Thank you. Good evening everyone. This
is a regular meeting of council Monday,
May 26, 2025 with a call to order at
7:00
precisely. And I look to councelor Stock
for the uh territorial acknowledgement.
Thank you, chair. Uh we acknowledge uh
that with respect the Wasanic people on
whose traditional territory the district
stands today and the Wasanic people
whose territorial
uh and historical relationships I should
say with this territory continues to
this day. Thank you very much. Thank you
chair. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move
on to item three which is introduction
of late items. Are there any late
items? Before we through the chair,
before we go into the late items, should
I move the agenda issue? No, the agenda
is after late it. Okay. Um, yes, there
are two late items 8 AI and 8 A2. So
that instead of three
um except sorry, what about the items
that you wish to move that's coming the
agenda.
So I've changed the order of uh what's
in the late items. So late item number 8
AI remains as is. The second item item
number 8 A3 should become 8 A2.
Okay.
And 8 A1 V.
Oh no. Which one is 1 B? This is all one
A.
So you move 8 A1 remains as it is. Yes.
Which is the variance report. Yes. And 8
A 3 in here moves to 8
A2 8
A2 and the agenda items move around. Now
what about the OCP? That's coming that
will become B which is where it's two
rather than
three. Can I do the agenda report moving
of it because that will clarify which
items are moving here because there is a
it says 8A3 which should actually be
8A2.
Okay. We we've got a late item which is
a move was a movement of three items on
the current agenda.
Okay.
Um two in the report.
Are there three reports?
Hold on.
Uh yeah, sure. Uh it's through the
mayor. So I my understanding is there's
two late items and there are items of
correspondence pertaining to two agenda
items and so the the the second item was
in your package was numbered incorrectly
item number 8 a three it was numbered
and it would then be number two at this
point because council is just simply
dealing with the addition of late items.
Yeah. Is that okay? Yes. Okay staff. You
got that? Okay. Thank you.
And uh just just a confirmation on
uh late items 8A an inclusion to item
8A1 and item 8
A3. Um there will be a separate motion
when we get to those particular agenda
items. Okay. Thank you. So I look for
approval of the agend agenda with late
items included stock. Sorry chair. Now I
would like to move some items from the
agenda.
Okay, let's go back. Okay, so u if we
can move item for with regards to the
staff report item 8 um 8 A1 remains as
is. That's the variance application. The
OCP which is currently 8 A 6 moves to 8
A2. Then the third item uh the foot hub
which is currently numbered as 8
A54 moves to 8
A3. Um the current item of ECOM 911
which is labeled as 8 A5 moves to 8 A4.
um of the fireworks which is currently
lab labeled as 8 A3 moves to 8
A5 and the final final one the
loneliness survey which is 8 A2 moves to
8 A6
okay that's what I was trying to
get sorry
council oh council
Clint Sorry.
Yes. Thank you. If you can hear me, I'd
also like to make an agenda item uh
change from item
11B. Move to item 10 10 C.
Okay.
Okay. Then obviously before we can uh
move forward on those we'd have to do a
motion. Perhaps if I split the motion
into two uh we do the motion that's
based on what councelor Sanjief has
required and again I won't get councelor
Sanjief to to repeat them but staff has
got them. Thank you very much. So I look
for a motion to move those items only.
Councelor Stock seconded councelor
Mconi. Those in favor of moving those
items
only. Uh motion carries. Sorry. Um
Council Clint, is that a yay or a nay?
That's
um that's in support of the motion.
Thank you very much. So it carried
unanimously. Now we move on to the
second motion which is a motion with
regard to councelor mccllintok uh with
regard to the the movement and again
staff has got the uh moving the
11 B.
Do we have a motion?
Well, that was my motion. Uh, chair
moving it from 11.
Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second?
Okay. Second for discussion. Um, I'm not
sure we want any discussion, but is
there any discussion? Council Clint,
would you wish to motivate for it? Well,
I can certainly support it. Um I don't
know why the uh why council would not uh
support moving it um into the
correspondence so this council can have
a wholesome discussion
um with the correspondence. It's uh very
valid. It's point it's timely. It's in
uh connection with uh matters that are
on the council table today and uh for
the future of the district. Um, I really
can't imagine why council would object
to moving an item so that we can have a
wholesome discussion, but uh, it kind of
stands on its own. Thank you. Anyone
else wish to
comment? No comment. Uh, those in favor
of the
motion. Okay. Those
opposed? Motion fails. 4 42 with council
sorry with councelor Marshall councelor
Sanjief mayor Jones and councelor mcconi
in
opposition so now I look for an approval
of the agenda based on the approved
motion
items councelor Marshall second
councelor Sanjief any comments no
comments those in favor
uh passes unanimous thank you very much.
Now we look at item five which is public
participation period. We have a number
of people from the public here. Before
you get up I want to ask the question.
You've already answered it but would you
please put your hand up those that wish
to speak at the public
participation. Okay. I just want to
check the numbers see if 20 minutes is
enough. Thank you very much. So before
you get up I have to make a statement
unfortunately if I can find
it. So it's rules of procedure. Uh
persons wishing to address council must
state their full name and municipality
of residents for identification and also
the topic involved. Questions and
comments must be on topics which are not
normally dealt with by municipal staff
as a matter of routine. Questions and
comments must be addressed through the
chair and answers given likewise.
Debates with or questions of individual
council members will not be allowed. No
commitments shall be made by the chair
in replying to a question. Matters which
may require action of the council shall
be referred to a future meeting of the
council. Each speaker during public
participation period must use respectful
language and refrain from making
offensive
gestures, excuse me, or signs and is
limited to speak in for three minutes
unless authorized by the chair to speak
for a longer period of time. And last
item, 20 minutes will be allotted for
the public participation period unless
extended by vote of the
council. So the first person wish to
come forward.
Good evening, mayor, council, and
district staff. Uh thank you for the
opportunity to speak. My name is Jim
Wolford and my wife and I live in uh and
work in North Sanage. Um this is just
not our home. It's our community and we
know it's quite well and we care deeply
about policies that uphold the values
and vision outlined in the upcoming uh
official community plan. Uh my wife and
I believe that developing a short-term
rental policy guided by the provincial
short-term rental um accommodation act
that was passed in 2023 offers a
reasonable and responsible effective
framework to make to meet several of our
OCP uh goals. uh a well-crafted policy
can strike the right balance by
supporting local economic activity,
encouraging innovative housing
solutions, and helping address
affordable home ownership. And I'll give
an example. There's many seniors who
wish to age in place in North Sanage and
by leveraging their homes for additional
income is one example of the OCP looking
for innovative ways to raise income. The
legis the legislation
uh of the uh provincial short-term
rental accommodation act uh is aimed to
strike a balance protecting long-term
housing challenges by limiting the
short-term rentals to principal
residents. The registry provides
transparency. It provides accountability
and enforcement, which is so important,
ensuring only legal listings remain on
the platform.
As hosts, my wife and I have welcomed on
a personal note uh many visiting
professionals that work in the uh uh
health care that provide support for
work people in North
Sanage. Uh they are essential
contributors to our region and they rely
on a safe regulated accommodation within
the community of North Sanage. By
establishing clear and thoughtful
guidelines, the district can preserve
neighborhood character while also
allowing short-term rentals to
contribute positively, economically,
socially, and
sustainably. And thank you for your time
and your commitment to a balanced
community focused approach to housing in
North Sage. Thank you.
Next person wish to come forward.
My name is Kathy Leehy and I'm getting
up on behalf of myself and my partner
Gary Hartwig. Uh we live in Nor Sanich
and we're agenda item which has been
referred to a lot of times here. Um 8 I
think 1A or we are asking for a variance
on our property and we just wanted to
let you know that we're here if you have
any questions for us. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, council. I am David Tonkan
and I live on Lanzen Road. I'm on the
public record from last week uh
discussing the marine uh the marine and
foreshore areas in the OCP.
Um, I just wanted to say that after uh
we I had an opportunity to address you
last week that uh Feliche did reach out
and we had a wholesome conversation much
of which is uh in the uh next draft that
you will see of the OCP. It is um
extremely gratifying to be heard and to
be able to participate in the OCP
process. Um so I wanted to say thank you
for that and thank you Feliche. Um we
also have uh invited uh members of
council that would like to come to our
AGM. Uh that is still open to you to
come along. Um the the draft is is still
a draft even though uh you'll take it to
first reading or at May uh today. So um
there are some changes that we are still
looking for but I just wanted to say
thank you very much for listening. Thank
you.
Good evening, mayor, council, and staff.
My name is Julie Thorson. I'm here with
my husband, John Christensen, along with
other residents who operate short-term
rentals here in North Sanich. We um
issued a letter dated May 23rd, which is
on this evening's agenda, as well as a
informative report on short-term rentals
in North Sanich a few weeks back. I'll
make this very short, I promise. So, in
light of the many changes that you've
made to the OCP draft, particularly
section 5.4.19 4.19 on temporary
accommodations. Excuse me. It's
important our concerns be voiced in
person here tonight. As highlighted in
my letter, the landscape of vacation
rentals has changed significantly in the
past decade. It is a diverse model made
up mostly of self-contained
units. Our review of online platforms
found 58 listings listed on the
provincial registry. There are three
room only BNBs as per bylaw 1349. I have
to remember all these bylaws. Nine are
full houses. Some offer both rooms and
suites within that dwelling. 46 were
operated in secondary suites, guest
cottages and carriage houses. Those with
occupancy permits could not be validated
but would be further reducing these
numbers. So, we don't know how many have
valid occupancy permits. Losing these
small communityrooted short-term rentals
would be a loss for the entire
community. It will not add significant
numbers to long-term housing, but it
will remove a vital source of income to
enable seniors and families to remain on
their rural properties.
Many hosts, for many hosts, monthly teny
revenues will not begin to cover their
rising property and retirement costs.
This is the issue for my husband and I
in
particular. Thoughtful regulation and a
fair licensing policy is needed once the
OCP is
finalized. In the interimm, a policy
could be put in place without burdening
staff or creating new bylaws and
enforcement
measures. Short-term rental operators
would simply need to meet two basic
requirements, a provincial short-term
rental registry number and a valid
occupancy permit from the district. Once
the OCP is finalized, a more
comprehensive framework such as Sydney's
could be developed down the road. Thank
you so much for your time. Thank you.
Do we have anyone else else that wishes
to speak? I'm seeing no one. Oh, yep.
Good evening, council, mayor, and staff.
Um, my name is Doug Noctal and I live on
North Savage Road and I'm part of the
short-term rental group of people here
tonight to say that uh the short-term
rental has been kind of a lifeline for
my wife and me as well. Has allowed her
to have a job that allows her to stay at
home cuz she's been having some issues.
So, it's been very important to her and
uh as part of the community, we've part
of the reason that we've done it is we
want to be part of the sharing
community. we've opened up our house to
people and guests and they all ask us,
"Why would you open up your house cuz
it's beautiful?" And we said, "Well,
haven't you ever driven in a nice
neighborhood and wanted to know what it
would be wondered like to know what it
to live there?" And they said, "Well,
absolutely. We drive through all these
beautiful neighborhoods. We never get a
chance to see them." We said, "Well, we
wanted to give you that opportunity."
and the smiles and the gratefulness that
we've gotten from the people who've
stayed, especially the medical staff
during CO who came and stayed. They were
coming in tired and run down and we had
a nurse from Calgary who was on the
front line of CO and she came and there
was no life in her and she stayed for 8
days and went back and basically hugged
us and said, "Thank you. You've given me
my life back." So the value of
short-term rental is there for people
who are looking for places to to uh
escape the daily life and to refocus and
rebuild their mental fortitude. So we've
seen so much of that from our
perspective. So I thank you for your
time and for the work that you guys do.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak?
Good evening, staff and council. I'm uh
Hans Kman and I live here in North
Senate. I'm here with my wife tonight,
Emma Domen. And uh we're also part of
the short rental short-term rental
uh group. And uh we believe that
short-term rentals have been around for
so long now that they're an integral
part of a community, having been
existence for well over a decade
already. And uh we would encourage
council and staff to explore further the
possibility of what they bring to our
district in terms of housing diversity
and flexibility. Thank you. Thank you.
And anyone else wishes to speak? I'm
seeing no one rising. So I'll call the
closure to the public participation
period and we'll move right on to
adoption of minutes. Any additions,
deletions, errors, council, I look at
Jack. No. No. I look for a motion based
on Thank you, Councelor Marshall. Second
councelor Sanjie.
Uh, I move that council adopt the
minutes to the special meeting of
council held May 12th, 2025. Thank you.
Any
comments? No comments? Those in
favor? Unanimous. Thank you. We move on
to item seven, which is petitions,
delegations, and presentations. And this
presentation by Mary Winssper Center.
Thank you. That's
fine. Good evening, mayor, council,
staff. I'm pleased to have this
opportunity to be here to update council
on our last year's operations for the
year 2024. I would like to first
introduce our board members that are
here this evening. We've got uh Sheila
Fay, Ryan Traford, Patrick Brown, Dell
Elgma, um Linda Pendre, and Maya
Pollson. And also one of our stellar
volunteers just happened to be here,
Shirley Moner. So, thanks Shirley.
Uh I would venture that there are very
few people who live in this community
uh
there who have not stepped foot in our
facility at the Mary Winspair Center. I
daily have so much appreciation for the
visionaries who work tirelessly to see
the center realized. the financial
benefit of the visitors we attract is
huge and one of the projects that I want
to be able to work on this year is to
measure that impact. So, um we are
looking at developing some metrics and I
hope that next year I'll have those
statistics to present because I think
that it's really important to
um to be able to measure those kinds of
things and and see what it is that uh
our operation is contributing to the
community.
I wanted to mention first off the good
news that we received in March that our
charitable statuses were reinstated for
both the Sanich Peninsula Memorial Park
Society and the Mary Winspair Center
Foundation. For those of us that or
those of you who've been following along
with us on this journey, it was
arduous. Um it really took a patient
village, a legal team, and an age to
accomplish.
So, um I appreciate just the patience
that the community and our board and
volunteers really everyone um showed
while we went through this
process. Uh I'm not going to go through
all these statistics, but I did want to
point out that in 23 and 24, we had some
pretty good years.
Um we are anticipating a netneutral
result for 2025 given uh the kind of
uncertain economic climate. We're really
not sure how um the economy is going to
impact people's willingness to spend
money on going to shows and that kind of
thing. Uh so I don't know that we can
anticipate seeing anything like that net
cash gain for
2025. That particular gain for 2024 of
the
449778 will be funneled into funding our
capital upgrades. I'll talk a little
more about that uh as I proceed here,
but um there are a lot there's a lot
that needs to be done in that respect.
and then anything that's remaining will
be set up as a
reserve for our theater. We continue to
see soldout audiences at many of our
events and we're excited to continue
building audiences for some more diverse
programming and offering additional
support for artists who might not
otherwise have opportunities to perform
in the area. We are reinstating our
bursery program that gives financial
support to children who are not able to
afford to see shows or register for
programs. Um, we're really proud of that
program. It's been a while since we've
been able to offer it, but our
foundation board is working on changing
some of the regulations that we've had
in place and we're hoping to be able to
launch that fairly soon so that families
who are have a little bit less
um are able to participate in some of
the offerings that we have both for
programming and for
shows. It was another busy year for
conferences and rentals in our building.
