] Thank you. um and through the chair all

[2:06:07] I can offer is that it's an essential

[2:06:09] service um and there is an indication

[2:06:11] that each of these executed contracts

[2:06:14] amongst all the jurisdictions are going

[2:06:15] to work through the next available

[2:06:17] council meeting. So I think that there

[2:06:19] is an indic that's the expectation is is

[2:06:22] what I would assume. So I and it would

[2:06:24] just simply be um I believe that in the

[2:06:27] report body of the report it talks about

[2:06:28] receiving an invoice sometime after

[2:06:30] April 1st. Um, and I don't believe we

[2:06:33] have yet received that, but I I could

[2:06:35] confirm with council and get back to you

[2:06:38] later. Council, we have a motion on the

[2:06:41] floor that's been seconded. So, I'll

[2:06:43] call for a vote. Uh, those in favor of

[2:06:45] the

[2:06:48] motion. Those

[2:06:50] opposed? Motion carries 32 with

[2:06:54] councelor McConi and councelor Sanjie in

[2:06:59] opposition. And guys, I think we all

[2:07:02] feel the same about this

[2:07:07] one. And now I believe I'm looking at my

[2:07:14] list. It looks as if it's fireworks

[2:07:15] next. Which one are we? It's fireworks

[2:07:19] next. That's why I'm doing

[2:07:21] I think we had the fireworks. Oh, so you

[2:07:28] Oh my goodness. Okay.

[2:07:31] Uh thank you through the chair. So um

[2:07:34] it's just some amendments to your

[2:07:36] existing fireworks uh

[2:07:38] bylaw. Uh the body of the the bylaw has

[2:07:42] not actually changed. Um there's just

[2:07:45] been a couple of amendments.

[2:07:47] one in keeping with what uh the town of

[2:07:50] Sydney did in um environmental

[2:07:53] protection areas with a a buffer around

[2:07:56] um uh these environmentally sensitive

[2:07:58] areas. Um so no fireworks to be

[2:08:01] discharged here um exactly the same as

[2:08:04] Sydney did. And then uh while we were in

[2:08:08] the midst of that uh Nav Cam uh came

[2:08:11] before us and asked if we could include

[2:08:14] uh areas in and around the airports um

[2:08:17] runways, takeoff and approach areas.

[2:08:19] Apparently they think fireworks in these

[2:08:21] areas is bad. I can't disagree with

[2:08:24] that. Um so that's that's really all

[2:08:27] we're looking for here is just to

[2:08:29] support those amendments. Okay. Thank

[2:08:32] you.

[2:08:35] I'll give a cheeky comment. Can Can we

[2:08:38] tie Can we tie approval of that into

[2:08:40] They'll put housing.

[2:08:44] I'm not asking for an answer.

[2:08:48] Um, okay. Councelor Marshall, just for

[2:08:51] you, chair to staff, the request by

[2:08:55] YJ,

[2:08:56] is is that actually municipal

[2:08:59] jurisdiction or would that be federal

[2:09:01] juris jurisdiction to enforce?

[2:09:04] the the areas is in the municipality and

[2:09:08] it's not prohibiting it. It's just you

[2:09:10] have to con contact the airport if

[2:09:13] you're within those areas um to get

[2:09:16] their permission. So you could say like

[2:09:18] at 8:00 I want to do this and they'll

[2:09:20] say okay you're fine there's no flight

[2:09:22] at that time or they'll say no wait till

[2:09:24] 9:00 something like that.

[2:09:28] Okay. Council stock. I was going to make

[2:09:32] the uh staff

[2:09:34] recommendation, but I'm if anybody um um

[2:09:39] Okay, if you do the recommendation and

[2:09:40] before we do a second, I'll check to see

[2:09:42] if there's any other comments. Oh, sure.

[2:09:44] Just just in case there's a

[2:09:46] change, a different motion. Do you want

[2:09:49] to make a motion?

[2:09:51] I think Sanji councelor Sanji has

[2:09:54] questions first. Okay. Thank you.

[2:09:57] through the chair uh some questions and

[2:10:01] um as much as I enjoy fireworks, we now

[2:10:04] know that there are alternate systems

[2:10:07] that are in place uh that are being used

[2:10:10] elsewhere like drones um that 5,000

[2:10:14] drones have launched with all the funky

[2:10:17] um colors and the rest. Yes, it may not

[2:10:20] produce the noise and the uh fumes that

[2:10:24] are associated with fireworks.

[2:10:28] So my question first

[2:10:30] is is there any municipality or district

[2:10:34] in BC that has a complete ban on

[2:10:36] fireworks?

[2:10:40] Yes.

[2:10:41] Thank you. So nothing stops us from

[2:10:45] executing a complete ban of fireworks if

[2:10:48] you choose that. Yes. Second part. What

[2:10:51] is the penalty should somebody violate

[2:10:53] the fireworks uh ban or restricted

[2:10:59] areas? I think I answered it's in your

[2:11:02] bylaw. It's uh upon conviction. Um I

[2:11:08] think Ben I gave you the answers

[2:11:13] there. Hello Mayor and council again. uh

[2:11:16] the um the violation under section

[2:11:19] 11.3 is not less than $100 and not more

[2:11:22] than $10,000 or

[2:11:24] imprisonment. And if I may continue uh

[2:11:28] through the chair, has there been ever a

[2:11:31] violation successful

[2:11:34] violation charges brought against an

[2:11:37] individual in the district or in the CR

[2:11:40] that we are aware of for for illegal

[2:11:43] firework? Correct. Yes. Yeah. I I don't

[2:11:45] have that information. Not that I'm

[2:11:46] aware of at this time. I don't have that

[2:11:48] information. Okay. Thank you. May I

[2:11:51] continue? The 200 meter buffer zone uh

[2:11:54] that's uh being imposed by Sydney, is

[2:11:57] that based on noise pollution? Is that

[2:12:00] based on air drifting of particles or

[2:12:03] what or is it based on light pollution?

[2:12:06] Do we have any answers on that?