2025 is shaping up to be even busier
with more weddings and dance
competitions. Uh we end we did kind of a
check just to see of all of the rentals
that we had to turn down and we expect
that we could expand by 20% at the very
least to accommodate the additional
requests that we get for space rentals.
It's a busy place.
Uh, I did want to mention a couple of
things about Blue Heron Park. We're
continuing to seek partners to assist us
with park maintenance and potentially
add to the activities that are possible
in the park. Ideally, we would
appreciate support from the district's
park staff to help us with maintenance.
Our staff make weekly visits to walk the
trails and make sure it's safe and that
we don't have any unhoused camping or
having fires or leaving garbage. We do
rely heavily on our park neighbors and
trail users to bring issues to our
attention. We don't have um resources
either financial or personnel that can
spend a lot of time in the park. So, we
do really um rely on our neighbors to
let us know when there are things that
we need to be attending
to. And a little bit about our building
at the Mary Windspear Center. Most of
the mechanical systems and well really
everything in the building um are from
the original construction in
2001. Over the years some things have
failed and have not been replaced. So
beginning with some of the most
important our facility staff have begun
catching up with those repairs. We're
very fortunate that we've got a
facilities manager right now with a lot
of skills. So, he's been uh able to take
care of a lot of those things, and we
haven't had to call into the contracts
that we would have had to in the
past. Beyond general repairs, there are
several important items in need of
replacement, the roof and the HVAC
system being the most critical. We will
be considering a fundraising campaign to
assist with that project as preliminary
costs are estimated at a million
dollars.
uh readerboard. For those of you that
remember the reader board that used to
be the digital signage that was up in
the um tower, that is a project that's
still very high on our priority list. We
have found that retrofitting that space
in the tower is going to be a high-cost
endeavor. So, we are looking at some
other options that might give us more
flexibility and
visibility. Um so, there will be more
information about that forthcoming.
I did want to mention that we actually
have more than one window that needs to
be replaced in the future. So, um, yeah,
and that's about it. I'm really happy to
answer any questions if anyone has
questions. Thank you, council.
Questions? Councelor Stock, you are
already is on.
No, I just think that uh we we are very
fortunate as the communities here on the
peninsula to have the Mary Windspear
Center and the Memorial Park Society and
the board is amazing the number of
volunteer hours and Denny is
also she's the one really uh along with
the board but mainly Denny who got our
our charitable status back and that was
so difficult really really a very hard
uh arduous uh process. So I think uh
that you know we're very very lucky to
have Mary Windspear center and that we
do uh I know there's a lot of things a
lot of capital projects that we're you
know need to do plus the park
maintenance is very difficult uh because
it it is a large park and uh lots of
people use it. So anyway, I and also the
Peninsula Singers. We have sold out
shows. I have to I have to do a plug for
our Peninsula
singers and our Christmas show is coming
up.
Pull the mic on that one.
Anyway, thank you, Denny, and thank you
to the Memorial Park Society board
because, as I say, without you, we
wouldn't have all the arts and culture
and entertainment we have. Thank you.
Thank you, Council
St.
Council. Excuse me, I'm losing my voice.
Council Clint, do you have anything to
add because we don't see you on the
screen?
No, nothing to add, mayor. Thank you for
asking. Thank you, councelor. Further
questions?
Nope. She's leaving.
Oh, we cleared the room
again. Okay. Um, now we move on to item
eight. I got to make sure that I'm not
jumping
anything. Yes, we move on to item eight,
which is reports. And the first item is
A, which is a staff report on
development various permit, DVP. And
before we ask staff to comment, I'll
stand up the motion so that we can put
these two emails
uh on record so that they can be
discussed. So the motion is is that um
that we receive uh email May 22, sorry,
from the town of Sydney with subject
line DVP application 9140 Creswell Road
and second email dated May 25th, 2025
from B. Jones and E. Jones with subject
line regular. Do I have a seconder? Um I
saw councelor Marshall first. Any
comments? Any comments? No comments?
Those in
favor? Unanimous. So now we move on to
the main item which is staff. Anything
to add?
Thank you through the chair. Um just uh
the only thing I'll add is that the um
the owner is has been and the applicant
have been working with staff to bring
the property into compliance. Uh and uh
this issue came about uh when we do our
property check for uh for other things
on the property. Um they've already got
uh uh some approvals and this is one
that ended up coming up in the process.
So, uh, staff is recommending, uh,
approval on this variance. Thank you.
Thank you, council.
Questions? Not seeing any
questions. So, based on the fact I see
no questions, I look for a motion.
Council council me seconded. Councelor
Sanjief. Council Makoni. Uh, thank you,
chair. I'll make the recommendation that
one council approve the issuance of
development variance permit DVP
2025-0249140 Creswell Road attached to
staff report number
PCS-25-011 as attached one varying the
following section of the zoning bylaw
number 1255 section A very zoning bylaw
number 1255 section 501.3.4
4 C3 to relax a minimum required
interior sideyard setback brackets east
side for one existing accessory
structure in the RA3 zone from 7.6 m
bracket 25 ft to 5.7 m brackets 19.3 ft
for the purpose of permitting the
existing deck structure. Thank you. Um
before we go for a vote any questions?
No questions. the those in
favor unanimous. Thank
you. Now we move on to the next item.
Instead of using the number, I'll go by
title. And um the next item is the
official community plan review. And
again, because we've got laid items on
this, I will stand up the motion so it
can be discussed on the floor. And uh my
motion is to
receive letter
dated whoop sorry letter dated May 20,
2025 from D. Josephson with subject line
support for short-term rentals and
opposition to draft number two of the
OCP. Email dated May 22nd, 2025 from D.
Gregory with subject line support a
balanced approach to short-term rentals
in North Sanich.
Letter dated May 22, 2025 from C Kerr
with subject line support for
responsible short-term rentals in North
Sanage. And item last item is letter
letter dated May 23rd, 2025 from Jay
Thorson and and Jay Christensen with
subject line in support of short-term
rentals OCP draft 3. Do I have a second?
Councelor Sanjief. Um any
comments? I see no comments. Those in
favor? Unanimous. So now we move to the
actual item. So again,
staff. Thank you through the chair. Uh
thank you, mayor and council. Uh this is
um uh a draft of an OCP that is finally
coming to uh council uh in the form of a
bylaw uh for first reading.
Uh it has been a long time coming. Um it
follows up uh previous uh meeting by
council uh and another open house that
was uh conducted on May the 14th and we
in which we had a lot of um a lot of
input uh and planning staff have
received
uh as I as as Mary has noted in the
report a robust amount of public uh
input uh between the last council
meeting and this one And so, uh,
planning staff have been very busy, uh,
meeting internally, uh, making
clarifications in the document, updating
the document. Um, we have included a
redline version and a complete version
for council this evening. Uh, both have
been added to the, um, uh, municipal
website for people to see so they can
track the changes. Um, and it is, uh,
the first reading in a four reading
process. Uh the second reading will come
later on in June in the second week of
June on the 9th. Uh we'd like to bring
the bylaw back uh to second reading. But
in the meantime, this uh first reading
will give us authorization uh to uh do
our referrals uh take this um uh OCP to
our uh lawyers for review uh as well as
get uh more input uh from the community
as well. Um Mary has been extremely busy
uh
condensing uh a lot of information down
um to an OCP concentrate which you have
in front of you tonight. Um she's going
to go through uh a number of the
updates, a number of the changes uh try
she'll try to be brief because it is uh
um there has been a lot of information
uh collected and then um we'll be here
as staff to answer any questions that
council may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Feliche, and through the
chair. Good evening, everybody. Hope
everyone's doing well tonight. Um,
right, as Feliche said, we um did
receive quite a few people to come to
our open house and um on May 14th where
we heard from about 35 people, I think,
were in attendance. And we've received
quite a few written responses,
obviously, many on the short-term
rentals. Um and we also spoke with our
committees and committee members outside
of um the committee to some degree as
well and we've had input from various
district staff. So, you know, I I'd say
it's like continuous refinement here a
little bit. Um but I would say in
general I would there's about three
areas that we've been hearing more
strongly than um others. One is around
the short-term rental policy which
you've heard a little bit about tonight.
Um another is around just the densities
around McTavish area. And then I would
say the the third main kind of um like
sort of area of concentration if you
will of input was around the marine
policy. So you'll see some of the red
line reflects some of that. But that
wasn't the only there was there were
other comments and I'll go through a
little bit more but in general there was
comments just for clarity as well or
reinforcing certain points adding a
little bit more here or there. That's
where you might see some things um added
in the red line. Um I guess the
um the main thing sorry the other thing
the other major area of of input was
around in from the southeast quadrant
and that desire for um smaller uh lots
minimum lot sizes in relation to
subdivision. Um so I'll just go through
each sort of section that had that what
the main input was and and sort of how
we handled it. You've also had that in
your staff report but I'll just sort of
put that in uh for now. And so yes, so
the first one was reducing minimum lot
size to 0.25 acres in the southeast
quadrant. And I think last time we had a
motion that that where that was
defeated. So uh you will not see that uh
in this in this draft. Also some desire
to talk a little bit about increasing
density specifically in the in that new
designation which is the um fund
planning term attached ground oriented
residential designation also sort of
known as town homes and that sort of
thing. Um so we have recommended a
couple of edits to that one one where we
where we're keeping basically the um
existing uh dwelling units per acre etc.
But adding some of degree of flexibility
where we might be able to where council
might be able to increase the density
according to certain conditions and we
have inserted what those conditions
would be in a general sense in terms of
amenity provisions and site conditions
being preserved. thinking here about uh
cover tree tree canopy and trying to
balance that kind of um the the
interests. So just to give you a sense
of that um and this would be addressed
in the zoning by a lot of this more
specifics
um but we didn't make changes to the
number of
stories. Okay, thank you. Um and then
some uh you know edits for clarity
generally in that land use section. So
that's section four. Then going uh to uh
the clim environment and climate change
section. Um just some more explicit
making more explicit some of the implied
concepts in there. There was emphasis on
trees importance in in a wild uh climate
as well as um wanting to really see we
talked a lot about ecosystem integrity
but also the wildlife um being
prevalent. We had some comments around
fire um uh internally and carbon
accounting there. So we generally tried
to reflect those edits where we could
and uh yeah sim similarly for the
general development policies there's um
you know just again that reinforcing of
the the um wildlife water harvesting. So
there were some concepts with that
that's concepts that were already in
there but we just sort of reinforced
some of those and I would say the same
about from agriculture
um specifically there was one um just
some discussions around size of the
residential farm farm plate um as well
as um uh sustainable food production
including the marine environment.
And then when it comes to the short-term
rentals, um I think generally if I were
to summarize, I think and I think it
it's reflected here from the comments we
received is just a desire really to
reflect what the provincial um
legislation states. Uh and so we what
we've done is we've really tried to
maybe not get as specific in the OCP but
really used the OCP because it is that
general overarching policy do document
to really try to say uh you know that
emphasize that balance between what
we're what decisions are supposed to do
is balance that need for the h local
housing with the economic benefits that
have been cited. um and that we are
going to look to develop a more specific
policy uh to come basically. So that
that's where we've gone. We've we've um
and I think that that sort of echoes
quite a bit about what what people are
saying. Uh yeah, the specifics will come
later and we'll hear more and we'll be
able to um understand a little bit more
about how other local governments are
threading the needle on this very
important topic um because of course all
interests are so valid. So, uh, that's
what we've done with that one. Um, when
it comes to the commercial and
industrial, we really, we heard quite
strongly from the marinas about liabs
being permitted on in marina areas. So,
we we have added that edit. Um and
then yeah, a few more again making a
little bit more clarity and explicit
around some of the implied comments um
concepts in the parks, recreation and
culture specifically talking about kayak
launches and this sort of thing where it
may have already been implied in our
minds but to make some things explicit.
Um when it comes to other land use,
um just that recognition that BC fairies
and the airport and other uh federal
lands play such a key employment and
public transportation hub. And so that
was um important for us to just
reiterate that. In the infrastructure um
section, we made some changes around um
connecting water supply supply more
explicitly to fire flow requirements and
um in the marine and freshwater section,
we've uh tried to really um tie the
balancing of the foreshore development
sorry again strive to find a balance
between foreshore development and
environmental and visual sort of values
that are held dear by so many residents.
we've heard over the engagement um and
we will be looking to improve the
clarity of that and the intentions in
the implementation so in the zoning um
that will come later. Uh and then we
also removed some of the references to
the 2100 or all of them actually to the
2100 reference in relation to the high
water water mark again in the
anticipation that we'll be looking at
this more closely with the sea level
rise um flood control bylaw that's
anticipated to be done. Um I think
mostly the the other development permit
areas again just edits for clarity. The
de development permit area maps we did
um make some uh edits uh where we could
show that this we the we where we were
able to confirm that some of these
streams were actually non-fish bearing
and so we've removed those from the map
and there's more work to be done uh you
know as we as we go forward. Um, and so
we've also, I think, added some detail
around some of the the research that we
want to do moving forward to make these
these maps even more precise.
Um, I think the only note on schedule B,
which is the one that's the the land use
designations uh was we were we updated
one parcel from community uh to
community use from a split designation
of agricultural and rural and that was
uh to accommodate the I think broad and
gun club is the name of it. Yeah.
So I think that's that's the details and
um happy to accept any questions or
comments um as always. Okay. Thank you.
Thank
you. Councelor Stock is ready. Okay.
Councelor Stock.
All right. Uh thank you chair. Uh well
my question relates to the short-term
rentals. So, I think that what I've
gleaned from May uh Miss Startzer's uh
comments is that there'll be sort of a
general outline in the OCB because it is
a a broad policy document and there'll
be a policy later
on specifically related to short-term
rentals uh that will be enacted pursuant
to the OCP and the bylaw. And am I
correct in that
interpretation just because I know
probably other Yeah. people in the
audience may have also want that type of
clarification. Thank you chair and thank
you staff. Yeah. Yeah. Through the
chair. Absolutely. That's our intention
is to state the broad intention which is
that that we will be balancing those
very important interests both local
housing as well as and that should be
the intention of council going forward.
Right. And so this is the that's the
long-term thinking broad like oversight
policy that will be set here. And then
we we talk about uh by developing a more
specific policy. And that is our exact
intention is to be able to develop that
more specific policy when we can do a
little bit more engagement and a little
bit more research to really understand
there's there's there's there's soup to
nuts of what local governments are doing
out there to thread this needle for
themselves and we want to take a little
bit more time to also do that.