[2:12:10] I couldn't answer that question. that

[2:12:12] was done before I was part of

[2:12:16] this. Sorry I'm asking all those

[2:12:19] questions but I feel because there is

[2:12:21] the other option of creating a 100 m a

[2:12:24] 1,000 m uh buffer zone for that and if

[2:12:29] we did that next to all environmental

[2:12:31] areas then beautiful North Sanage will

[2:12:34] not have any fireworks. So

[2:12:39] thank you counselor and through the

[2:12:40] chair. If I may add I was upon my review

[2:12:43] of um the staff report. I I was I did

[2:12:47] get um I did pay attention to that this

[2:12:51] is in response to a letter from the town

[2:12:52] of Sydney asking us to conform with

[2:12:54] their

[2:12:55] regulations. Um and it was further

[2:12:59] um and council gave staff that direction

[2:13:02] to execute that. So that's that is why

[2:13:05] that these values they now align with

[2:13:08] Sydney. Um just today earlier today I

[2:13:11] believe Bob Perk provided some

[2:13:12] correspondents to the district thanking

[2:13:13] us for um making this change um to

[2:13:18] further protect these environmentally

[2:13:19] sensitive areas. Um in my discussions

[2:13:22] with Steve just becoming familiar with

[2:13:23] this part of the portfolio he did advise

[2:13:26] that um over the summertime due to

[2:13:28] firebounds there's very li if any

[2:13:30] fireworks permits being provided

[2:13:31] anyways. Um, and it it is concentrated

[2:13:34] largely around Halloween. Um, and even

[2:13:37] with the the bylaw, there would likely

[2:13:40] be some fireworks used regardless. And

[2:13:42] so to have a practical balanced bylaw,

[2:13:45] there is some merit to that. Um, that's

[2:13:47] enforceable. Um, so hopefully that's

[2:13:50] helpful information with your continued

[2:13:53] continued questions. Thank you. And if I

[2:13:57] may just to the fellow counselors, I

[2:14:00] would prefer seeing a 1,000 meter buffer

[2:14:03] zone. We know that wildlife knows no

[2:14:07] boundary in that respect. They are

[2:14:09] whether it's in Sydney or North Sanish,

[2:14:11] whether we do a 200 m or 500

[2:14:15] or,000 mters. I feel if you want to

[2:14:18] create an environment that is safe for

[2:14:20] the wildlife or even migratory birds um

[2:14:24] if you look at just pollution drifting

[2:14:27] through um we have the airport around we

[2:14:29] have uh purple monitors around which

[2:14:33] picks pollutants that are several

[2:14:36] kilometers away. So in terms of that I

[2:14:40] feel the better it's better to be on a

[2:14:43] safer side by having higher numbers of

[2:14:46] buffers than smaller numbers. So for

[2:14:50] that reason I would recommend that if

[2:14:52] there as we go through this to have a

[2:14:55] th00and mters as a buffer zone and I'll

[2:14:59] stop for now and then see this in case

[2:15:01] there's anybody

[2:15:03] else. Council Marshall. Uh just one

[2:15:07] question through you chair to staff.

[2:15:09] When I look at schedule H, I'm just

[2:15:11] looking at the map, but I think YJ

[2:15:13] provided it's a little bit difficult to

[2:15:15] tell with some of those boundaries. So I

[2:15:16] just want to confirm. Have they included

[2:15:18] SACUM in this? It's a bit hard to tell

[2:15:21] um in this particular drawing.

[2:15:24] We wouldn't have any jurisdiction on

[2:15:26] First Nations land.

[2:15:28] Thanks. That's that's why I was asking

[2:15:30] because it looks like this drawing

[2:15:31] incorporates First Nations. So, I'm

[2:15:33] going to assume that um it wasn't meant

[2:15:35] to if it does. Okay. Thank you. Thank

[2:15:37] you, council. Further questions? Council

[2:15:40] me.

[2:15:42] Uh thank you, chair, and through the

[2:15:43] chair to staff. And in regards to

[2:15:45] schedule H, um which I assume is an area

[2:15:48] surrounding their flight path because it

[2:15:50] extends into Sydney.

[2:15:55] Um worst case

[2:15:57] scenario, what would happen for someone

[2:16:00] if they did not uh for example when in

[2:16:03] the area here that's designated schedule

[2:16:05] 8 that they did not reach out to the

[2:16:07] control tower and bylaw enforcement was

[2:16:10] engaged? How how is

[2:16:13] that work into the big picture here?

[2:16:15] That's what I'm thinking. It's federal

[2:16:16] lands, you got an entity, and then are

[2:16:19] we going to be doing the bylaw

[2:16:21] enforcement on it? If if it's on airport

[2:16:23] land, we wouldn't be doing it. It's only

[2:16:25] in municipal land outside of the

[2:16:27] airport. Yeah. And there is no provision

[2:16:32] in place right now. So, I can't say what

[2:16:35] would happen because this is brand new.

[2:16:39] Thank you for that.

[2:16:41] Um, I did note that in the Sydney

[2:16:44] fireworks bylaw, they did not

[2:16:46] incorporate the airport lands in there.

[2:16:48] I granted ours as a larger part. So, I'd

[2:16:51] be much happier not seeing it in there

[2:16:53] and supporting the wildlife buffer zone,

[2:16:54] but that's just my my opinion on it.

[2:16:56] This came after Sydney had enacted their

[2:16:59] bylaw. So, their bylaw was already in

[2:17:01] place before this in this document was

[2:17:03] received from NAVCAN. Oh, okay. Do you

[2:17:06] know if then through the chair do you

[2:17:07] know if that document has gone to Sydney

[2:17:10] for their consideration as well? I do

[2:17:11] not know but we can look into that.

[2:17:13] Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

[2:17:16] Okay. Council questions look for a

[2:17:20] motion based on

[2:17:22] recommendation. Council stock.

[2:17:26] Uh thank you chair. Uh yes. I'd like to

[2:17:30] make the staff recommendation that

[2:17:32] council give first, second, and third

[2:17:34] readings to North Sonage Fireworks

[2:17:36] Regulation bylaw number

[2:17:39] 1148 amendment bylaw number 1571 bracket

[2:17:44] 2025 closed bracket to include buffer

[2:17:47] zones around the designated established

[2:17:50] environmentally sensitive areas brackets

[2:17:54] ESA of Chalet Creek SAM bracket Shaw B

[2:17:59] Harbor, Robert's Bay, Sikum Creek, 1010

[2:18:04] Creek, Kohl's Bay, and Kelset

[2:18:08] uh brackets Ray Creek, and to establish

[2:18:10] a buffer zone around flight paths to and

[2:18:14] from the Victoria airport brackets

[2:18:17] YJ as outlined in staff report ES25004.

[2:18:25] Thank you. Do we have a second?

[2:18:31] I'm sorry I was going to but if you put

[2:18:33] your hand up I assume for discussion.

[2:18:36] Okay. Thank you councelor Marshall

[2:18:38] seconded. Um any further comments

[2:18:41] questions? Councelor Sanji. Thank you

[2:18:43] chair. If the council is amendable to it

[2:18:47] I would like to see if the buffer zone

[2:18:49] can be increased to instead of 200 m to

[2:18:53] a,000 m. Um to do that you'd have to do

[2:18:56] a separate motion. There'd be a second

[2:18:58] motion. Then there'd be a vote on that

[2:19:00] and then we come back to the main

[2:19:01] motion. Okay. So my if I may to the

[2:19:05] motion that the buffer zone be increased

[2:19:08] from 200 m to 1,000 m. Okay. Uh stop. Is

[2:19:12] that motion acceptable? Yes. That would

[2:19:15] be considered an amendment to the main

[2:19:17] motion. Thank you very much. Uh, do you

[2:19:19] have a

[2:19:22] second? Council me Cony second it. Uh,

[2:19:26] comments, questions on the amendment to

[2:19:28] the

[2:19:30] motion. The no comments. I look for a

[2:19:33] vote. Those in favor of the amendment to

[2:19:35] the

[2:19:36] motion. Those

[2:19:39] opposed? Motion fails. 42 with councelor

[2:19:43] stock. Council council Jones. Close

[2:19:46] enough. C.

[2:19:49] Council Clint, councelor Marshall in

[2:19:52] opposition.

[2:19:55] That's right. It's getting late. Now we

[2:19:58] come back to the main motion. Um based

[2:20:02] on councelor Stock's main motion, um any

[2:20:05] further

[2:20:06] comments, council makoni.

[2:20:09] Uh thank you, chair. Um I completely

[2:20:11] support the uh buffer zone in the

[2:20:13] environmentally sensitive areas and as

[2:20:15] you can see I I supported a larger area

[2:20:18] in fact and maybe even next steps or

[2:20:20] maybe we are going to be having to look

[2:20:21] at down the road a complete fireworks

[2:20:23] ban because times are changing and we

[2:20:25] have many critters in North Sanage that

[2:20:27] live outside of buffer zones and that

[2:20:29] includes family pets etc. So um I won't

[2:20:32] be voting for it simply because of the

[2:20:34] airport and

[2:20:35] um that's my stance. So thank you. Thank

[2:20:38] you. Okay. Any further comments,

[2:20:40] questions? None. Uh those in favor of

[2:20:42] the main

[2:20:44] motion? Those

[2:20:46] opposed? Motion carries. 42 with Council

[2:20:49] Manki, Council Sanjie in opposition.