Um for the in the
interm regulation that is in place and
that regulation would be intended to
stay until we replace it with uh policy
and other so so so it's sort of status
quo as is with this being the
overarching currently in you could
almost say that our you know we need to
look at what the status quo is but this
OCP policy today maybe is trying to do
that uh will fit under that if that's
I'm I'm not sure I'm explaining myself
very clearly, but basically it's broad
enough that it can accommodate for what
we have, but we'll be looking at more
specifically.
Okay. Thank you uh very much. Okay. No
follow. Thank you chair and thank you uh
Miss St. Okay. Thank you council
councelor Marshall. So my uh thank you
just through you chair to staff. My
question is along the same lines as what
councelor Stockton and I know that
you've just answered it but I just want
to make it clear.
Um, so I understand that policy will be
coming, but I believe that part of the
change that we have incorporated is that
high level view of balancing the
economic benefit of short-term rentals
with housing. So we have that currently
changed now in this OCP draft. So that
is the direction to council when we
consider decision-m here. It's not
specifically just housing needs. It's
our economic benefit for our short-term
rentals. Do I have that correct? Okay.
Thank you. Thank
you. Counc.
Yes. Thank you. I I just thought of
something else. I know that with regard
to it's not really a question short
comment with regard to short-term
rentals also many of them aren't
suitable for long-term accommodation and
I've experienced that myself and also
having neighbors and friends who have
short-term rentals in North Sanage and
really I can't see anyone you know want
it wouldn't be appropriate to or that
comfortable for like a long-term term
say a year lease or something. Uh and so
I think that's part of the balance too
which houses or carriage houses or
suites uh have the appropriate
accommodation for longer term housing in
instead of just short-term rentals.
Thank you very much. Thank you council.
Further
questions? Nope. Um I'll bring up a
couple of questions. One, I'll just
comment on the
um I call them the BMBBS, the short-term
rentals. Um based on the fact that the
OCP is just an overarching document, I
assume that
the the short-term rental owners will
have another opportunity to talk to
staff and that's during the process of
producing the policy. So, I just want to
make sure that they they're aware that
that's going to happen. Absolutely.
Yeah. through the absolutely that that
is the intention I think you know just
recognizing we need to hear from a few
more people specifically on this issue
issue well as many people who want to
speak about it to us so uh before I go
Thank you very much before I go to my
next question I'll go to councelor
mccllintok
yes thank you mayor uh through you staff
uh would you say that the our OCP is
being
um is following the guidelines of the
province as opposed to being made in
North Sanage
to um creating a a policy in relation to
short-term rentals that um would be
unique to us. I know that we have to
bear all things in mind, but um as
councelor Stock already mentioned, there
are many short-term rentals that uh
would not be suitable for a long-term
lease type arrangement. And um the year
is getting on, summer's coming. Is there
anything we can offer those short-term
rental people um at this time to um to
encourage them to that they're that
they're um their business is not at
risk?
And I have another question as well.
Staff, do you want do you have a
response? I mean, at this point, like we
have our rules. So, I guess that that's
the that that's like if you know,
assuming everyone's good with what our
rules are right now, then there's no
one's businesses at risk at this point.
I mean, I think what we'll need to do is
we're allowed to be more restrictive.
That is what we're allowed to do. Um, in
terms of attending to long-term housing
needs. Sorry, I should have said through
the chair. um uh you know and so that
we're not we're not allowed to be more
uh open with our policies, right? So at
a minimum it would be what the
provincial policy is. People can know
that as a bound um and there may be some
interest for council and um staff's
recommendation
around creating these variations that
we're allowed to kind of do that make it
slightly more restrictive. For example,
currently it's we define short-term
rentals as under um 30 days and uh
whereas the province defines as it as
under 90 days. So that's an example, you
know, where where we would be allowed to
do something like this. There's other
ways you can uh limit them or not decide
to in terms of principal residence only,
secondary suite, uh
cottage. So I think I think what we're
saying is the rules are what they are. I
don't know if that's helpful to people
uh that that feel comfortable with that.
And then it definitely won't be um any
less restrictive than what the province
has. Uh and then we're going to have to
find that balance um between the the
long-term housing. And so I maybe Flee
you have more to add. Before I go back
to council, just a comment on that bas
basically it's status quo right now.
That's right. And
if staff were to come and with a more
restrictive policy, council would have
the opportunity to vote on it and more
importantly the public would have an
opportunity to speak on it. Okay. Thank
you. Um council k you have another
question or you want wish to follow up.
Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm um I
missed I missed the click on the button.
Um my question is because we're talking
about housing on the OCP, I have to
refer to a letter that was sent
by Minister Khan. Uh
he council I know that sorry council
mccllintok that that's that's for
information only. That's not for
discussion. There was a motion on it.
No, no. There was a motion not to move
it, but we can we can talk about
whatever is on the agenda. I would just
the matter that's on the agenda.
Uh through your some clarification from
procedures if you like, but this is a
matter that was brought to our attention
in council. I asked to move it uh so we
could talk about it within council, but
because it was brought to my attention
in in the agenda, I can't turn a blind
eye.
And staff, if I'm out of order, then let
me
know. Mayor, I mean, as chair, that's
your call to make. Um, my understanding
of the convention of this council in
relation to the items that are received
for information only is that that's what
happens with them. and and in in this
particular instance, there was a motion
that failed to bring that letter forward
for discussion. So, um again, I believe
you would be within uh your uh rounds of
appropriateness to to disqualify that
conversation at this point. Okay. Thank
you.
Or if I'm clear, were to ignore
information that's in the agenda, I'd
have to challenge the chair's decision
on that.
That's that's fine. And do you wish to
motion motivate why you want to
challenge the chair's position? And do
you wish to do it as a point of order or
just a challenge? Well, I'd like to
challenge and uh and put it to council
to see if they continue to uh um ignore
information that's on council as far as
bringing it into the public realm. Um
because it is there, because it's on the
agenda, we are at liberty to talk about
anything on the agenda, no matter what.
So whether or not I talk about it now or
whether or not it goes in the
correspondence is irrelevant. It's
information that's been provided to
us and I would and again I would
challenge that. Okay. Thank you. Uh
staff
um mayor. So through you then that would
be uh you would immediately put that
question of the challenge of your
decision to the council for a vote. Yes.
Agreed. Okay. Do we need a motion and
second on it or just a just a mo just a
vote?
It's just a vote. Thank you very much.
Okay. Thank you. Um again, based on
advice advice from staff, we have a
challenge of of the mayor's position
that that um it's a a motion earlier
that it was for information only. Um
there is a challenge of that. So the
vote is those in favor of council
mccllinto please raise your
hands. Those
opposed it fails. uh the six of us 51
with councelor Marshall, councelor
Sanjief me Jones, councelor Mconi and
councelor stock in
opposition. Thank you. So we move on to
any further
questions. Um okay, I'll move forward
and sorry.
Oh, sorry, didn't see you. uh through
the chair just following up uh with
councelor uh mccllintok's uh question
and uh uh m Mary stoer's very balanced
answer um which is good uh there there's
the enforcement part as well and uh
right now um just to reiterate that we
only act uh in terms of complaints uh
from the public uh and in terms of
consultation with uh short-term rental
um uh group, we would um we would invite
their um their input um and and and make
sure that they're not feeling like uh
they're going to be we're taking names
and and and and faces at meetings uh for
enforcement. Uh we want to hear from
them. So uh that's how we would uh treat
that engagement as collaborative. So
just wanted to add that. Thank you very
much, council. Further questions?
Councelor Marshall? Uh, I just have one
question. It's a really simple question.
Uh, page
375, the last bullet point there. When
we're talking about housing and
community, it just says requiring a
minimum 10% of total of any proposed
Bearland or strata single family
residential subdivisions are affordable
housing lots as defined by the North
Sanich dot dot dot. I think it's
probably the housing needs assessment,
but I'm not sure because there's
something missing there. So, can we just
clarify what that document is? Thank
you.
I I would agree with that. There's
definitely something behind those dots.
So, uh that would be it. You are
correct.
Thank you. Further questions. I'll put
up a a question. It's on one of my
favorite topics. Uh staff, would you
wish to comment on any housing on the
airport?
Uh yes uh thank you uh through the
chair. Uh just to follow up uh with uh
Mary's comments as well. Uh we have
included we have included um policy in
the OCP that uh that reflects um
um suggestions andor um requirements uh
for the airport. uh in terms of um
uh contributing to solving our our
housing issues uh here in North Sanage.
Uh there is some general policy in the
OCP right now. Um staff have gone over
uh the airport in in quite a bit of
detail.
Um it is a very complex
uh issue dealing with
multi-jurisdictional entities in North
Sanage. um not just the airport and
federal government but with the province
and and the ferry terminal and we've met
with both parties uh and we've got input
from both parties uh with regard to um
uh um getting feedback. So we have some
um uh some information uh that's in the
latter part of the OCP in terms of
general policy but that is all that we
have uh put in so far.
Um, a question arising out of that, um,
have you, unless it's an inc camera
issue, have you received any legal
opinions with regard to whether or not
the airport can or cannot build housing
on the the pro on their
land? But remember, if it's if it's an
inc camera issue, just say, yeah. Um,
yes. Uh we have and uh uh our um our
legal opinion has been yes uh we can
include information like that in the OCP
as other communities have started doing
that throughout the province. Uh so um
we've been given some examples of that.
So, uh yeah, that that is um that that
is one of the things that I needed to
get some pre preliminary confirmation on
as we build this OCP because it is very
very important and the airport is uh a
very important partner in our community.
Okay, another question arising out of
that. Would staff consider putting a DP
on the airport in the OCP?
uh through the
chair. Yes, I think we would consider
that if it was um a motion from council.
uh we would uh do some investigation on
um what kind of controls or influence we
could have with regard to form and
character through the LGA
uh on the uh federal property on the
airport based on that legal opinion.
Thank you. Okay. Ju just a comment. I'm
not going to be doing a motion tonight,
but you may see a
motion at a future council meeting. Uh,
so any further questions or questions
arising out of discussion? Sorry, before
I do that, um, staff, good evening,
mayor and council and to the chair. Um
just wanted to clarify on the previous
comment about um page
375 the uh um councelor Marshall's
question and the clarity about what was
missing in that and with that bullet
under after the housing needs report.
Um I I'll have to go figure out what
what's missing through the chair if
that's okay. I think I think it was too
but I don't have it right in front of
me. Apologies. I thought I just didn't
hear it and we were going to that could
have been an amendment for for this for
tonight but we can also do that at a pre
at a at a subsequent meeting. So thank
you and councelor Sanji. Thank you chair
to the chair. Um thank you first of all
for the report that is in front of us.
Um I think it's quite a good document
that we have have and it's seen that
it's uh quite devote uh dedicated
towards agriculture and environment
policy which is wonderful to see. Um my
question is with regards to page 393
there is a table on page 393 table B and
on page 394 there is another table as
well. Uh in terms of the housing
targets, the two of them have a total of
different numbers. One is
2,493, the other one is
2,694. Just wanted to know, one of them
refers to a report from
uh the district's 2020 housing needs
report, which is already 5 years old. Um
is it still relevant to have it here?
uh through the chair. So um that
first table
B. So that table is the inter is the the
required number of housing units for the
interterm housing needs report using the
provincial methodology the updated one
that we are required to do. So that was
their most recent one that came before
you maybe was it in the fall. Um the
second table uh is actually our
anticipated well basically the number of
um units from the new designations that
are contained in the
OCP with the only exception being that
there are many more accessory dwelling
units that would be feasible. This this
column for accessory residential
dwellings is what we think will
transpire which is about 20 per year.
Whereas the other ones talks about how
many units could be contained in the new
designations of multif family, the new
designation of attached ground oriented
and then uh the exist the the um
possible new single family lots. So it
one was provided by our inume housing
needs report following the current
provincial methodology and the other is
the representation of the units just to
recap that are now currently designated
with that one exception of the uh
accessory dwelling.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank
you council. Further questions?
No further questions then I look for a
motion based on staff recommendation
and council second to councelor Sanjief.
Council kunky. Thank you chair. I'd like
to make the recommendation that council
give first reading to the revised north
senate proposed north senate official
community plan bylaw number 1587 bracket
2025 attached as appendix A of staff
report PCS-25-013.
Thank you. Any further questions?
Since it's a reading, are we supposed to
read the whole document as part of the
council? Sorry.
Nice try. We'll be here until tomorrow
morning. Okay, put me off. So, any
further questions? No further questions.
Those in
favor? Those opposed?
Motion carries 51 with the council in
opposition. Now we move on to the next
item and staff tell me which is next
item by name.
Mr. Mayor, it's the food hub. Food hub.
Thank
you. I will find it. So question. Okay.
So staff, anything to
add? Nope. We'll just wait for people to
leave.
It's okay. Mary leaving.
[Laughter]
just by
[Laughter]
Okay, stop.
Yes. Uh, I believe Barb Bob Barb is
joining us on the screen here and I
believe Barb is going to speak to this
um tonight.
Bob, anything you want to comment?
You're muted right now.
Sorry, I've got unstable internet here.
No, I've got um the staff report before
you um really lays out uh quite well um
uh the information that we've
accumulated to date uh with a number of
our recommendations and uh given my
internet access here, I'll uh I'll let
Ben uh director of infrastructure add to
it if he feels uh anything else needed
to uh to be added to the report. Thank
you. Thank you, Ben.
Thank you, Mayor and Council.
Um yes, just that what a what um what a
what a wonderful opportunity to discuss
um um and oftent times the devil's in
the details. Um there is quite a bit of
information that Barb's provided in the
report and uh we're happy I'm happy to
to answer further questions and also um
provide further information for any
discussion that might happen here.
Thank you. Okay, council council
Marshall.
Okay, I'll start us off uh through you
chair of staff. First of all, thank you
very much um for the report. Uh I think
like our acting CEO has said it's um
very thorough. So I appreciate all the
information. I appreciate the
information that you shared from Central
Sanich's feasibility study and sanit's
feasibility study from those
consultants. Um I've also been involved
as many of us have with the community
engagement through the agricultural and
food security committees. the uh mayor's
working groups when we talked about
agriculture and had um many different
sessions with communities and with the
farmers and um producers in the in the
community. So I myself um although I
appreciate the opportunity for another
feasibility study, I myself will not
support that. Um I think we've had
plenty of engagement with the community.
I think we can uh speak specifically to
farmers and producers if we feel we need
a bit more information from them. Um but
myself, I think we have plenty of
information here. I know that we've had
presentations from um groups that
actually currently have food hubs.
They've come to the agricultural
committee and other committees have been
invited to go to those locations as
well. Um so I I'll just start us off on
on that. But um I'm happy with the
report other than I I won't support
another feasibility study. Thank you.
Council
questions Sanjief. Thank you, chair. Um,
I'm going
to motivate towards an different motion
or recommendation. Speak into the mic,
please. Sure. Thank
[Laughter]
you. So, um, first of all, thank you for
the report. Uh, it's taken almost a year
to get it to the this particular rubrics
to be formed. Uh thanks to the members
of the agriculture and food security
advisory committee to staff Barb Ben and
Stephanie without fail the generous
proposal of donation by Greg and Diane
uh for moving this project forward.
That's my first uh thank you to
everyone. What I would like to see if
possible is that in conjunction with the
agriculture advisory committee develop
the survey questions for the food hub in
preparation for the start of the North
Sanage farmers market on June 7th which
is taking place very soon. uh that would
act as a precursor to engaging
interviews with farmers uh where there
is an active ongoing farming on ALR land
and as was mentioned by councelor
Marshall we have already engaged the
farmers in different platforms there has
been the mock pack where the farmers
were engaged with there was a specific
event that took place where there were
over uh for 62 people attended that
event 42 of them were farmer farmers and
they all had expressed a strong support
and need for a food hub. So I think
keeping that in mind I don't I agree
that we don't need to do another
physibility study. There is enough data
already out there that we can embark on.
So that's my first comment and I would
conquer that we don't need to do another
physibility study. I'll stop for now and
then see if anyone has got something
else to say. Uh, council.
Yes, thank you. Uh, through your staff,
I just have a few questions, please.
Um, we talk about small and medium-sized
agricultural producers.
Um, do we have an do we have an estimate
on how many um how many we've talked to
or how many fall into that category in
the district of North Sage and how many
have uh come forward and expressed an
interest in this type of thing. Uh
staff, do you know the numbers?
Sure, I can speak to that.
Um thank you councelor and through the
chair.
Um that's a great question and something
that staff focused in on right away. So
if you read through the the uh the uh
the phase one um criteria in the in the
in the donor document and the generous
donor document it does envision a
certain size of farmer where the service
would be
um most valuable most used and it spoke
to a small to mediumsiz farm with 10
acres or less. So we were curious and as
presented in the report how many of
those farmers are here? Um so that's
part of um I know I know the reluctance
with the with the full blown feasibility
study. I can understand that very much.
Um staff are ultimately here to support
mayor and council's decisions. But that
was one of the questions that staff had
about of those 105 I think there's 125
folios with 105
um that are less than 10 acres. Um so so
that would be something that could be
determined about how many of those
property owners um are specifically
interested in the service. So yes, sorry
long-winded question, councelor Clint.
We believe there's about 105 folios that
would fit in that
category. Council mint, do you have a
follow-up question? Sorry. Yes.
Um, you're on mute.
Yes, I am. I'm sorry about that, Chair.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Martin, for that.
The, uh, so we have approximately
105 businesses that might be might show
an interest in this. The um, population
in the district of North Sanage is over
12,000. Are those 12,000 people, how
have they been um, how have they been
solicited? and how um have they has it
been made very clear as to what this
would end up costing them to support
um um this particular um enterprise of a
food hub. Um contrary to the other
counselors, I don't believe that we do
that we have enough information
especially before me today. Um and I
again I'm I'm very careful about what I
refer to on in this agenda as to what I
can talk about but uh what I uh what I
see on this particular agenda item I
don't see enough to make you satisfied
that uh this is the the approach to go
especially with the enormous cost. So um
we what has been done as far as the um
to reaching out to the general community
the taxpayers of this community support
this
stuff. Thank you uh councelor mccllintok
and to the chair.
Um there's a lot in that question and
perhaps I can start with offering uh
Barb's knowledge just about um there has
been um adjacent feasibility studies
that are quite comprehensive that were
reviewed by staff and in terms of the
cost that that's to be determined cost
and cost benefit. Um Barb has done some
um high level um analysis on that. Barb,
are you able to provide a bit of
information about that?
Yeah, I think there's a, you know, I I
took the reports um that Central Sanage
and Sanage did on their feasibility and
tried to extrapolate that into uh what
we know of the North Sanage farmers and
there's a lot of assumptions in those
reports and I don't know that those
resumptions uh translate over to North
Sanage. Um, so I, you know, it it
doesn't paint a very pretty picture, but
I wouldn't rely on that 100%. Um, and I
wouldn't put that in front of council
for them to base their decision on it,
which is, um, why I think we need a
feasibility study uh, a needs analysis
to really understand what the farmers of
North Sanich um, are interested uh, in
uh, in terms of a food hub um, you know,
um, service that could be offered by the
district.
Thank you, staff. I don't know if that's
helpful or not, but that's okay. That's
what I have at the moment,
staff.
Um, yeah, thank you. Thanks, Barb. Um
um perhaps I'll um just um and through
the chair, perhaps I'll just respond to
some further questions from council.
What I'm hearing is that there's a
desire for some level of a needs
analysis and that was in inferred to
from councelor Shiva Stava about a
survey um that survey could possibly be
expanded to some capacity to capture
some of these folio users and I'm
hearing about a project plan and a
timeline that are of interest. So I'm
I'm I'm here to listen more to to the
mayor and council discussion. Thank you,
councelor Sanji, councelor Scott, then
councelor Marshall
through the chair. Uh just uh I'm
looking at stats from 2021 and some of
the data that was been acquired by South
Vancouver Island Farmers Association.
There are 41 farms that were registered
by with CRA under 10 acres. uh for of
the 41 that were under 10 acres when the
mock pack uh had a farmers engagement we
had 19 farms being represented at that
point of which majority of them were in
favor of having a food hub. So that's
just one part that I wanted to make make
a point on. Thank you. Thank you
councelor Stark. Uh yes, thank you chair
through you uh to staff and and just
general comment as well. I think that
what this Thank you very much for the
report. It's I think it's really uh well
done and I I like all the information
from the central Sanich uh uh study as
well as Sanich's study. But I think the
reason that staff is recommending to us
that there needs to be maybe one other
sort of link in the chain here is that
Central Sanage's study didn't result in
a food hub. That's one. Two, there have
been other studies and there's now two
food hubs in the CRD. Right. So then
three, I think what you're saying and I
may I just want to clarify that through
the charitative stuff is that three then
is okay, what do our farmers need and
want because we haven't I mean I don't
think we've really determined that and
there are two food hubs. Central San's
study didn't result in a food hub. May
you know do we need to get together with
Central Sanage for instance? I think
that's maybe what Ms. Webster is
speaking about to have one that would
benefit both farming communities who are
both both Central Sanche and North Sanch
have large quite large farming
communities. Now, I know there may be a
time um uh sort of that we're under some
type of a time uh exigency, but I I
just, you know, I'm not against doing
further analysis, but I do agree with
Council and Marshall that we have had a
lot of analysis, but I think that what
you're saying I got on page three of
your report, which is page 125 in our in
our binder, uh which talks about what
I've just said. One, two, and three. So,
I I'm kind of not um not quite decided
what we need to do and I know we do have
the funding at least to begin or to
commence from the gift proposal. So,
thank you very much, chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Council Marshall. Uh yeah,
just a couple things I guess to add to
that. Um, just as a bit of background, I
might have my math incorrect, but uh, I
think in this district, we've been
talking about a food hub for 15 years if
I don't have that incorrect. I know
we've been speaking about it for at
least five. So, this is not a new idea.
Certainly not something that a number of
people that are non-farmers came up with
and thought we needed to do. So, I think
we are aware it is something uh that we
need in the district. Certainly from all
the engagement that we have done, I like
the idea of doing a further survey to
kind of identify additional needs. I
also do want to point out and again
thank you very much to the donor for
donating that the money to do this. This
is also someone who is a farmer, right?
He's a farmer in this district and that
is his background. So I I'm going to
have some faith that he has spoken to
the community members. I know he has and
other farmers and producers and
understands this is something that is
required and needed. So we are getting
that from a reputable source as well
that has that knowledge. I like the
survey idea certainly to find out the
needs and and just to be clear in sort
of what councelor Stock was saying is
for me when I read feasibility study um
as a consultant hiring a consultant to
do a full feasibility study I am not
going to support I don't think that is
what we need. I could understand finding
further needs for farmers and certainly
the costing piece of it. So I but I
would I would hope and have faith that
our staff would be able to come up with
what is the cost of servicing a food hub
that's a thousand square feet which is
sort of what we're talking about for the
first phase. So I don't I I certainly
agree that we need that information but
I don't count that as a full feasibility
study. So I would support more
information around farmers needs from a
survey and also that costing piece of
it council further questions.
No questions.
Oh, it's councelor stock. Councelor
Sanji, do you want You go ahead. All
right. No, I was just going to say yes.
I I concur with what councelor Marshall
says. I I but I do think that that's
what we're what it's not a full
feasibility study but something where we
need to know what the needs are what the
costs would be for the thousand square
foot uh one to begin with and and also
you know what um what exactly are the
benefits uh for farmers. I mean, I know
we all we we have been speaking about it
a long time and I kind of understand
what some of the benefits are, but I
think maybe we need to have that
information as well. And I think we have
it. It's not something that's it's got
to be somewhere from all the work we've
done. And uh it it's just kind of more
uh direct information so that people can
understand if we're going to do this,
here's the cost, here's what it does,
here's what how many farmers support it.
And I think that's what maybe Miss
Webster wants to comment, but I think
that's what she means and what staff
means when they're asking us to do a bit
further analysis. Thank you,
staff. Um staff, do you want to speak
before I go to council?
Okay, council.
Yes. Thank you. Um first of all, I'd
like to caution council. Let's not be
tempted by the gift make a wrong
decision and burden our
taxpayers for years to
come. Okay. We only have to look as far
as the financial drain of sand down to
see how quickly our money can be drained
away.
when we're talking about an exclusive
group and I fully support agriculture.
So don't get me wrong in in in the way
I'm expressing this. I do support
agriculture completely.
However, if if our only survey group is
the
choir, then we're going to get answers
that are helpful to the
choir. We have to this has this has to
be more broad-based. It's 12,000 people
that I'm thinking about, not the 100 um
and so on um farmers that that could be
affected by this. And who wouldn't want
to say if the district is going to fund
a food hub, I'm all for it because I'm
in the business of
farming. What about those other 12,000
people? Let's not forget those. Let's
and again, let's not be tempted by this
gift that we have to act quickly.
Thank you. Okay. Councelor Sanjief
I've lost all my train of thought.
Um I I think we getting
here acting on a lot of caution rather
than being pragmatic about what the
needs of the community is. And it has
been pointed out by councelor Marshall
and has been pointed out by several
other former members who have served on
agriculture commissions uh committees
who have written the subliminal articles
on the agriculture in the district that
have all expressed that there is a
critical need for a food herb or and a
requirement in the area. There is a need
for storage. There is need for
processing that has been amplified over
and over again. What another survey what
the physibility study will do or whether
we go and approach 12,500 people. I'm
can at least assume that everybody eats
food. That's the first assumption that
we've got to make. Uh there might be
those who survive on sunlight which is
great for them. But the reality is that
this is a critical need. There's just
been an article or news article that
occurred on May 24th, just two days ago,
which talks about food insecurity is
rising in Canada with nearly 10 million
people, including many children worried
about running out of food. This is a
necessity that is coming to light.
Having a food hub which does storage and
in over time may go into processing is a
critical need. I think this is a a time
for us to make bold decisions and
decisions that
are two studies have already shown that
there is a need for a food hub. for
whatever reason, for land or what have
you, the two districts have not been
able to um go ahead with the process. We
have had several presentations to the
advisory committee to mock committees
that have all shown that there is a
critical need for it. I would certainly
like to make a proposal if uh not yet.
Not yet. Okay. So, okay, that's good.
Then I just want to go back to the point
of the needs uh survey. I'm looking for
what I'm proposing in terms of the
survey is a very simple one as to what
activities the current farmers would
require. Is it storage? Is it
processing? Is it uh repurposing of the
product? Will they actually use the
facility or not? at the North Sanage
farmers market every Sunday starting uh
next Sunday Saturday onwards we will
have access to farmers that we can
easily approach and get answers to. So
this is not a lengthy process that we
need to go into. So it's a simple survey
to get if there is a food hover around
would they use it what kind of
processing do they need simple as that
draws the line then we go on to the next
stage which is getting uh working
towards the phase one that's right thank
you ma'am before any further questions
comments I'll give a a comment um what
I'm looking at plain and simply is is
Is a food hub and needed? I don't know.
There's a lot of work to be done, a lot
of governance to be done to find out if
a food hub is required. What we're
looking at here is the first phase of a
number of phases. And the first phase is
do the local farmers actually need
storage and cooling. That's
it. If we find that the numbers make
sense to do a th00and square feet and we
move forward on it and there's uptake of
the service we can then look at phase
two which is to expand that service I
would anticipate but that by the time we
get to a food hub and it's a pure guess
because I'm not a farmer I'm just
looking at this and saying by the time
the district and we got to look after
the shareholders as count shareholders
my
apologies the residents of of North
Sanich so that we don't provide a white
elephant for them and by doing this in a
reasoned stage
process I think we can finally get to
having a food hub here without undue
risk to our
taxpayers. So next now councelor Sanjep
did you wish to put a
motion? Sure. Sorry before that any
matter any sorry any comments questions
arising out of what I've said? Nope.
Okay. Councelor Sanjief.
Thank you chair. Uh hold your breath. I
hope I get it as
a in conjunction that the council direct
staff in conjunction with the
agriculture food security advisory
committee developed the survey questions
for the food hub in preparation for the
start of the north sanage farmers market
on June 7th
2025. This would act as a precursor to
engaging interviewing farmers where
there is an active ongoing farming on
ALRA land. Following the June 7th survey
2025, if required, modify the survey
questions are posted on the district's
website and mailed to all registered ALR
folios. That's number one. Number two,
direct staff to determine the cost of
servicing the
92.903 square meters. Um, for
conversion, it's 1,000 square ft of food
hub for cold storage as phase one. The
report to be brought to the agriculture
food security advisory committee at the
July 9th meeting to be later on
submitted to the council's July 14th
report. Thank you. Um, is there a motion
with regard to coming forward with
servicing of Yes, that's what it is to
get the cost of servicing. Oh, okay.
Thank you. Sorry, I missed it. Yeah. Uh,
before I I asked for a second staff.
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, councelor,
for that for that motion. Um uh clearly
there's a there's a there's motivation
from mayor and council to to to continue
developing this and I I I agree that
there perhaps there can be a project
plan and timeline
uh initiative also a formalization of a
needs analysis initiative um balancing
the risk as the mayor mayor and fully
understanding the costs going forward.
Um there is a there is a staff without
getting into more trouble or into it
further. There would be a staff
obligation with that's tied to your
motion counselor. So we we we would need
to be able to understand our current
portfolio and what would have to be
shifted or removed to try and service
this motion. Um so that's one thing that
comes to mind.
Um and then some of the other things in
terms of executing on some of this um
there are a lot of variables and
assumptions that would have to be made.