[2:20:52] Okay. Thank

[2:20:53] you. So, I guess now we get to

[2:20:56] loneliness and isolation survey results.

[2:21:00] As mayor up here, I quickly get I I do

[2:21:04] feel

[2:21:10] lonely. So, so, uh, staff, anything to

[2:21:13] add?

[2:21:16] I'm here for you, Mayor

[2:21:20] Jones. Uh, good evening, members of

[2:21:22] council. I'm Miles Dalton, manager of

[2:21:24] communications and engagement here at

[2:21:25] the district. Uh today I'm presenting

[2:21:27] the results of the district's loneliness

[2:21:29] and isolation survey which council

[2:21:31] directed staff to undertake last fall.

[2:21:34] Purpose of the survey was to establish a

[2:21:36] baseline understanding of how feelings

[2:21:39] of loneliness and social isolation are

[2:21:41] affecting our residents, especially

[2:21:43] given that more than half of North

[2:21:45] Sanich's population is over the age of

[2:21:48] 55. We received 108 responses primarily

[2:21:52] from older adults. The findings offer

[2:21:54] valuable insight. While the majority

[2:21:57] reported rarely feeling isolated, a

[2:21:59] significant portion still experiences

[2:22:01] loneliness at least some of the time.

[2:22:04] The results also show strong community

[2:22:06] interest in participating in future

[2:22:08] discussions about the development of a

[2:22:11] community gathering space. So today, I'm

[2:22:14] seeking your feedback on the survey

[2:22:16] results and your thoughts on whether the

[2:22:18] findings support further exploration of

[2:22:20] a gathering center for North Sanich.

[2:22:22] Thank you.

[2:22:26] Thank you. Thank you. Council

[2:22:30] questions. Any

[2:22:34] questions?

[2:22:36] Nope. Then I look for a motion based

[2:22:40] on Oh, I sorry I put away the

[2:22:44] motion. Um I look at a motion based on

[2:22:47] the staff

[2:22:49] recommendation. Do we have a motion?

[2:22:59] I'll make

[2:23:05] um I didn't see any other hands up, so

[2:23:07] go ahead.

[2:23:09] All right. Um thank you, chair. Um

[2:23:12] recommendation that council receive the

[2:23:15] loneliness and isolation survey results

[2:23:19] outlined in staff report number CS

[2:23:24] 2516 and provide feedback on the survey

[2:23:28] results and the need for a community

[2:23:31] gathering center. Okay. Thank you. Do we

[2:23:33] have a second

[2:23:35] it council Marshall?

[2:23:39] I'll second it. But I also just have a

[2:23:40] question about the motion. Y um so

[2:23:43] certainly uh receiving the survey, the

[2:23:46] report I think is obviously great. Uh

[2:23:49] providing feedback. So I'm curious if

[2:23:51] like we're we're now making motion

[2:23:53] saying we're going to provide feedback,

[2:23:54] but we haven't asked haven't done that

[2:23:56] yet. So perhaps my suggestion be that if

[2:23:58] that's going to be the motion then can

[2:24:00] we provide feedback via email to to Mr.

[2:24:03] Dolphin or to to other staff? Would that

[2:24:05] work through you chair to staff? Are you

[2:24:08] talking of a of a new motion just on

[2:24:10] that aspect of it? Uh no, I'm just I'm

[2:24:13] wondering if we are going to provide

[2:24:14] feedback. That is the request to staff.

[2:24:16] If it works uh for staff, if we provide

[2:24:19] that after if this motion goes through,

[2:24:21] we provide that by an email at a later

[2:24:23] later date if that works. Okay. Just

[2:24:24] want to make sure. Thank you. Any other

[2:24:27] comments? Council Sanjief through the

[2:24:31] chair. Oh, thank you for the report. I

[2:24:34] think this was sent to the healthy

[2:24:36] living for discussion and because of

[2:24:40] time the discussion wasn't wholesome if

[2:24:43] I understand correctly it might be

[2:24:46] useful to have a wholesome discussion

[2:24:49] based on analysis of the data and not

[2:24:52] just not in addition to the results that

[2:24:56] are presented. Um I think that this is a

[2:24:59] critical need we have is well

[2:25:03] established through the NIA and uh the

[2:25:07] seniors

[2:25:08] uh care systems that's available that

[2:25:13] loneliness is becoming an epidemic and

[2:25:18] it needs to be addressed. We have had uh

[2:25:21] quite a

[2:25:22] significant the respondents who have

[2:25:26] said that they do feel lonely for an

[2:25:29] analysis would require to look at all

[2:25:32] the different questions and figure out

[2:25:35] based on either a rating system what

[2:25:39] exact impact is. So for that reason I

[2:25:43] think it would be useful to send it back

[2:25:44] to the healthy living for a wholesome

[2:25:47] discussion on it.

[2:25:51] Okay. Right now the

[2:25:53] motion

[2:25:54] is based on direction to staff. If it

[2:25:58] has to be sent if now we also want it to

[2:26:01] be sent uh to one of the committees, we

[2:26:04] may have to make a motion for it to be

[2:26:06] sent which would be an amendment to

[2:26:09] councelor stocks.

[2:26:14] Yes. And that and chair would councelor

[2:26:18] Sanjie Shastava like to make that

[2:26:21] amendment. I I like to do friendly

[2:26:23] amendments but staff doesn't like that.

[2:26:28] I think

[2:26:31] okay sorry before we do this councelor

[2:26:34] McKento.

[2:26:39] Yes. Thank you. Um I think the results

[2:26:41] are um are fairly

[2:26:44] understandable. The one question I have

[2:26:46] is

[2:26:47] um and the need for a community

[2:26:50] gathering center. Um who answers that

[2:26:53] question. Um and and that's where I'm

[2:26:56] clear about the motion. However, I think

[2:27:00] councilor shava

[2:27:02] um in his in his

[2:27:07] um

[2:27:08] eagerness

[2:27:11] to

[2:27:13] have corroboration that there's a

[2:27:16] problem which might be a world

[2:27:21] issue is not a problem here in North

[2:27:23] Sanage. And I think to um to continue on

[2:27:26] this line, he talks about a critical

[2:27:28] need. This survey has clearly not said

[2:27:30] that there's a critical need. Maybe his

[2:27:33] um his world um

[2:27:37] um vision of things is there's a

[2:27:39] critical need and there might be some in

[2:27:41] some areas. However, nothing has come

[2:27:43] before council that says this is

[2:27:44] critical um to this area.

[2:27:47] Um, so it's almost like we want the

[2:27:51] results of a survey to match why we have

[2:27:54] the survey. Unfortunately, that's not

[2:27:57] the case here. So, I'm not prepared to

[2:27:59] um expend any more staff time or council

[2:28:02] time on this matter.

[2:28:05] Thank you. Um, further comments?

[2:28:13] Thank you, chair. Um, I wasn't going to

[2:28:16] go there, but now since councelor

[2:28:18] Mcccleintochuk has asked a question, uh,

[2:28:21] here is what the actual answers would

[2:28:23] come through. If you were to look at a

[2:28:27] proper statistical survey done and

[2:28:30] analysis based on just the results that

[2:28:33] we got, we have a at least of the 92

[2:28:39] online 95 online surveys that were done.

[2:28:42] You have more than half of them

[2:28:46] expressing a getting a score of greater

[2:28:49] than six which indicates that loneliness

[2:28:53] is being experienced by quite a few of

[2:28:55] the residents. One of them has actually

[2:28:59] gone to have a severe issue on

[2:29:02] loneliness and social isolation five

[2:29:05] with a getting a score of 10. So if you

[2:29:08] were to do a proper statistical

[2:29:10] analysis, you would find that it is an

[2:29:12] issue. In addition to that, if you look

[2:29:15] at the number of people who have

[2:29:18] actually conducted the surveys as

[2:29:20] opposed to any other survey that has

[2:29:22] occurred on in the district's website,

[2:29:26] uh there is almost

[2:29:28] 37% that have had a traction of

[2:29:32] conversion from going visiting the

[2:29:35] website and actually attempting the

[2:29:38] survey. that itself is an indication

[2:29:41] that there is a need and people identify

[2:29:44] with that issue. So it is not how what

[2:29:48] world I live in. It is a reality that

[2:29:50] Canada is experiencing. Yes, it even

[2:29:54] whether there is 20% or 40%, it is some

[2:29:57] a number that has to be addressed. we

[2:30:00] are getting closer and closer with the

[2:30:02] age the demographics changing which

[2:30:05] means that we need to address it before

[2:30:07] it becomes an endemic issue. So that

[2:30:11] would be my comment with regards to

[2:30:13] where my eagerness for the survey was.

[2:30:16] Uh just to give you an idea, I've got

[2:30:18] some numbers from the staff. In terms of

[2:30:21] the conversion, there is 37% that

[2:30:24] actually answered the survey while 28%

[2:30:28] did the sub submission with regards to

[2:30:30] budget responses. Uh Tetlo and Deep Cove

[2:30:33] traffic calming only 26 and 27% did

[2:30:38] that. So this was identified as an

[2:30:41] interest for a majority of the

[2:30:43] residents. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:30:47] Now you going to do a motion.

[2:30:50] Now it's quiet. Oh, sorry. Council Mint.

[2:31:00] Yes, thank you for that. And it

[2:31:01] certainly wasn't an attack on you, uh,

[2:31:04] councelor Shiva Saba. Um,

[2:31:07] however, when I was elected as a

[2:31:09] counselor over the past three terms, I

[2:31:12] was elected to do the business of the

[2:31:14] district of North Sage, which includes a

[2:31:17] number of things. Um, entering into the

[2:31:20] healthc care business, I think we're

[2:31:22] overextending our our

[2:31:25] um what we were elected to do. It's

[2:31:28] interesting to know, but um and these

[2:31:31] surveys could certainly be given to the

[2:31:33] people in charge of health care in the

[2:31:35] province. Um however um I don't believe

[2:31:38] that it's um the reason that we were

[2:31:41] elected as councils. We probably have

[2:31:43] different differing opinions on that

[2:31:45] thing.

[2:31:49] Thank you. Thank you, Council Mint. Any

[2:31:51] further questions? No further questions

[2:31:53] there. Do we have another motion on the

[2:31:55] floor or do we vote on the motion as

[2:31:57] done by councelor Stark?

[2:32:00] Councelor Marshall. Oh, sorry. Go ahead,

[2:32:02] councelor. Do are you going to make the

[2:32:03] amendment? Go ahead.

[2:32:06] I I just like to make the amendment to

[2:32:08] the main motion that we also send it

[2:32:09] back to the healthy living committee. We

[2:32:11] did have limited time to discuss it and

[2:32:12] I know there was a a comment made from a

[2:32:15] number of people about um feedback they

[2:32:17] received around privacy concerns because

[2:32:19] there was a requirement to register.

[2:32:21] They weren't anonymous. So that was some

[2:32:23] of the feedback we got. So I I'll make

[2:32:25] the amendment to send it back to the

[2:32:26] healthy living committee. Thank you. Do

[2:32:28] you have a second council sanjief? Uh

[2:32:31] any comments on the amendment to the

[2:32:33] main motion? No comments. Those in

[2:32:36] favor? Those

[2:32:38] opposed? Motion carries 51 with

[2:32:40] councelor McClend in

[2:32:42] opposition. Now we move back to the main

[2:32:45] motion. Are there any further comments

[2:32:46] before we do a vote on the main

[2:32:49] motion? Nope. Those in favor of the main

[2:32:53] motion, those

[2:32:55] opposed carries 51 with Council Mckento

[2:32:58] in opposition. Thank

[2:33:02] you. I think we're through the majority

[2:33:04] of it,

[2:33:06] folks. So, next we move and unless staff

[2:33:09] tells me otherwise, we move to item 8B,

[2:33:12] which is council leison reports. Staff,

[2:33:15] am I correct? Thank you very much. Um,

[2:33:18] there's only one consolation report. is

[2:33:20] by council me. Council me, anything you

[2:33:23] wish to add?

[2:33:25] Uh, thank you, chair. Nothing to add.

[2:33:27] I'd just like to make the recommendation

[2:33:28] that the council leaison report dated

[2:33:30] May 7th, 2025 from myself regarding the

[2:33:33] Greater Victoria Labor Relations

[2:33:35] Association, GVL, be received for

[2:33:38] information. Thank you. Seconded,

[2:33:40] Council Stock. Any comments? No

[2:33:42] comments. Those in

[2:33:45] favor? Well, thank you.

[2:33:48] Unanimous. Thank you. Now we move on to

[2:33:50] item C which is committee reports and um

[2:33:53] I'll be looking for a consent resolution

[2:33:55] here. But before I go to the consent

[2:33:56] resolution because there's one, two,

[2:33:58] three, four, five, five different

[2:33:59] people. Anyone have any anything to add

[2:34:02] or should we go directly into the

[2:34:03] consent resolution? I'm seeing nothing.

[2:34:05] Look for a motion based on the consent

[2:34:08] resolution. Council Marshall. Uh that

[2:34:12] council receive the following items for

[2:34:13] information. Draft minutes of the

[2:34:15] community planning advisory committee

[2:34:16] meeting held May 6, 2025. Draft minutes

[2:34:19] of the Agriculture and Food Security

[2:34:20] Advisory Committee meeting held May 7,

[2:34:23] 2025. Draft minutes of the Healthy

[2:34:26] Community Living Advisory Committee

[2:34:27] meeting held May 8th, 2025. Draft

[2:34:30] minutes of the Peninsula and Area

[2:34:31] Agricultural Commission meeting held May

[2:34:33] 8, 2025. And draft minutes of the

[2:34:35] committee the whole meeting held May

[2:34:36] 12th, 2025. Thank you.

[2:34:39] Seconded, Council Sanjief. Any comments?

[2:34:43] Nope. No comments. Those in

[2:34:45] favor? Unanimous. Uh the next one is one

[2:34:48] of the what I consider to be good

[2:34:50] business, nice business. Um it it's a

[2:34:53] motion um which is from councelor

[2:34:56] Marshall, councelor Sanjie and I'll look

[2:34:57] to councelor Marshall and councelor

[2:34:59] Sanjie. Do you wish to add anything?

[2:35:03] Uh I really don't have an awful lot to

[2:35:05] add. There's background there in the

[2:35:06] notice of motion and then um just

[2:35:08] information around why I'm bringing it

[2:35:09] forward. It was uh um Miss Lavender and

[2:35:12] Miss Balin who originally sent an email

[2:35:14] to council asking that we recognize the

[2:35:17] sunset riding club in our heritage week.