Um but those are some of the details
that we could work through going
forward.
Okay. Um did you wish to add to the mo
motion with regard to the estimates as
being a class A, B, C or
D? Staff, what do you prefer coming
forward with? Exact. Um, if I may, um,
through the chair, trying to specify the
accuracy of an estimate at this point
when you really don't know where the
site's going to be and site and
servicing costs are largely dependent on
the site. Again, it's a there's a there
are quite a few variables still. Um, I
guess we could anchor back to the scope
itself was quite well defined in the
gift proposal. So, that's a real benefit
and that scope is expandable. Um um but
I think that for the level of the level
of estimate that would be required which
which really would be an in indication
in nature for the decision makers we
would have enough information for that.
Okay. Okay. Any before we go for the
second because there was some comments
in between. Do we have a
second council Marshall? Do you wish to
motivate further or should we just for
general comments? General. Okay. Any
further
comments? Uh, no further com. Uh,
Councilman Kent. Okay. Yes. I thought
there was something
coming. No, I I saw a little white hand.
I thought there's a yellow one
coming. Uh, you're on mute.
I My comments were thank you very much
for recognizing the chair. Um, I was a
little slow on the button. Uh as far as
the uh proposal by or this motion is
concerned, would it be um form of a
number of survey type questions or what
are we going to give staff to move
forward on this? If we are asking
questions, I think a critical question
might be if we're going out to the
agricultural
community, what would they be prepared
to contribute to the cost of the food?
uh if if we're if we're um brainstorming
for for questions for a particular
survey if that's where we're going.
Thank you.
Anyone have a comment?
Oh, sorry staff. Uh thank you counselor.
And if I may just um inter um offer I
with my review limited review of the
central sanage feasibility study um that
their summary is quite clear about a
lease rate and so obviously if we were
to engage um with some farm operators
we'd have to understand their need and
their willingness to rent that space at
that unit rate. And so that so that and
that is really critical. Um and uh in
the financials of this service um
there's also other some interesting
information about the five initial
5-year projections.
Um it it is going to be a subsidized
service and I think everyone's aware of
that and that's and that would be okay
as long as we're aware of that level. we
just aren't we don't understand to what
level that would be and that was and
that's some of staff's reluctance um
with any new service that's being
considered whether it's this or
um garbage service or any other thing
so if I may comment there where I stand
on this I think it's worth worthwhile
going forward the motion as it stands
right now because when we're looking at
with regard
to dollars per square foot and
particularly what type of model would be
used to operate the thousand square ft.
That would be after we received this
basic information and that would be by
separate
motion. So it's just a
comment. Uh so we have a motion on the
floor. Are there any other comments,
questions? Council stock. Yes. Thank
you, chair. Um, is is this motion then
relating only to the first memo, the one
that I had referred to on the food hub
preliminary feas feasibility update or
is it also relating to the second memo
which is the preliminary feasibility
study
which talks about options and a
nonprofit enterprise model and
for-profit enterprise model. I'm just
wondering if it's related to everything
about the food hub. If if I may, what I
believe and councelor Sanjie can
certainly tell me if I'm wrong with
this. We're simply looking at the basics
of the thousand square ft. When we look
at the models that you're looking at
there, yes, it does apply to a full food
hub and at some point which is in the
very near future after staff comes back
to us with regard to this motion. That's
the questions that will then be part put
to staff in the sense of council would
decide okay look at this model or this
model or this model we wouldn't we don't
have to do it at this
point my understanding that's correct
chair so so right now it's just limited
to the phase one of it it's not looking
at the different models that are being
projected and in any case the staff
report is the recommendation are only on
page
23. The rest are as attachment
supplementing the report.
Does that help counselor stock?
Thank you, chair. Yes. Uh I see. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any further
questions? I see no further questions. I
look for a motion. Those in
favor? Those opposed?
Council Stock, I don't see a hand. That
means you're in favor.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh the motion
carries. Uh 51 with council mcclentok in
opposition and good discussion guys. I
thank
you. Uh, the next one I believe is a
decom
[Applause]
stuff. E1.
Yeah, that's I'm assuming. I just want
to make
sure. Okay. ECOM
next. Thank
you. So, this is ECOM 911 dispatch
service agreement. Uh, staff, any
comments?
What do you mean no? You've been sitting
there for three hours and you're going
to say no.
This wasn't my report. I can Steve can
start and I can follow up. Let me just
find the report. Just give me one
second. Oh, thank you.
Uh through the chair. So, um I don't
even have it in front of me because I
didn't realize I was going to report on
this.
Um so this is a interimm agreement um
for dispatch services through ECOM 911
just to get us through to the end of the
year I believe and then we can have
further discussions on uh future costs
and where we're going with this as I
understand it. Oh look there it is.
I'm I'm back now and I can continue on
Steve unless you want to continue
um through the chair. So
um so there has been some discuss
previous discussions um with this
agreement. Um so now it's now it's here
at the regular council meeting to to um
to staff seeking direction as to execute
the interimm agreement which will
provide service services from April 1st
through to the end of the year. Um, and
there's also um a recommendation to
engage staff to to further negotiations
um beyond for services beyond 2025. Um,
I know there's a lot of questions about
this um and uh I'll be able to hopefully
answer most of them as they come. Okay.
Thank you, council. Questions?
Council Marshall?
Uh, thank you, Chair. Yep. I'll start us
off. I have a few questions and a few
things to say on this particular item.
Um, first of all, I think what we've
asked as council previously, I believe
has not been answered and I think that's
alluded to in the report. So, I'm going
to ask it again just to make sure that
I'm I'm correct that we don't actually
have the answers to. Um, so a question
that's been asked many times is the fact
that we now as municipality have to pay
for this, but there are municipalities
in this province that don't pay for
ecom. and we've never really been given
the actual answers as to why. So, I'm
just curious if we if we know that. Um,
we'll start with there and then I'll ask
the other ones as well. So, I'll give
you a chance to answer. Oh, yeah. Go
ahead.
Thank you, counselor, to the chair. My
understanding and obviously I haven't
been following this this uh this file in
my portfolio directly, however, is that
there are those questions are shared by
other member municipalities and they
haven't been full um fulsomely answered.
Okay, thank you. And then I don't think
we have any clarity on how the fees are
actually calculated. I know there's a
statement talking about authorized
strength, but I don't think we actually
have clarity on how the formula has been
utilized.
Um again to the chair, um I with upon
review of the report, it does speak to
that there isn't any further detail on
the breakdown of the individual services
based on size or capacity. And I could
maybe look to look to my counterpart if
there is if I've missed anything. Yeah,
I'm not aware how it's it's broken down
at this time. So,
okay. Thank you. Um and then and and um
you'll have to excuse my ignorance on
this one. So, maybe somebody can help me
out a little bit, but when I look at the
report, uh it makes reference to RCMP,
authorized strains policing, dispatch
policing. So, we do if you call 911 and
it's a 911 emergency call, it's going to
go to a call taker. They're going to ask
you if it's police, fire, ambulance.
Fire is going to go to Siri, fire,
dispatch to pay for ambulance is going
to go to BCHS. Police is going to go to
police call taker. Um, but we have to
pay for that original call taker to
route those calls. And I don't see
anything in this about how much that
costs or if that those costs are
included. So, I don't know if we have
any more clarity on on that or perhaps I
have that incorrect.
Um, I'll I'll I'll I'll start and then
Steve can perhaps correct me into the
chair. It's my understanding that that
that the N Ecom 911 currently will is a
emergency call answer
um provider and a police dispatch
service.
And so yeah, so thank you for the
question previous to to the meeting, but
yeah. Okay. Thank you. So after all of
that very painful exchange, I guess what
I'll say is that none of us really have
no idea what the fee structure is or
what it is we are paying for because
those answers those questions have not
been answered. So we can see even by
this discussion that we're not really
100% sure what we are what we're paying
for. Um so I will be very honest this
topic um we've talked about as a council
many times. Many other municipalities
have talked about it as well and they
have a concern with the cost. ECOM uh
keeps going up astronomically year after
year. This year the provincial
government ceasing to fund it for our
residents in North Sanage and now we
have to figure out that how that
shortfall lands on us and how we're
actually going to fund it. This is
something that does keep me up at night.
Um I get very concerned when I have to
sit here and make a decision without
information that's required to make that
decision. I take the responsibility that
the residents have given me by electing
me here very seriously and I'm being
asked to make a decision on something
where I can't get information that I
need to make a responsible and prudent
decision. That's very concerning to me
and that's not our staff's fault. They
have worked tirelessly to try to get
answers to
this. We've asked a variety of
questions. We're trying to get an
in-depth understanding of funding
formulas, why the costs have increased,
and what future expenses can be
expected. We do not have a transparent
collaborative process that is allowing
us to do
that. In addition to that, we have also
been told now that basically we have to
vote yes on this. Otherwise, we have no
911 service to our residents. And then
we are also told that we would be held
personally responsible, not as
counselors, but as people. So,
personally responsible for our
decisions. I have grave concerns about
both of those comments. that's putting
undue duress and coercion on us to make
a decision as a council. And um I'm
going to do something that I don't do on
principle. I really don't believe in it.
Um but I'm not really sure why we're
here because we've basically been told
the answer needs to be yes. Um and I
cannot make a consionable responsible
decision based on all the information I
have and being told this is what I have
to do. Vote yes for it. People don't
have 911 service or you're held
responsible. Uh so I am actually going
to abstain from the vote which on
principle I don't do but I cannot vote
yes or no on this without the required
information I need to be responsible to
the citizens who elected me.
Uh can council mccllintok you did have
your hand up earlier.
Nope.
Uh yes, I did uh chair and thank you
very much for recognizing me. Um uh
thank you for your position, Miss uh
Councelor Marshall. Uh it's very
principled. However, if you do have
seen, of course, you know, you have to
leave the room uh when the vote comes.
Now, I'm of the same opinion as uh
council Marshall that
um there's too many unknowns here and
and anybody on council and anybody in
the district knows I'm very um concerned
when it comes to spending taxpayers
money. So, I will not be abstaining from
the vote. However, I know that under
pressure that um something has to be
done here this evening. My question um
is to fire. Um we're still how much are
we paying to Siri on top of all this? Uh
three through you to staff
staff.
I don't have those numbers with me. I
don't know if Barb could help, but
Sorry, I know I don't have that number
in front of me. It's um I Yeah, I don't
have that at my fingertips. Okay. And
what I'm getting at is we still have to
pay it on top of this as well. That that
hasn't gone away as far as our fire
response is concerned. Um, point taken,
Council Marshall. Um, and thank you for
bringing up the points that you did.
Thank you, Council Stock.
Uh, yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Uh
I've been at um many of the meetings
with all council representatives from
the CRD and is a very difficult issue as
councelor Marshall has expressed
but I uh feel that uh given our choices
which are really not very good that I'm
going to vote uh yes because otherwise
people won't have we will not have 911.
won and I remember that's um my father
said that during the war the second
world war which he was in that sometimes
you have to hold your nose and think of
Canada and in this case I guess I'll be
holding my nose and thinking of North
Sanage and the people uh in our uh uh
community and uh I don't like being put
in this position either but I really I
don't after being at all the meetings uh
I can honestly tell you and I think
mayor you also were at many of them we
didn't get answers at the mayoral level
uh either when I was representing the
mayor or when the mayor was there as the
mayor and so I think it's not just our
issue as council council here but it's a
pro provincewide issue and one where the
communities are saying we don't
understand all all all the communities
and we don't understand why we're being
assessed all this and we don't really
want to pay it but they've got us over a
barrel which is another uh uh expression
my father used to use. So
I I am going to vote for this because I
think we have to. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman McConi.
Uh, thank you, chair, and first off, uh,
through the chair to staff a question.
Um, we had, um, previous, I believe,
asked for some legal clarification as to
whether or not the statement made by the
province is that we chose not to sign
this document, we would be held
personally responsible. Has that legal
advice been provided to staff? Thank
you.
Thank you for the question and through
the chair. Um that was that was um
earlier um that was considered earlier
today as well. Um and so I did review
some of the previous council minutes and
camera as well and there was no motion
to that I could find to engage in that
legal review. So unfortunately with my
knowledge I have tonight I can't I can't
tell you if that was pursued but I don't
think it was.
Um thank you for that um Mr. Martin. So
um appreciate the comments. Um, I echo a
lot of concerns um from Councelor
Marshall. I'm incredibly frustrated with
the process to date and the agreement
that's before us. Um, as councelor
Marshall said, we've been told that if
we don't sign this, we don't have 911
and also the fact that we as counselors
will be personally liable for that
decision. So, in other words, we're
being threatened and coerced into
signing this agreement. and I feel like
I've got a gun held to my head and that
my rights to governor are being taken
away from me. Sign it or
else. You've answered that we have not,
to your knowledge, been given legal
advice. So, I have nothing to base the
suggestions made um as to whether or not
if we do not sign this, we would be
personally liable. Um and I really feel
that we're being backed into a corner at
the expense of our taxpayers. So, when I
was elected, I did sign an oath of
office. I take it very very seriously
and I cannot in good conscience allow
myself to be held hostage in this manner
and as a result I cannot vote in favor
of the stack recommendation to execute
this agreement. Thank you. Thank you.
Any further
comments? Okay. Based on the temperature
I'm seeing in the room, I would suggest
that we break this down
into four
motions. Okay. Sorry. Before I bring
that forward, staff, sorry, sorry to
interrupt, mayor and through the chair,
just a reminder that for any counselors
that are choosing to abstain, I believe
uh procedurally they do have to leave
the prior to the vote. Is that correct?
I didn't hear that. Sorry. If for any
counselors that are wishing to abstain
from the vote prior to the vote, they'll
have to um exit the exit the room.
Sorry. Sorry, council. Do you understand
that? Yeah, that would be me because I
said I was going to abstain. Um so yeah,
I definitely will once I uh hear what
the motion is then then I'll leave the
room. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the
reminder. Thank you. What I would
suggest that we have um again separate
motions and they for them and we go with
with item one um authorize the mayor and
CEO to execute the agreement. So there
would be a vote on that. Then item two
would be as said here um direct staff to
engage in
negotiations and number three direct
staff to explore altering dispatch
services models. And I would add the
fourth motion or suggest fourth motion
that um that staff provide legal advice
and report back to uh council ASAP.
Council Marshall. Uh so if this works
and and through you chair to staff. So
if motion two, three, and four, if we
could do those first. Yep. And the first
motion last and then I will uh recuse
myself for that motion. Thank you.
Correct.
So I can either do the motion. Sorry,
councelor stock before we do them. Or do
you want to wish to do Oh, you're go No,
I was just going to make the motion, but
Okay. Can you start with motion two
first then, please?
Certainly. Okay. Uh so I'd like to make
uh the first part of the staff
recommendation. direct staff to engage
in negotiations with ECOM and partner
municipalities to develop a long-term
agreement for services beyond 2025.