[2:35:19] So this is just an addition to that to

[2:35:21] formalize the recognition of the

[2:35:23] contribution of that very important club

[2:35:25] to North Sanage. Um I know myself I um

[2:35:28] when I first moved here I uh was just

[2:35:30] impressed with the trail system. I use

[2:35:32] it every day and I'm appreciative of the

[2:35:34] fact that it is our volunteers time,

[2:35:36] resources and energy that went into

[2:35:38] allowing me to use those. So this is

[2:35:39] just recognition of the incredible

[2:35:42] citizens that we have here in our our

[2:35:44] district. So thank you. Thank you. I

[2:35:46] look for a second council. Councelor

[2:35:48] Sanjie, council Marshall, you wish to

[2:35:50] motivate.

[2:35:53] I don't think I have anything else to

[2:35:55] say. Thank you then. So you've done it.

[2:35:59] Okay. Um any comments, questions?

[2:36:03] Council stock. Yes. Thank you, Chair.

[2:36:05] just wanted to say that uh I know that

[2:36:08] this is a very welldeserved recognition.

[2:36:12] I've known um both uh parties uh

[2:36:16] mentioned in the uh in the recognition

[2:36:19] and appreciation

[2:36:21] motion since probably

[2:36:24] 2010 or maybe earlier. I'm not sure. and

[2:36:28] I know how much work they've done in the

[2:36:31] community uh not only for the the the

[2:36:36] uh Sunset Riding Club but also many

[2:36:40] other activities like the farm market

[2:36:42] and etc. So, you know, it's really welld

[2:36:46] deserved. Thank you. Thank you. Any

[2:36:48] further comments, questions? No. No.

[2:36:52] Nope. No. Uh we'll go for a vote. Those

[2:36:55] those in

[2:36:57] favor

[2:36:58] unanimous. Thank

[2:37:00] you. We move to item 10 which

[2:37:03] is I can't pronounce the name

[2:37:06] unfortunately. I'll rely on someone else

[2:37:08] but if we look at item 10

[2:37:13] um I believe it's the it says powow but

[2:37:17] is that a pot latch? Sorry. Pow.

[2:37:20] Okay. So before we look for well I look

[2:37:23] for comments on comments or questions on

[2:37:26] first staff there anything to add.

[2:37:30] Um thank you chair. Um nothing really to

[2:37:32] add. Um we did do some there was some

[2:37:34] discussion about our member

[2:37:35] municipalities past past contributions

[2:37:38] and uh we learned that um central Sanche

[2:37:42] in the years past provided $2,000 that

[2:37:44] and I believe that was wellreceived and

[2:37:47] I believe Sydney provided a slightly

[2:37:48] larger sum as well last year. 3500. So

[2:37:52] if that's helpful to Mayor Council, I I

[2:37:56] Yeah, thank you because I was not

[2:37:58] looking forward to bringing that

[2:37:59] [Laughter]

[2:38:02] up. So um so there as I said, Sydney and

[2:38:07] and Central Sanage um 3500 and 2,000

[2:38:10] respectfully and I assume there's going

[2:38:12] to be a motion that will give a dollar

[2:38:14] value if it's approval in that. So

[2:38:19] council questions, comments or even a

[2:38:22] motion? Just a question first uh if I

[2:38:25] may through the chair to staff. Has the

[2:38:28] district provided funding to them

[2:38:30] before? And if so to what amount

[2:38:37] um thank you for the question. We don't

[2:38:40] um we don't believe so, but we'd have to

[2:38:42] confirm with you. I'm not sure if if it

[2:38:45] wasn't requested previously. Um, and I'd

[2:38:49] have to I'd have to I can report back.

[2:38:56] Any further

[2:38:57] questions? They're not. Um, we don't

[2:39:00] know. It's so we have to pick a number

[2:39:02] if the vote is to provide

[2:39:06] funding. Councelor Sandre through the

[2:39:09] chair. I would like to make a motion if

[2:39:11] uh that's okay to provide a funding of

[2:39:14] $5,000 through the indigenous uh fund

[2:39:17] that we the district has. Uh there is

[2:39:21] always a fund allocated towards

[2:39:23] indigenous relationship. So use that

[2:39:26] fund to provide $5,000 towards the

[2:39:29] power.

[2:39:32] Council stock you have a question. Oh, I

[2:39:33] just Yes, chair. I just had a question.

[2:39:37] Uh, was that 500 or 5,000? 5,000.

[2:39:41] Oh, I

[2:39:43] think Well, I I don't mind. I think we

[2:39:46] should probably provide something, but I

[2:39:49] don't $5,000 seems like a very large

[2:39:52] sum to me. I mean, we haven't even given

[2:39:56] some of our regular um, you know, grants

[2:40:00] and aid um, uh, uh, groups that much

[2:40:05] money. We we whittleled them all down in

[2:40:08] our grants and aid meeting. So I I I I

[2:40:11] don't know how to gauge what's a correct

[2:40:15] amount, but I think that's a lot.

[2:40:22] Council before I come to staff, council.

[2:40:26] Yes. Thank you very much. I think that

[2:40:28] uh 5,000 is um I I wouldn't agree with

[2:40:32] 5,000. Um I think the maximum in this

[2:40:35] instance um bearing in mind the

[2:40:38] contributions from central Sanich which

[2:40:41] also has two um two communities in their

[2:40:44] municipality of $2,000. I think that

[2:40:47] would be a very generous um donation by

[2:40:50] this district for the uh for the

[2:40:53] event. Okay. Thank you. Um what I would

[2:40:57] suggest is perhaps we do a temperature

[2:40:59] check. I think everyone's in agreement

[2:41:00] that there should be some funding to

[2:41:02] them. Um so the question becomes is

[2:41:05] we've got some councelor Sanjie is

[2:41:06] saying you know 5,000.

[2:41:09] May I ask a question? Uh could I ask

[2:41:12] Barb what amount is allocated towards

[2:41:14] the indigenous relationships.

[2:41:21] We've got um the I believe it's 15,000

[2:41:25] uh for indigenous relations that's

[2:41:28] available. We also have uh funding

[2:41:30] through the community events sort of

[2:41:31] line item. Um and those those amounts

[2:41:34] range from 1,500 to 2,000 just going

[2:41:37] based on history of of uh asks that

[2:41:40] we've had in the past from other

[2:41:41] organizations that did not come through

[2:41:43] grants and aid.

[2:41:47] Council Marshall. Um can I just clarify

[2:41:50] Central and Sydney's contribution? I

[2:41:52] thought one of them was 3500

[2:41:56] through the chair. Thank you. Yes. So,

[2:41:58] Central Sanage was 2,000 and Town of

[2:42:02] Sydney was 3,500.

[2:42:06] That was last year. That was last year.

[2:42:08] Sorry. Through the

[2:42:13] So, again, I think we we've got a

[2:42:15] consensus that we should provide some

[2:42:17] funding staff. Um, yeah, if if helpful,

[2:42:21] I can offer that. Um, so staff just

[2:42:23] reviewed this correspondence

[2:42:25] specifically in this as this morning.

[2:42:27] um and we thought it would be um

[2:42:29] relevant to inquire about our member

[2:42:31] municipalities contribution. And then we

[2:42:33] did have some informal discussion about

[2:42:37] um previous uh and other funders

[2:42:40] agencies that we fund etc. Um and so we

[2:42:44] did provide we thought this information

[2:42:45] would be helpful for mayor and council

[2:42:46] to try and gauge um a value.

[2:42:50] Okay. Thank you. If if I give a comment

[2:42:53] comment first is um one of the thing

[2:42:56] what I'm concerned about if we did

[2:42:57] $5,000 and the other two communities did

[2:43:00] again 2,000 and

[2:43:02] 3,500 that that would put us out of line

[2:43:06] and would then create perhaps a

[2:43:08] precedence uh for other municipalities

[2:43:11] to try and match us which I we wouldn't

[2:43:12] want them to do but also it would put

[2:43:15] pressure on perhaps some other

[2:43:18] indigenous nations which I'm not averse

[2:43:21] to. I believe you know just a comment um

[2:43:24] myself I would look and say okay I can

[2:43:26] understand the 5,000 um based on what

[2:43:29] was given last year I would consider

[2:43:31] giving it halfway

[2:43:33] between which is or even 3,000

[2:43:36] um but that's just my temperature.

[2:43:41] Um, so

[2:43:44] again, it's I I'm open. I'd like to get

[2:43:48] a consensus on it with regard to the

[2:43:50] amount

[2:43:53] staff. No, sorry. Okay.

[2:43:58] I'll go with council mani first. Uh,

[2:44:02] thank you, chair, and and and I'll just

[2:44:04] make a comment. I I do believe last year

[2:44:06] we did contribute to the South Island

[2:44:08] Pow-Wow and I think that was a

[2:44:10] contribution of $5,000. I know this is a

[2:44:12] different event, I believe. So, but my

[2:44:15] memory does fail me sometimes, so

[2:44:16] perhaps Barb could check on that.

[2:44:19] Um, I appreciate what councelor Sanjiv

[2:44:22] is bringing forward. Just a thought, we

[2:44:25] have two nations as does the Sanro

[2:44:27] Sanich. Maybe we match that. I don't

[2:44:30] know. That's just my thought. a match in

[2:44:32] the sense of $3,500.

[2:44:35] $3,500. $3,500. Yeah. Okay.

[2:44:39] I could accept that. Um, so right now we

[2:44:42] have council mint looking at 2,000.

[2:44:44] Councilor Stock perhaps at 2,000. Yeah.

[2:44:47] Council Marshall, do you have a number?

[2:44:49] 3500.

[2:44:51] Yeah. Uh, could we look to council

[2:44:53] mccllintok and perhaps councelor stock

[2:44:55] to to bring their number up to that

[2:44:57] 3500? I know Sanjie is not happy with

[2:45:00] 35. Who wants the five

[2:45:02] through the chair? We're looking at an

[2:45:04] inflation amount that has taken place

[2:45:06] from last year. And the irony is that we

[2:45:09] do have funds for the First Nation

[2:45:13] relations. That amount every year we

[2:45:15] allocate $15,000 for such events. It has

[2:45:19] not been in use last I think last year

[2:45:22] it was used a part of it. I see no

[2:45:25] reason why it cannot be used. Now with

[2:45:28] regards to other districts being able to

[2:45:30] match that or not that is up to them to

[2:45:32] make a decision. This is for us to make

[2:45:34] a decision whether we would like to

[2:45:36] contribute towards this activity or not.

[2:45:38] I think we should but again I'll leave

[2:45:41] it to the council. But are you prepared

[2:45:42] to come down 1500 if councelor McKin

[2:45:45] Clark and councelor stock prepared to

[2:45:46] come up by 1500? $4,549.50.

[2:45:53] I was just uh chair. Thank you. Just a

[2:45:56] short comment. I councelor McConi

[2:45:59] reminded me that we might get another

[2:46:02] request for funding that South Island

[2:46:05] Pow-Wow and it is a big event. So, we

[2:46:08] would have to give them that event as

[2:46:10] well at le probably what we gave them

[2:46:13] last year. Uh you said it was 5,000 and

[2:46:16] I think you're right. So then I you know

[2:46:20] what if we get another request again? I

[2:46:22] I just think we should be careful

[2:46:25] because 15,000 doesn't go that far if we

[2:46:28] give five for the South Island Powow,

[2:46:31] which we probably will get a request

[2:46:33] for. Um, and yeah, so I'm I'm thinking,

[2:46:38] you know, I was thinking between two two

[2:46:41] and 3,000. Move it up. Come on.

[2:46:46] I wasn't really thinking 3500, but it's

[2:46:50] compromise.

[2:46:53] I know. Well, I do compromise a lot.

[2:46:57] Yeah. Council McKento.

[2:47:01] Yes. Thank you.

[2:47:02] Um I still think that uh $2,000 is a is

[2:47:07] a generous contribution. These numbers

[2:47:10] that were that were just pulling out of

[2:47:12] the atmosphere um

[2:47:15] 5,3500 it's they seem to be so random.

[2:47:17] They're not based on anything except

[2:47:19] giving money away. Um I know when we

[2:47:22] give to other organizations, sometimes

[2:47:25] we want a um uh not an audit, but we

[2:47:29] least we at least want to know where the

[2:47:31] money's being spent. Now, if we're just

[2:47:35] um writing a blank check, I've got no

[2:47:37] problem with writing a $2,000 blank

[2:47:39] check. I don't I do have a problem

[2:47:42] writing a $5,000 blank check with no

[2:47:44] accountability. So, um, rather than get

[2:47:47] into that area, I'd be happy to stay.

[2:47:53] Okay. Sorry, staff. I'm reluctant to

[2:47:56] offer another yet another option for

[2:47:58] consideration. Um, I

[2:48:01] um it is possible that we could respond

[2:48:02] to them saying we that there is interest

[2:48:04] to fund them and u inquiring about the

[2:48:07] level of funding they're seeking. Okay.

[2:48:09] and and and or discuss with member

[2:48:11] municipalities and I think we would be

[2:48:13] able to come back at the June 23rd if we

[2:48:16] reach out following the meeting we might

[2:48:17] be able to get better information for

[2:48:18] council

[2:48:22] oh sorry

[2:48:25] council Sanjief what do you think that

[2:48:27] we based on what staff suggestion

[2:48:31] I'm just looking a document from uh Octo

[2:48:35] September 30th 2023

[2:48:37] uh marking the ation for truth and

[2:48:39] reconciliation and the council approve a

[2:48:42] 5,000 donation to the power which

[2:48:44] matched the district's previous

[2:48:46] contribution from 2022. So 5,000 this is

[2:48:50] on our district's website is not and

[2:48:52] these are from minutes of the

[2:48:55] um August 23rd uh 2023 meeting. So this

[2:49:00] is something that we have done $5,000.

[2:49:04] So I see no rationale

[2:49:06] for the south island but this is a

[2:49:08] different one. It makes no difference.

[2:49:10] Uh whoever has come first we offering it

[2:49:12] to them. So we have a power. This is the

[2:49:15] first time that uh

[2:49:18] um sip has reached out and I think we

[2:49:21] should contribute to 5,000. Thank you.

[2:49:26] Okay. We have a motion that's not

[2:49:27] seconded right now on on the floor for

[2:49:30] for 5,000. Um, obviously we're having

[2:49:34] a I've not seen any other motion.

[2:49:38] Chair, I just wanted through you chair

[2:49:40] to staff. I I like their idea because

[2:49:43] then we'll know, you know, exactly what

[2:49:45] we're dealing with. I I I just feel that

[2:49:48] we're we are kind of grabbing numbers

[2:49:50] and I want to make sure we have enough

[2:49:53] for the South Island POW because that is

[2:49:55] going to it is a huge event and uh and

[2:49:59] we do we have often or very often

[2:50:03] contributed at least $5,000. So, I I

[2:50:08] just want to I don't want to not give

[2:50:10] enough, but I think if staff finds out

[2:50:13] the information, then we'll be more

[2:50:15] informed as to what we're providing.