Okay, thank you. Uh do we have a
second? Councelor Marshall, any
comments? Councelor Sanjief through the
chair. Uh this is a service agreement
that we are seeking. Normally there is a
tender put out whenever we seeking a
service from any type of service. There
has been no tender put out to say who
else is competing for this particular
service until we have an option like
that. I find it difficult to vote for
this particular motion unless we are
asking the staff to find out who are the
other service provider or putting in it
a whatever it's called expression of
interest towards providing services to
the uh to the district. Uh I if I may
comment if I may um what I'm
anticipating is that um the next I next
motion which is to direct staff to
explore to dispatch service models might
fit into the criteria that you're
bringing forward or do
you does that change your thoughts in
any way? Um as it stands if we are
already giving a go ahead to a single
process single bidder to the service.
This is no different to what we just
went through some meetings ago. Okay.
So, okay. Just bring it forward. Council
councelor Stark. Uh, yes. Uh, thank you,
chair. I just wanted to state that there
isn't another provider. That's the
issue. There's been no uh other per
company or person or group of companies
or anything come forward. And so, the
province is also over a barrel for the
everybody is. And um uh this is why this
says you know to execute an agreement
with ecom. So in my view uh you know I
agree with that that there should be
some more providers there should be an
RFP. That's how we normally do things in
government but in this case it's not
possible or feasible.
Council Marshall. Uh so I would just
have to clarify. like I'd have to to
look into that, but I believe the North
Island does have a different uh dispatch
service.
Yeah.
Okay. Any further questions? So, we have
a a motion on the floor which is
seconded that we direct staff to engage
in negotiations with ECOM and partner
municipalities to develop a long-term
agreement for service beyond 2025 and
further. Those in favor of that
motion? Those opposed. The motion
carries 42 with councelor Sanjie and
councelor McConi in opposition. Um
council councelor stop would you like to
do which is now item three which is
direct staff to explore. Yes. Thank
sorry. Thank you chair. Um I would like
to make staff recommendation number
three to direct staff to explore alter
alternative dispatch service models.
Thank you. Second council Sanjief. Um
comments. No comments. Then we'll look
for a motion based
on direct staff to explore alternate
dispatch service models. Those in favor?
Any opposed? Nobody opposed? Okay. Thank
you. It's unanimous. Sorry, I lost track
of the hands. It was unanimous.
Terrible. Yeah.
Um the third the third motion if you go
go with which is the motion to staff to
seek legal advice and report back to
council ASAP.
Um yes. Okay. Then the next motion uh
would be and it's not part of the staff
recommendation
uh to seek legal advice on on this issue
on this matter. Yes. on this matter and
report back to uh to council. Okay,
before I go for a second, councelor
McCunki,
uh sorry for that, councelor Stock, I
think perhaps um councelor Marshall may
be outside for the wrong motion. Yeah,
that's a good point.
She was last seen running to Sage.
You You were in a You were in a rush.
left too early. Legal advice. Is that
what we're voting on? Well, we're So,
there's a motion. The motion on the
floor. The motion on the floor, just for
clarification now, is that um we direct
staff to seek legal advice on this
matter and report back to council.
Do we have a
second council makoni? Any comments? And
those in
favor? Unanimous.
Now we come to the fourth item which is
authorize the mayor and CEO to execute
an agreement and
councelor Marshall exits. I have a
question if I may through the chair. If
you had two additional three people
abstaining what happens then? There
would be no quorum and the council
meeting would end. No there be no it has
to be in chambers.
I wouldn't recommend we do that. We need
something. Nice thought.
Does the meeting end or does this
particular item end? The meeting would
end. That would be Yeah, that would be
the end of the council meeting. Okay.
So, that's a good way to finish the
meeting early.
Yeah. But you you're uh the OCP has gone
through, the food has gone through.
But your loneliness one hasn't gone
through yet.
I'm part of the lonely
and poor Miles has been here all night
waiting for the loneliness one.
Um
okay number one. Okay. So what what
we're looking for is a motion based on
um authorize the mayor and CEO to
execute an
agreement dot dot dot. Do you wish to
make the motion? Yes.
Um, so then I'm going back to the staff
recommendation number one. Authorize the
mayor and the CAO to execute an
agreement with ECOM 911 for dispatch
services as proposed in the staff report
CS 25 017.
Thank you. Do we have a second?
Um well I'll sec I'll second for
discussion. So again any further
discussion Sanjie through the chair. Um
I actually find that it's sad that an
essential service like 911 has gone this
route. To me, this is a service that's
no different than a root service that
comes into play or a health service or
protection. And
to be subjected to an system where we
have no choice and there is no options
given to us. I just find it in total
undemocratic princip uh
scenario. So in all consciousness given
the mandate given to us by the residents
to be fiscally responsible to be
diligent in what we are approving and
not approving. As much as I see the
merit of having a 911 service, the way
this is being imposed on to us with a
myriads of hidden cost that we have no
clue about, I will be reluctant in uh
say um saying yes to this motion. Thank
you. Any further comments?
So, so we have a motion on the floor
based on to authorize the mayor and CEO
to execute an agreement with ECOM 911
for dispatch services as proposed in
staff report. Sorry, I'm just repeating
it because this I I want to be no error
in the vote of what we're voting
on as proposed in staff report
CS25017. That's the motion on the floor.
Uh,
councelor Stock, you have further
comments. Uh, thank you, Chair. Yes. All
I what I wanted to say is that
this part that we're voting on now is
for the period April 1st to December
31st, 2025. And and um I I think that
even though you know I agree with what
everyone said that sometimes in
governance you have to be
practical in practicum and you have to
think about the fact that it's just for
the last part of this year and we should
be able to and the province is trying to
get things sorted out. Many other
municipalities besides us are trying to
get things sorted out and you know we're
if we say no to this then we're going to
make a very complicated we're going to
create an extremely complex
and kind of frightening situation in my
view and I I don't think that's what we
should be doing as counselors. You can
we can have our principles and that's
true. I have the same principles but I
think that you have to think about the
reality of the situation. It's for a
short well in government anyway short
term. Thank you. Thank
you Sanjief through the chair. Um,
again, this is one of those amounts that
there was a conscious effort made by
councelor McConi and myself to defer
this payment from a reserve fund that
would have allowed us to continue this
particular service which would have also
impact saved our taxpayers money which
was extremely denied by the council and
that was a vote that was taken. That's
perfectly fine. I'm not going to
question that. But in all honesty, the
amount that is being reflected. So it's
talking about an agreement from April to
December. We are about to be in June. We
have already spent two months. So who
has been covering for the 911 for the
last 2 months. So that's question uh we
have no answer to that. So are we now
paying retrospect and are we signing a
document in retrospect? Uh when how can
we sign a document that's going in
retrospect? Either it's an amount that
starts from June June 1st onwards or it
doesn't
any further comments. Uh, chair, I
haven't I I'm quite sure it will be in,
you know, backwards in in in retro as
well, but I don't know that. I mean, I'm
just following what this memo says,
unless staff can I mean, have we already
paid April and May? I don't know.
I'm just following.
Staff, any comment?
Thank you. um and through the chair all
I can offer is that it's an essential
service um and there is an indication
that each of these executed contracts
amongst all the jurisdictions are going
to work through the next available
council meeting. So I think that there
is an indic that's the expectation is is
what I would assume. So I and it would
just simply be um I believe that in the
report body of the report it talks about
receiving an invoice sometime after
April 1st. Um, and I don't believe we
have yet received that, but I I could
confirm with council and get back to you
later. Council, we have a motion on the
floor that's been seconded. So, I'll
call for a vote. Uh, those in favor of
the
motion. Those
opposed? Motion carries 32 with
councelor McConi and councelor Sanjie in
opposition. And guys, I think we all
feel the same about this
one. And now I believe I'm looking at my
list. It looks as if it's fireworks
next. Which one are we? It's fireworks
next. That's why I'm doing
I think we had the fireworks. Oh, so you
Oh my goodness. Okay.
Uh thank you through the chair. So um
it's just some amendments to your
existing fireworks uh
bylaw. Uh the body of the the bylaw has
not actually changed. Um there's just
been a couple of amendments.
one in keeping with what uh the town of
Sydney did in um environmental
protection areas with a a buffer around
um uh these environmentally sensitive
areas. Um so no fireworks to be
discharged here um exactly the same as
Sydney did. And then uh while we were in
the midst of that uh Nav Cam uh came
before us and asked if we could include
uh areas in and around the airports um
runways, takeoff and approach areas.
Apparently they think fireworks in these
areas is bad. I can't disagree with
that. Um so that's that's really all
we're looking for here is just to
support those amendments. Okay. Thank
you.
I'll give a cheeky comment. Can Can we
tie Can we tie approval of that into
They'll put housing.
I'm not asking for an answer.
Um, okay. Councelor Marshall, just for
you, chair to staff, the request by
YJ,
is is that actually municipal
jurisdiction or would that be federal
juris jurisdiction to enforce?
the the areas is in the municipality and
it's not prohibiting it. It's just you
have to con contact the airport if
you're within those areas um to get
their permission. So you could say like
at 8:00 I want to do this and they'll
say okay you're fine there's no flight
at that time or they'll say no wait till
9:00 something like that.
Okay. Council stock. I was going to make
the uh staff
recommendation, but I'm if anybody um um
Okay, if you do the recommendation and
before we do a second, I'll check to see
if there's any other comments. Oh, sure.
Just just in case there's a
change, a different motion. Do you want
to make a motion?
I think Sanji councelor Sanji has
questions first. Okay. Thank you.
through the chair uh some questions and
um as much as I enjoy fireworks, we now
know that there are alternate systems
that are in place uh that are being used
elsewhere like drones um that 5,000
drones have launched with all the funky
um colors and the rest. Yes, it may not
produce the noise and the uh fumes that
are associated with fireworks.
So my question first
is is there any municipality or district
in BC that has a complete ban on
fireworks?
Yes.
Thank you. So nothing stops us from
executing a complete ban of fireworks if
you choose that. Yes. Second part. What
is the penalty should somebody violate
the fireworks uh ban or restricted
areas? I think I answered it's in your
bylaw. It's uh upon conviction. Um I
think Ben I gave you the answers
there. Hello Mayor and council again. uh
the um the violation under section
11.3 is not less than $100 and not more
than $10,000 or
imprisonment. And if I may continue uh
through the chair, has there been ever a
violation successful
violation charges brought against an
individual in the district or in the CR
that we are aware of for for illegal
firework? Correct. Yes. Yeah. I I don't
have that information. Not that I'm
aware of at this time. I don't have that
information. Okay. Thank you. May I
continue? The 200 meter buffer zone uh
that's uh being imposed by Sydney, is
that based on noise pollution? Is that
based on air drifting of particles or
what or is it based on light pollution?
Do we have any answers on that?
I couldn't answer that question. that
was done before I was part of
this. Sorry I'm asking all those
questions but I feel because there is
the other option of creating a 100 m a
1,000 m uh buffer zone for that and if
we did that next to all environmental
areas then beautiful North Sanage will
not have any fireworks. So
thank you counselor and through the
chair. If I may add I was upon my review
of um the staff report. I I was I did
get um I did pay attention to that this
is in response to a letter from the town
of Sydney asking us to conform with
their
regulations. Um and it was further
um and council gave staff that direction
to execute that. So that's that is why
that these values they now align with
Sydney. Um just today earlier today I
believe Bob Perk provided some
correspondents to the district thanking
us for um making this change um to
further protect these environmentally
sensitive areas. Um in my discussions
with Steve just becoming familiar with
this part of the portfolio he did advise
that um over the summertime due to
firebounds there's very li if any
fireworks permits being provided
anyways. Um, and it it is concentrated
largely around Halloween. Um, and even
with the the bylaw, there would likely
be some fireworks used regardless. And
so to have a practical balanced bylaw,
there is some merit to that. Um, that's
enforceable. Um, so hopefully that's
helpful information with your continued
continued questions. Thank you. And if I
may just to the fellow counselors, I
would prefer seeing a 1,000 meter buffer
zone. We know that wildlife knows no
boundary in that respect. They are
whether it's in Sydney or North Sanish,
whether we do a 200 m or 500
or,000 mters. I feel if you want to
create an environment that is safe for
the wildlife or even migratory birds um
if you look at just pollution drifting
through um we have the airport around we
have uh purple monitors around which
picks pollutants that are several
kilometers away. So in terms of that I
feel the better it's better to be on a
safer side by having higher numbers of
buffers than smaller numbers. So for
that reason I would recommend that if
there as we go through this to have a
th00and mters as a buffer zone and I'll
stop for now and then see this in case
there's anybody
else. Council Marshall. Uh just one
question through you chair to staff.
When I look at schedule H, I'm just
looking at the map, but I think YJ
provided it's a little bit difficult to
tell with some of those boundaries. So I
just want to confirm. Have they included
SACUM in this? It's a bit hard to tell
um in this particular drawing.
We wouldn't have any jurisdiction on
First Nations land.
Thanks. That's that's why I was asking
because it looks like this drawing
incorporates First Nations. So, I'm
going to assume that um it wasn't meant
to if it does. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you, council. Further questions? Council
me.
Uh thank you, chair, and through the
chair to staff. And in regards to
schedule H, um which I assume is an area
surrounding their flight path because it
extends into Sydney.
Um worst case
scenario, what would happen for someone
if they did not uh for example when in
the area here that's designated schedule
8 that they did not reach out to the
control tower and bylaw enforcement was
engaged? How how is
that work into the big picture here?
That's what I'm thinking. It's federal
lands, you got an entity, and then are
we going to be doing the bylaw
enforcement on it? If if it's on airport
land, we wouldn't be doing it. It's only
in municipal land outside of the
airport. Yeah. And there is no provision
in place right now. So, I can't say what
would happen because this is brand new.
Thank you for that.
Um, I did note that in the Sydney
fireworks bylaw, they did not
incorporate the airport lands in there.
I granted ours as a larger part. So, I'd
be much happier not seeing it in there
and supporting the wildlife buffer zone,
but that's just my my opinion on it.
This came after Sydney had enacted their
bylaw. So, their bylaw was already in
place before this in this document was
received from NAVCAN. Oh, okay. Do you
know if then through the chair do you
know if that document has gone to Sydney
for their consideration as well? I do
not know but we can look into that.
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Okay. Council questions look for a
motion based on
recommendation. Council stock.
Uh thank you chair. Uh yes. I'd like to
make the staff recommendation that
council give first, second, and third
readings to North Sonage Fireworks
Regulation bylaw number
1148 amendment bylaw number 1571 bracket
2025 closed bracket to include buffer
zones around the designated established
environmentally sensitive areas brackets
ESA of Chalet Creek SAM bracket Shaw B
Harbor, Robert's Bay, Sikum Creek, 1010
Creek, Kohl's Bay, and Kelset
uh brackets Ray Creek, and to establish
a buffer zone around flight paths to and
from the Victoria airport brackets
YJ as outlined in staff report ES25004.