[2:50:18] Thank you, chair. Thank you. We got a

[2:50:22] choice. Right now, there's a motion on

[2:50:23] the floor. Again, not seconded. Um, if

[2:50:26] we get a second motion on the floor with

[2:50:27] a diff that's different, then we have to

[2:50:30] consider that as well. So right now I

[2:50:33] will ask for a seconder based on the

[2:50:36] main the motion that councelor Sanjie

[2:50:38] has put forward. Do we have a seconder?

[2:50:42] Okay, councelor mccllintok sorry

[2:50:45] councelor mcconi. I was looking at Jack

[2:50:47] to see what he was

[2:50:49] doing for any questions. Uh so we have a

[2:50:53] motion. We have a second. Is there any

[2:50:55] further discussion on it or is there a

[2:50:57] motion a second motion?

[2:51:02] I'll make a second motion that we

[2:51:04] provide um this group with uh

[2:51:12] $3,000 $3500.

[2:51:15] I'd second 3500, but we have a question

[2:51:18] from from Council Mint first.

[2:51:21] We need you for supporting this. Yes,

[2:51:23] thank you. I I'm I'm not about to make

[2:51:26] I'm I think we have a motion on the on

[2:51:28] the floor that we have to vote on first

[2:51:29] and this is a amendment I believe.

[2:51:31] However, I um I am encouraged by the uh

[2:51:34] by Mr.

[2:51:36] Martin's suggestion that we take this

[2:51:39] back to the to the uh the letter writer

[2:51:43] and see what it is um and see what it is

[2:51:46] they're uh they may be looking for.

[2:51:48] Perhaps we can get a little bit

[2:51:49] enlightenment as far as um from the

[2:51:52] community. um rather than us telling

[2:51:56] them what's best for them, perhaps they

[2:51:58] can tell us what's best for them.

[2:52:02] Uh well, right now we have an

[2:52:04] amended motion from councelor Stock.

[2:52:07] It's not seconded yet.

[2:52:10] Um so we got to look at this right now.

[2:52:13] Is there a second or

[2:52:15] counselor councelor Stock's

[2:52:18] motion? I'll motion I'll second it for

[2:52:21] discussion.

[2:52:24] Um now the question becomes is amendment

[2:52:28] of a potential

[2:52:30] amendment. So

[2:52:34] we should just vote on councelor

[2:52:37] Sanchie's motion. We can um we'd have to

[2:52:41] withdraw. Um and I would certainly be

[2:52:44] prepared to withdraw. So you I'll

[2:52:46] withdraw my my amendment to councelor

[2:52:48] Sanjie's motion. I'll withdraw my

[2:52:50] motion. Okay. Staff. Okay. Uh so now we

[2:52:53] just have the one motion on the floor

[2:52:55] which is councelor Sanjie. Uh any

[2:52:57] further comments? Councelor Marshall.

[2:53:00] Uh yeah. So I I definitely think we do

[2:53:02] need to support them. I appreciate

[2:53:04] staff's comment to go back and ask what

[2:53:06] it is that they are looking for. Um so

[2:53:08] I'm willing to support that because it

[2:53:10] also might give us more information as

[2:53:11] to what it's going to go towards. It's

[2:53:12] not that I'm not going to support the

[2:53:14] $5,000. Um I I think we have $15,000 in

[2:53:17] the indigenous fund, 5,000 and 5,000 for

[2:53:19] the South Island. POW still leaves us

[2:53:21] five. Um, but I'm not prepared to vote

[2:53:25] for the 5,000. Not because I disagree

[2:53:26] with 5,000, but I think we do need to go

[2:53:28] back to um, uh, R and K. Samson first.

[2:53:33] Okay. Then we need a second motion.

[2:53:38] Um, because Council Mckento brought up

[2:53:41] this aspect of it, but he didn't put

[2:53:43] didn't put a motion. So, we haven't

[2:53:44] taken a vote on the first motion yet or

[2:53:46] the the only motion that's on the floor.

[2:53:48] So is that a motion?

[2:53:52] Um, sure. I will make the motion to

[2:53:53] receive the email dated May 12th, 2025

[2:53:56] from R. Samson and Kane Samson with

[2:53:58] subject line request for support 30th

[2:54:01] annual intertribal pow-ow July 25th

[2:54:03] 27th, 2025 with Santa school board uh

[2:54:06] field and further direct staff to um

[2:54:10] contact R Samson and K Samson and

[2:54:12] request the amount that they're looking

[2:54:14] for and details as to what it will be

[2:54:16] used for. Okay. Thank you.

[2:54:18] Seconded councelor Stark. Any further

[2:54:21] comments? Councelor Mcccleintoch.

[2:54:26] Thank you, chair. I was just going to

[2:54:27] second that.

[2:54:30] Okay. It's already been seconded, but

[2:54:32] thanks for doing it.

[2:54:35] Second. One last thing. Thor, I we can

[2:54:37] I'm just going to add a date to that.

[2:54:38] So, we'll have the report back for our

[2:54:40] June 23rd uh regular meeting because I

[2:54:43] just want to make sure we're not going

[2:54:44] to meet the dead. We're not going to um

[2:54:46] miss a deadline that they need it for.

[2:54:48] Is that okay? June 7th. Oh, June 7th.

[2:54:50] Sorry. So, have a back for June 7th

[2:54:53] regular council meeting.

[2:54:57] Mr. Mayor, if I if I might just

[2:54:59] procedurally, so you've got an

[2:55:00] undisposed motion first, which is the

[2:55:03] $5,000 contribution. Um, based on

[2:55:06] whether or not council supports what

[2:55:08] what the the secondary motion was,

[2:55:11] council could postpone consideration of

[2:55:14] the original motion as opposed to

[2:55:16] defeating it and and have that come back

[2:55:18] on the 23rd with staff's report. Okay.

[2:55:22] So, we need a motion to postpone. Okay.

[2:55:26] Um, Council Sanji, you prepare to put up

[2:55:28] a motion to propo postpone?

[2:55:38] I would be reluctant to do it because I

[2:55:42] think we keep on arguing on small

[2:55:45] amounts and every time it involves First

[2:55:48] Nations there is always dragging the

[2:55:51] feet that takes place. This is a a there

[2:55:55] is an allocated funds for such

[2:55:58] activities and I see no reason that the

[2:56:01] district cannot use those funds for this

[2:56:04] purpose. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[2:56:08] Unfortunately, if I may, uh, chair, I

[2:56:10] think we're reaching 10:00 if we need to

[2:56:12] continue for this. I was going to bring

[2:56:14] it up. Um,

[2:56:17] we've I'm looking for a motion to extend

[2:56:19] by 15 minutes. I'll make a motion. Okay.

[2:56:22] Second by 15 minutes

[2:56:24] seconded council Sanjie any comments

[2:56:28] those in

[2:56:29] favor those

[2:56:31] opposed it's copied 51 with council

[2:56:35] mccllin talk in opposition okay this

[2:56:37] let's keep uh keep going so I'm looking

[2:56:39] now for a motion based on um I've

[2:56:43] forgotten what the motion is but based

[2:56:45] on going staff going back and asking

[2:56:47] basically

[2:56:49] how is oh do no um do you want me to

[2:56:52] vote on that.