Thank you. Do we have a second?
I'm sorry I was going to but if you put
your hand up I assume for discussion.
Okay. Thank you councelor Marshall
seconded. Um any further comments
questions? Councelor Sanji. Thank you
chair. If the council is amendable to it
I would like to see if the buffer zone
can be increased to instead of 200 m to
a,000 m. Um to do that you'd have to do
a separate motion. There'd be a second
motion. Then there'd be a vote on that
and then we come back to the main
motion. Okay. So my if I may to the
motion that the buffer zone be increased
from 200 m to 1,000 m. Okay. Uh stop. Is
that motion acceptable? Yes. That would
be considered an amendment to the main
motion. Thank you very much. Uh, do you
have a
second? Council me Cony second it. Uh,
comments, questions on the amendment to
the
motion. The no comments. I look for a
vote. Those in favor of the amendment to
the
motion. Those
opposed? Motion fails. 42 with councelor
stock. Council council Jones. Close
enough. C.
Council Clint, councelor Marshall in
opposition.
That's right. It's getting late. Now we
come back to the main motion. Um based
on councelor Stock's main motion, um any
further
comments, council makoni.
Uh thank you, chair. Um I completely
support the uh buffer zone in the
environmentally sensitive areas and as
you can see I I supported a larger area
in fact and maybe even next steps or
maybe we are going to be having to look
at down the road a complete fireworks
ban because times are changing and we
have many critters in North Sanage that
live outside of buffer zones and that
includes family pets etc. So um I won't
be voting for it simply because of the
airport and
um that's my stance. So thank you. Thank
you. Okay. Any further comments,
questions? None. Uh those in favor of
the main
motion? Those
opposed? Motion carries. 42 with Council
Manki, Council Sanjie in opposition.
Okay. Thank
you. So, I guess now we get to
loneliness and isolation survey results.
As mayor up here, I quickly get I I do
feel
lonely. So, so, uh, staff, anything to
add?
I'm here for you, Mayor
Jones. Uh, good evening, members of
council. I'm Miles Dalton, manager of
communications and engagement here at
the district. Uh today I'm presenting
the results of the district's loneliness
and isolation survey which council
directed staff to undertake last fall.
Purpose of the survey was to establish a
baseline understanding of how feelings
of loneliness and social isolation are
affecting our residents, especially
given that more than half of North
Sanich's population is over the age of
55. We received 108 responses primarily
from older adults. The findings offer
valuable insight. While the majority
reported rarely feeling isolated, a
significant portion still experiences
loneliness at least some of the time.
The results also show strong community
interest in participating in future
discussions about the development of a
community gathering space. So today, I'm
seeking your feedback on the survey
results and your thoughts on whether the
findings support further exploration of
a gathering center for North Sanich.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Council
questions. Any
questions?
Nope. Then I look for a motion based
on Oh, I sorry I put away the
motion. Um I look at a motion based on
the staff
recommendation. Do we have a motion?
I'll make
um I didn't see any other hands up, so
go ahead.
All right. Um thank you, chair. Um
recommendation that council receive the
loneliness and isolation survey results
outlined in staff report number CS
2516 and provide feedback on the survey
results and the need for a community
gathering center. Okay. Thank you. Do we
have a second
it council Marshall?
I'll second it. But I also just have a
question about the motion. Y um so
certainly uh receiving the survey, the
report I think is obviously great. Uh
providing feedback. So I'm curious if
like we're we're now making motion
saying we're going to provide feedback,
but we haven't asked haven't done that
yet. So perhaps my suggestion be that if
that's going to be the motion then can
we provide feedback via email to to Mr.
Dolphin or to to other staff? Would that
work through you chair to staff? Are you
talking of a of a new motion just on
that aspect of it? Uh no, I'm just I'm
wondering if we are going to provide
feedback. That is the request to staff.
If it works uh for staff, if we provide
that after if this motion goes through,
we provide that by an email at a later
later date if that works. Okay. Just
want to make sure. Thank you. Any other
comments? Council Sanjief through the
chair. Oh, thank you for the report. I
think this was sent to the healthy
living for discussion and because of
time the discussion wasn't wholesome if
I understand correctly it might be
useful to have a wholesome discussion
based on analysis of the data and not
just not in addition to the results that
are presented. Um I think that this is a
critical need we have is well
established through the NIA and uh the
seniors
uh care systems that's available that
loneliness is becoming an epidemic and
it needs to be addressed. We have had uh
quite a
significant the respondents who have
said that they do feel lonely for an
analysis would require to look at all
the different questions and figure out
based on either a rating system what
exact impact is. So for that reason I
think it would be useful to send it back
to the healthy living for a wholesome
discussion on it.
Okay. Right now the
motion
is based on direction to staff. If it
has to be sent if now we also want it to
be sent uh to one of the committees, we
may have to make a motion for it to be
sent which would be an amendment to
councelor stocks.
Yes. And that and chair would councelor
Sanjie Shastava like to make that
amendment. I I like to do friendly
amendments but staff doesn't like that.
I think
okay sorry before we do this councelor
McKento.
Yes. Thank you. Um I think the results
are um are fairly
understandable. The one question I have
is
um and the need for a community
gathering center. Um who answers that
question. Um and and that's where I'm
clear about the motion. However, I think
councilor shava
um in his in his
um
eagerness
to
have corroboration that there's a
problem which might be a world
issue is not a problem here in North
Sanage. And I think to um to continue on
this line, he talks about a critical
need. This survey has clearly not said
that there's a critical need. Maybe his
um his world um
um vision of things is there's a
critical need and there might be some in
some areas. However, nothing has come
before council that says this is
critical um to this area.
Um, so it's almost like we want the
results of a survey to match why we have
the survey. Unfortunately, that's not
the case here. So, I'm not prepared to
um expend any more staff time or council
time on this matter.
Thank you. Um, further comments?
Thank you, chair. Um, I wasn't going to
go there, but now since councelor
Mcccleintochuk has asked a question, uh,
here is what the actual answers would
come through. If you were to look at a
proper statistical survey done and
analysis based on just the results that
we got, we have a at least of the 92
online 95 online surveys that were done.
You have more than half of them
expressing a getting a score of greater
than six which indicates that loneliness
is being experienced by quite a few of
the residents. One of them has actually
gone to have a severe issue on
loneliness and social isolation five
with a getting a score of 10. So if you
were to do a proper statistical
analysis, you would find that it is an
issue. In addition to that, if you look
at the number of people who have
actually conducted the surveys as
opposed to any other survey that has
occurred on in the district's website,
uh there is almost
37% that have had a traction of
conversion from going visiting the
website and actually attempting the
survey. that itself is an indication
that there is a need and people identify
with that issue. So it is not how what
world I live in. It is a reality that
Canada is experiencing. Yes, it even
whether there is 20% or 40%, it is some
a number that has to be addressed. we
are getting closer and closer with the
age the demographics changing which
means that we need to address it before
it becomes an endemic issue. So that
would be my comment with regards to
where my eagerness for the survey was.
Uh just to give you an idea, I've got
some numbers from the staff. In terms of
the conversion, there is 37% that
actually answered the survey while 28%
did the sub submission with regards to
budget responses. Uh Tetlo and Deep Cove
traffic calming only 26 and 27% did
that. So this was identified as an
interest for a majority of the
residents. Thank you. Thank you.
Now you going to do a motion.
Now it's quiet. Oh, sorry. Council Mint.
Yes, thank you for that. And it
certainly wasn't an attack on you, uh,
councelor Shiva Saba. Um,
however, when I was elected as a
counselor over the past three terms, I
was elected to do the business of the
district of North Sage, which includes a
number of things. Um, entering into the
healthc care business, I think we're
overextending our our
um what we were elected to do. It's
interesting to know, but um and these
surveys could certainly be given to the
people in charge of health care in the
province. Um however um I don't believe
that it's um the reason that we were
elected as councils. We probably have
different differing opinions on that
thing.
Thank you. Thank you, Council Mint. Any
further questions? No further questions
there. Do we have another motion on the
floor or do we vote on the motion as
done by councelor Stark?
Councelor Marshall. Oh, sorry. Go ahead,
councelor. Do are you going to make the
amendment? Go ahead.
I I just like to make the amendment to
the main motion that we also send it
back to the healthy living committee. We
did have limited time to discuss it and
I know there was a a comment made from a
number of people about um feedback they
received around privacy concerns because
there was a requirement to register.
They weren't anonymous. So that was some
of the feedback we got. So I I'll make
the amendment to send it back to the
healthy living committee. Thank you. Do
you have a second council sanjief? Uh
any comments on the amendment to the
main motion? No comments. Those in
favor? Those
opposed? Motion carries 51 with
councelor McClend in
opposition. Now we move back to the main
motion. Are there any further comments
before we do a vote on the main
motion? Nope. Those in favor of the main
motion, those
opposed carries 51 with Council Mckento
in opposition. Thank
you. I think we're through the majority
of it,
folks. So, next we move and unless staff
tells me otherwise, we move to item 8B,
which is council leison reports. Staff,
am I correct? Thank you very much. Um,
there's only one consolation report. is
by council me. Council me, anything you
wish to add?
Uh, thank you, chair. Nothing to add.
I'd just like to make the recommendation
that the council leaison report dated
May 7th, 2025 from myself regarding the
Greater Victoria Labor Relations
Association, GVL, be received for
information. Thank you. Seconded,
Council Stock. Any comments? No
comments. Those in
favor? Well, thank you.
Unanimous. Thank you. Now we move on to
item C which is committee reports and um
I'll be looking for a consent resolution
here. But before I go to the consent
resolution because there's one, two,
three, four, five, five different
people. Anyone have any anything to add
or should we go directly into the
consent resolution? I'm seeing nothing.
Look for a motion based on the consent
resolution. Council Marshall. Uh that
council receive the following items for
information. Draft minutes of the
community planning advisory committee
meeting held May 6, 2025. Draft minutes
of the Agriculture and Food Security
Advisory Committee meeting held May 7,
2025. Draft minutes of the Healthy
Community Living Advisory Committee
meeting held May 8th, 2025. Draft
minutes of the Peninsula and Area
Agricultural Commission meeting held May
8, 2025. And draft minutes of the
committee the whole meeting held May
12th, 2025. Thank you.
Seconded, Council Sanjief. Any comments?
Nope. No comments. Those in
favor? Unanimous. Uh the next one is one
of the what I consider to be good
business, nice business. Um it it's a
motion um which is from councelor
Marshall, councelor Sanjie and I'll look
to councelor Marshall and councelor
Sanjie. Do you wish to add anything?
Uh I really don't have an awful lot to
add. There's background there in the
notice of motion and then um just
information around why I'm bringing it
forward. It was uh um Miss Lavender and
Miss Balin who originally sent an email
to council asking that we recognize the
sunset riding club in our heritage week.
So this is just an addition to that to
formalize the recognition of the
contribution of that very important club
to North Sanage. Um I know myself I um
when I first moved here I uh was just
impressed with the trail system. I use
it every day and I'm appreciative of the
fact that it is our volunteers time,
resources and energy that went into
allowing me to use those. So this is
just recognition of the incredible
citizens that we have here in our our
district. So thank you. Thank you. I
look for a second council. Councelor
Sanjie, council Marshall, you wish to
motivate.
I don't think I have anything else to
say. Thank you then. So you've done it.
Okay. Um any comments, questions?
Council stock. Yes. Thank you, Chair.
just wanted to say that uh I know that
this is a very welldeserved recognition.
I've known um both uh parties uh
mentioned in the uh in the recognition
and appreciation
motion since probably
2010 or maybe earlier. I'm not sure. and
I know how much work they've done in the
community uh not only for the the the
uh Sunset Riding Club but also many
other activities like the farm market
and etc. So, you know, it's really welld
deserved. Thank you. Thank you. Any
further comments, questions? No. No.
Nope. No. Uh we'll go for a vote. Those
those in
favor
unanimous. Thank
you. We move to item 10 which
is I can't pronounce the name
unfortunately. I'll rely on someone else
but if we look at item 10
um I believe it's the it says powow but
is that a pot latch? Sorry. Pow.
Okay. So before we look for well I look
for comments on comments or questions on
first staff there anything to add.
Um thank you chair. Um nothing really to
add. Um we did do some there was some
discussion about our member
municipalities past past contributions
and uh we learned that um central Sanche
in the years past provided $2,000 that
and I believe that was wellreceived and
I believe Sydney provided a slightly
larger sum as well last year. 3500. So
if that's helpful to Mayor Council, I I
Yeah, thank you because I was not
looking forward to bringing that
[Laughter]
up. So um so there as I said, Sydney and
and Central Sanage um 3500 and 2,000
respectfully and I assume there's going
to be a motion that will give a dollar
value if it's approval in that. So
council questions, comments or even a
motion? Just a question first uh if I
may through the chair to staff. Has the
district provided funding to them
before? And if so to what amount
um thank you for the question. We don't
um we don't believe so, but we'd have to
confirm with you. I'm not sure if if it
wasn't requested previously. Um, and I'd
have to I'd have to I can report back.
Any further
questions? They're not. Um, we don't
know. It's so we have to pick a number
if the vote is to provide
funding. Councelor Sandre through the
chair. I would like to make a motion if
uh that's okay to provide a funding of
$5,000 through the indigenous uh fund
that we the district has. Uh there is
always a fund allocated towards
indigenous relationship. So use that
fund to provide $5,000 towards the
power.
Council stock you have a question. Oh, I
just Yes, chair. I just had a question.
Uh, was that 500 or 5,000? 5,000.
Oh, I
think Well, I I don't mind. I think we
should probably provide something, but I
don't $5,000 seems like a very large
sum to me. I mean, we haven't even given
some of our regular um, you know, grants
and aid um, uh, uh, groups that much
money. We we whittleled them all down in
our grants and aid meeting. So I I I I
don't know how to gauge what's a correct
amount, but I think that's a lot.
Council before I come to staff, council.
Yes. Thank you very much. I think that
uh 5,000 is um I I wouldn't agree with
5,000. Um I think the maximum in this
instance um bearing in mind the
contributions from central Sanich which
also has two um two communities in their
municipality of $2,000. I think that
would be a very generous um donation by
this district for the uh for the
event. Okay. Thank you. Um what I would
suggest is perhaps we do a temperature
check. I think everyone's in agreement
that there should be some funding to
them. Um so the question becomes is
we've got some councelor Sanjie is
saying you know 5,000.
May I ask a question? Uh could I ask
Barb what amount is allocated towards
the indigenous relationships.
We've got um the I believe it's 15,000
uh for indigenous relations that's
available. We also have uh funding
through the community events sort of
line item. Um and those those amounts
range from 1,500 to 2,000 just going
based on history of of uh asks that
we've had in the past from other
organizations that did not come through
grants and aid.