[2:56:56] Yes. I mean, I think that you're Oh,

[2:56:57] that's the motion to the second the

[2:56:59] second the Yeah, but I'm looking for a

[2:57:01] motion. Sorry. Motion to postpone,

[2:57:04] but he said he didn't want to. Yeah, but

[2:57:07] that was I was giving him the

[2:57:08] opportunity to do it. It doesn't stop

[2:57:09] any other counselor from putting it up

[2:57:11] as as a

[2:57:15] chair. Okay. I'll make a motion to

[2:57:17] postpone councelor Sanjie's motion with

[2:57:21] regard to

[2:57:23] $5,000 to the requester uh to the June

[2:57:27] 3r sorry June 23rd meeting June 9th the

[2:57:32] next council meeting is June 9th

[2:57:34] okay sorry to the June 9th meeting of

[2:57:38] regular meeting of council okay need a

[2:57:42] second do we have a

[2:57:45] Second. No. And I can council Clint

[2:57:49] second. Okay. Either of you wish to

[2:57:51] motivate further.

[2:57:53] Well, I think you know it's a it's a

[2:57:56] good idea because then we can consider

[2:57:58] his motion on that date along with the

[2:58:02] the uh information which staff probably

[2:58:06] will have received by then. And so we

[2:58:09] can then decide, you know, as a council,

[2:58:12] as a an entity, as a team, what it is.

[2:58:16] Um should we go with councelor Sanjie's

[2:58:19] motion or should we go with a different

[2:58:21] amount? Uh because of what staff has

[2:58:24] found out. Thank you. Thank

[2:58:28] you. So we have a motion. We have a

[2:58:30] second. Any further

[2:58:32] comments? Okay. We have a motion on the

[2:58:35] floor to

[2:58:36] postpone. Uh those in

[2:58:40] favor? Those opposed?

[2:58:43] It's 33. So the motion fails.

[2:58:47] So now we only have one motion that's on

[2:58:49] the floor right now, which is the

[2:58:52] $5,000. And again, do we have a sec a

[2:58:57] motion? Councelor Marshall?

[2:59:02] Yep, I'll second it. I'll also just add

[2:59:03] that I do appreciate that I did say

[2:59:05] originally yes, let's postpone

[2:59:06] consideration to staff, but uh I am

[2:59:09] reconsidering that and I appreciate what

[2:59:11] councelor Sanjie have said. We do have

[2:59:13] $15,000 in there. We give 5,000

[2:59:15] historically to the South Island

[2:59:17] Pow-Wow. It doesn't make sense to me

[2:59:19] that we would give less to this organiz

[2:59:21] to to this pow-wow. So, um I will be

[2:59:24] voting for the 5,000. Okay, no problem.

[2:59:26] So, we have a motion on the floor with

[2:59:28] that's council council Sanji $5,000 is

[2:59:31] seconded. Any further comments? No

[2:59:33] further comments. Those in

[2:59:35] favor? Those

[2:59:38] opposed? Motion carries 42 with

[2:59:40] councelor Stock and councelor Mckento in

[2:59:48] opposition. And now we move on to letter

[2:59:52] dated May 20, 2025 from Miss Dolman.

[2:59:56] Sorry to keep you waiting.

[3:00:02] Um staff, anything to add?

[3:00:07] Uh thank you to the chair. Just to thank

[3:00:09] um Miss Dolman for the letter. We've

[3:00:11] already received it into our intake for

[3:00:13] the Tatlo engagement and

[3:00:17] um yeah, just to thank her for the

[3:00:19] comments. Thank you. Council, anything

[3:00:22] to add?

[3:00:25] It's just a received right now.

[3:00:28] Um, so if we got no comments, um, I'm

[3:00:32] look for a motion to receive. And if

[3:00:34] there's anything different, you're going

[3:00:35] to give direction. I'll need a motion

[3:00:37] for that.

[3:00:40] I'll make the staff recommendation that

[3:00:42] council receive uh, Ms. uh, Dolman's

[3:00:46] letter dated May 20th,

[3:00:48] 2025 regarding traffic calming and

[3:00:51] further to direct staff. I don't know

[3:00:54] what we want to direct staff to do. It

[3:00:57] can be just to receive. Okay. Just

[3:00:59] receive the letter then number one.

[3:01:04] And before I look for a second, any

[3:01:06] questions? Nope. Council of Mongi.

[3:01:10] Uh, thank you, Chair, and through the

[3:01:12] chair to staff, I just want to confirm

[3:01:14] that uh, Mr. Martin, you did say that

[3:01:17] Miss Dolman's letter had been received

[3:01:19] and that it was going to be included

[3:01:21] into the Tatlo road um traffic study for

[3:01:25] for reference consideration, etc. Okay.

[3:01:28] So, we really don't need to do much

[3:01:32] more, I don't think. So, don't need to

[3:01:32] run through. So, it's just now just to

[3:01:34] receive receive it. Okay. So, we have a

[3:01:37] second council Sanjief. Any further

[3:01:41] comments? No further comments. Those in

[3:01:44] favor?

[3:01:47] unanimous. Now we move on to item 11,

[3:01:50] which is for information and look for a

[3:01:51] consent resolution from items A to F.

[3:01:55] Don't give up, guys. I need a consent

[3:01:57] resolution and I'm looking to my right.

[3:01:59] Right, I'll do that. Uh recommendation

[3:02:02] that the council the correspondence for

[3:02:04] council's information. Sorry, where am

[3:02:06] I? That's okay. Um,

[3:02:09] is it okay just just to do the consent

[3:02:12] resolution without stating all of items

[3:02:15] A to F? Okay. So, it's consent. So, the

[3:02:18] motion is just a consent resolution

[3:02:20] items A to F. Recommendation that the

[3:02:23] council correspondence for council's

[3:02:25] information on May 26, 2025. No, no, no,

[3:02:28] no. Where am I? No. Oh, sorry. The

[3:02:31] council receive all correspondence from

[3:02:34] A2F for information. Correct. Okay.

[3:02:38] Seconded comes the

[3:02:43] marshall. I told you guys if you don't

[3:02:45] put your hands up quick enough, you're

[3:02:46] going to be army volunteers.

[3:02:50] Yeah, she's put her hand up

[3:02:53] enough. Uh, any comments? No comments?

[3:02:56] Those in favor? Unanimous. There is no

[3:02:59] horizon report. I look for a motion for

[3:03:00] adjournment. Councelor Stark. Yes. Thank

[3:03:03] you. Seconded. Move adjourn. Oh,

[3:03:06] seconded. Councelor Marshall. Um, excuse

[3:03:10] me, Mayor. I voted against that.

[3:03:13] Sorry. I voted against the unanimous uh

[3:03:16] or the um motion

[3:03:20] against the last

[3:03:25] the consent resolution. Oh, I'm I'm

[3:03:27] sorry. You voted against it. That's

[3:03:29] correct. Oh, I'm my apologies. I didn't

[3:03:30] I didn't notice. Did we even take a

[3:03:32] vote? Yep. Oh, okay. So it is carried 51

[3:03:36] with councelor mckintok in opposition

[3:03:39] and council mcka thanks for pointing

[3:03:41] that that out. So there is no rising

[3:03:43] report. We got a motion ready for

[3:03:44] adjournment. We got a seconder marshall.

[3:03:48] Those in

[3:03:49] favor unanimous. That one always seems

[3:03:52] to get a unanimous. I don't know why

[3:03:56] I wanted to watch milk

Regular Meeting of Council - 26 May 2025

Transcript