Council Marshall. Um can I just clarify
Central and Sydney's contribution? I
thought one of them was 3500
through the chair. Thank you. Yes. So,
Central Sanage was 2,000 and Town of
Sydney was 3,500.
That was last year. That was last year.
Sorry. Through the
So, again, I think we we've got a
consensus that we should provide some
funding staff. Um, yeah, if if helpful,
I can offer that. Um, so staff just
reviewed this correspondence
specifically in this as this morning.
um and we thought it would be um
relevant to inquire about our member
municipalities contribution. And then we
did have some informal discussion about
um previous uh and other funders
agencies that we fund etc. Um and so we
did provide we thought this information
would be helpful for mayor and council
to try and gauge um a value.
Okay. Thank you. If if I give a comment
comment first is um one of the thing
what I'm concerned about if we did
$5,000 and the other two communities did
again 2,000 and
3,500 that that would put us out of line
and would then create perhaps a
precedence uh for other municipalities
to try and match us which I we wouldn't
want them to do but also it would put
pressure on perhaps some other
indigenous nations which I'm not averse
to. I believe you know just a comment um
myself I would look and say okay I can
understand the 5,000 um based on what
was given last year I would consider
giving it halfway
between which is or even 3,000
um but that's just my temperature.
Um, so
again, it's I I'm open. I'd like to get
a consensus on it with regard to the
amount
staff. No, sorry. Okay.
I'll go with council mani first. Uh,
thank you, chair, and and and I'll just
make a comment. I I do believe last year
we did contribute to the South Island
Pow-Wow and I think that was a
contribution of $5,000. I know this is a
different event, I believe. So, but my
memory does fail me sometimes, so
perhaps Barb could check on that.
Um, I appreciate what councelor Sanjiv
is bringing forward. Just a thought, we
have two nations as does the Sanro
Sanich. Maybe we match that. I don't
know. That's just my thought. a match in
the sense of $3,500.
$3,500. $3,500. Yeah. Okay.
I could accept that. Um, so right now we
have council mint looking at 2,000.
Councilor Stock perhaps at 2,000. Yeah.
Council Marshall, do you have a number?
3500.
Yeah. Uh, could we look to council
mccllintok and perhaps councelor stock
to to bring their number up to that
3500? I know Sanjie is not happy with
35. Who wants the five
through the chair? We're looking at an
inflation amount that has taken place
from last year. And the irony is that we
do have funds for the First Nation
relations. That amount every year we
allocate $15,000 for such events. It has
not been in use last I think last year
it was used a part of it. I see no
reason why it cannot be used. Now with
regards to other districts being able to
match that or not that is up to them to
make a decision. This is for us to make
a decision whether we would like to
contribute towards this activity or not.
I think we should but again I'll leave
it to the council. But are you prepared
to come down 1500 if councelor McKin
Clark and councelor stock prepared to
come up by 1500? $4,549.50.
I was just uh chair. Thank you. Just a
short comment. I councelor McConi
reminded me that we might get another
request for funding that South Island
Pow-Wow and it is a big event. So, we
would have to give them that event as
well at le probably what we gave them
last year. Uh you said it was 5,000 and
I think you're right. So then I you know
what if we get another request again? I
I just think we should be careful
because 15,000 doesn't go that far if we
give five for the South Island Powow,
which we probably will get a request
for. Um, and yeah, so I'm I'm thinking,
you know, I was thinking between two two
and 3,000. Move it up. Come on.
I wasn't really thinking 3500, but it's
compromise.
I know. Well, I do compromise a lot.
Yeah. Council McKento.
Yes. Thank you.
Um I still think that uh $2,000 is a is
a generous contribution. These numbers
that were that were just pulling out of
the atmosphere um
5,3500 it's they seem to be so random.
They're not based on anything except
giving money away. Um I know when we
give to other organizations, sometimes
we want a um uh not an audit, but we
least we at least want to know where the
money's being spent. Now, if we're just
um writing a blank check, I've got no
problem with writing a $2,000 blank
check. I don't I do have a problem
writing a $5,000 blank check with no
accountability. So, um, rather than get
into that area, I'd be happy to stay.
Okay. Sorry, staff. I'm reluctant to
offer another yet another option for
consideration. Um, I
um it is possible that we could respond
to them saying we that there is interest
to fund them and u inquiring about the
level of funding they're seeking. Okay.
and and and or discuss with member
municipalities and I think we would be
able to come back at the June 23rd if we
reach out following the meeting we might
be able to get better information for
council
oh sorry
council Sanjief what do you think that
we based on what staff suggestion
I'm just looking a document from uh Octo
September 30th 2023
uh marking the ation for truth and
reconciliation and the council approve a
5,000 donation to the power which
matched the district's previous
contribution from 2022. So 5,000 this is
on our district's website is not and
these are from minutes of the
um August 23rd uh 2023 meeting. So this
is something that we have done $5,000.
So I see no rationale
for the south island but this is a
different one. It makes no difference.
Uh whoever has come first we offering it
to them. So we have a power. This is the
first time that uh
um sip has reached out and I think we
should contribute to 5,000. Thank you.
Okay. We have a motion that's not
seconded right now on on the floor for
for 5,000. Um, obviously we're having
a I've not seen any other motion.
Chair, I just wanted through you chair
to staff. I I like their idea because
then we'll know, you know, exactly what
we're dealing with. I I I just feel that
we're we are kind of grabbing numbers
and I want to make sure we have enough
for the South Island POW because that is
going to it is a huge event and uh and
we do we have often or very often
contributed at least $5,000. So, I I
just want to I don't want to not give
enough, but I think if staff finds out
the information, then we'll be more
informed as to what we're providing.
Thank you, chair. Thank you. We got a
choice. Right now, there's a motion on
the floor. Again, not seconded. Um, if
we get a second motion on the floor with
a diff that's different, then we have to
consider that as well. So right now I
will ask for a seconder based on the
main the motion that councelor Sanjie
has put forward. Do we have a seconder?
Okay, councelor mccllintok sorry
councelor mcconi. I was looking at Jack
to see what he was
doing for any questions. Uh so we have a
motion. We have a second. Is there any
further discussion on it or is there a
motion a second motion?
I'll make a second motion that we
provide um this group with uh
$3,000 $3500.
I'd second 3500, but we have a question
from from Council Mint first.
We need you for supporting this. Yes,
thank you. I I'm I'm not about to make
I'm I think we have a motion on the on
the floor that we have to vote on first
and this is a amendment I believe.
However, I um I am encouraged by the uh
by Mr.
Martin's suggestion that we take this
back to the to the uh the letter writer
and see what it is um and see what it is
they're uh they may be looking for.
Perhaps we can get a little bit
enlightenment as far as um from the
community. um rather than us telling
them what's best for them, perhaps they
can tell us what's best for them.
Uh well, right now we have an
amended motion from councelor Stock.
It's not seconded yet.
Um so we got to look at this right now.
Is there a second or
counselor councelor Stock's
motion? I'll motion I'll second it for
discussion.
Um now the question becomes is amendment
of a potential
amendment. So
we should just vote on councelor
Sanchie's motion. We can um we'd have to
withdraw. Um and I would certainly be
prepared to withdraw. So you I'll
withdraw my my amendment to councelor
Sanjie's motion. I'll withdraw my
motion. Okay. Staff. Okay. Uh so now we
just have the one motion on the floor
which is councelor Sanjie. Uh any
further comments? Councelor Marshall.
Uh yeah. So I I definitely think we do
need to support them. I appreciate
staff's comment to go back and ask what
it is that they are looking for. Um so
I'm willing to support that because it
also might give us more information as
to what it's going to go towards. It's
not that I'm not going to support the
$5,000. Um I I think we have $15,000 in
the indigenous fund, 5,000 and 5,000 for
the South Island. POW still leaves us
five. Um, but I'm not prepared to vote
for the 5,000. Not because I disagree
with 5,000, but I think we do need to go
back to um, uh, R and K. Samson first.
Okay. Then we need a second motion.
Um, because Council Mckento brought up
this aspect of it, but he didn't put
didn't put a motion. So, we haven't
taken a vote on the first motion yet or
the the only motion that's on the floor.
So is that a motion?
Um, sure. I will make the motion to
receive the email dated May 12th, 2025
from R. Samson and Kane Samson with
subject line request for support 30th
annual intertribal pow-ow July 25th
27th, 2025 with Santa school board uh
field and further direct staff to um
contact R Samson and K Samson and
request the amount that they're looking
for and details as to what it will be
used for. Okay. Thank you.
Seconded councelor Stark. Any further
comments? Councelor Mcccleintoch.
Thank you, chair. I was just going to
second that.
Okay. It's already been seconded, but
thanks for doing it.
Second. One last thing. Thor, I we can
I'm just going to add a date to that.
So, we'll have the report back for our
June 23rd uh regular meeting because I
just want to make sure we're not going
to meet the dead. We're not going to um
miss a deadline that they need it for.
Is that okay? June 7th. Oh, June 7th.
Sorry. So, have a back for June 7th
regular council meeting.
Mr. Mayor, if I if I might just
procedurally, so you've got an
undisposed motion first, which is the
$5,000 contribution. Um, based on
whether or not council supports what
what the the secondary motion was,
council could postpone consideration of
the original motion as opposed to
defeating it and and have that come back
on the 23rd with staff's report. Okay.
So, we need a motion to postpone. Okay.
Um, Council Sanji, you prepare to put up
a motion to propo postpone?
I would be reluctant to do it because I
think we keep on arguing on small
amounts and every time it involves First
Nations there is always dragging the
feet that takes place. This is a a there
is an allocated funds for such
activities and I see no reason that the
district cannot use those funds for this
purpose. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Unfortunately, if I may, uh, chair, I
think we're reaching 10:00 if we need to
continue for this. I was going to bring
it up. Um,
we've I'm looking for a motion to extend
by 15 minutes. I'll make a motion. Okay.
Second by 15 minutes
seconded council Sanjie any comments
those in
favor those
opposed it's copied 51 with council
mccllin talk in opposition okay this
let's keep uh keep going so I'm looking
now for a motion based on um I've
forgotten what the motion is but based
on going staff going back and asking
basically
how is oh do no um do you want me to
vote on that.
Yes. I mean, I think that you're Oh,
that's the motion to the second the
second the Yeah, but I'm looking for a
motion. Sorry. Motion to postpone,
but he said he didn't want to. Yeah, but
that was I was giving him the
opportunity to do it. It doesn't stop
any other counselor from putting it up
as as a
chair. Okay. I'll make a motion to
postpone councelor Sanjie's motion with
regard to
$5,000 to the requester uh to the June
3r sorry June 23rd meeting June 9th the
next council meeting is June 9th
okay sorry to the June 9th meeting of
regular meeting of council okay need a
second do we have a
Second. No. And I can council Clint
second. Okay. Either of you wish to
motivate further.
Well, I think you know it's a it's a
good idea because then we can consider
his motion on that date along with the
the uh information which staff probably
will have received by then. And so we
can then decide, you know, as a council,
as a an entity, as a team, what it is.
Um should we go with councelor Sanjie's
motion or should we go with a different
amount? Uh because of what staff has
found out. Thank you. Thank
you. So we have a motion. We have a
second. Any further
comments? Okay. We have a motion on the
floor to
postpone. Uh those in
favor? Those opposed?
It's 33. So the motion fails.
So now we only have one motion that's on
the floor right now, which is the
$5,000. And again, do we have a sec a
motion? Councelor Marshall?
Yep, I'll second it. I'll also just add
that I do appreciate that I did say
originally yes, let's postpone
consideration to staff, but uh I am
reconsidering that and I appreciate what
councelor Sanjie have said. We do have
$15,000 in there. We give 5,000
historically to the South Island
Pow-Wow. It doesn't make sense to me
that we would give less to this organiz
to to this pow-wow. So, um I will be
voting for the 5,000. Okay, no problem.
So, we have a motion on the floor with
that's council council Sanji $5,000 is
seconded. Any further comments? No
further comments. Those in
favor? Those
opposed? Motion carries 42 with
councelor Stock and councelor Mckento in
opposition. And now we move on to letter
dated May 20, 2025 from Miss Dolman.
Sorry to keep you waiting.
Um staff, anything to add?
Uh thank you to the chair. Just to thank
um Miss Dolman for the letter. We've
already received it into our intake for
the Tatlo engagement and
um yeah, just to thank her for the
comments. Thank you. Council, anything
to add?
It's just a received right now.
Um, so if we got no comments, um, I'm
look for a motion to receive. And if
there's anything different, you're going
to give direction. I'll need a motion
for that.
I'll make the staff recommendation that
council receive uh, Ms. uh, Dolman's
letter dated May 20th,
2025 regarding traffic calming and
further to direct staff. I don't know
what we want to direct staff to do. It
can be just to receive. Okay. Just
receive the letter then number one.
And before I look for a second, any
questions? Nope. Council of Mongi.
Uh, thank you, Chair, and through the
chair to staff, I just want to confirm
that uh, Mr. Martin, you did say that
Miss Dolman's letter had been received
and that it was going to be included
into the Tatlo road um traffic study for
for reference consideration, etc. Okay.
So, we really don't need to do much
more, I don't think. So, don't need to
run through. So, it's just now just to
receive receive it. Okay. So, we have a
second council Sanjief. Any further
comments? No further comments. Those in
favor?
unanimous. Now we move on to item 11,
which is for information and look for a
consent resolution from items A to F.
Don't give up, guys. I need a consent
resolution and I'm looking to my right.
Right, I'll do that. Uh recommendation
that the council the correspondence for
council's information. Sorry, where am
I? That's okay. Um,
is it okay just just to do the consent
resolution without stating all of items
A to F? Okay. So, it's consent. So, the
motion is just a consent resolution
items A to F. Recommendation that the
council correspondence for council's
information on May 26, 2025. No, no, no,
no. Where am I? No. Oh, sorry. The
council receive all correspondence from
A2F for information. Correct. Okay.
Seconded comes the
marshall. I told you guys if you don't
put your hands up quick enough, you're
going to be army volunteers.
Yeah, she's put her hand up
enough. Uh, any comments? No comments?
Those in favor? Unanimous. There is no
horizon report. I look for a motion for
adjournment. Councelor Stark. Yes. Thank
you. Seconded. Move adjourn. Oh,
seconded. Councelor Marshall. Um, excuse
me, Mayor. I voted against that.
Sorry. I voted against the unanimous uh
or the um motion
against the last
the consent resolution. Oh, I'm I'm
sorry. You voted against it. That's
correct. Oh, I'm my apologies. I didn't
I didn't notice. Did we even take a
vote? Yep. Oh, okay. So it is carried 51
with councelor mckintok in opposition
and council mcka thanks for pointing
that that out. So there is no rising
report. We got a motion ready for
adjournment. We got a seconder marshall.
Those in
favor unanimous. That one always seems
to get a unanimous. I don't know why
I wanted to watch milk