[0:00] Okay, good afternoon everyone. Welcome

[0:03] to the regular open meeting of the

[0:05] Sewish Town Council, Tuesday, August the

[0:07] 18th at 2 p.m. in council chambers. So,

[0:11] could we please have [clears throat] an

[0:13] approval of the agenda and there are no

[0:16] late items? No. Thank you. Thank you,

[0:19] Councelor Bennett, Councelor Chong. All

[0:22] in favor? Thank you. and the adoption of

[0:25] some minutes, the regular open minutes

[0:27] from July the 21st and the special open

[0:30] minutes from July the 28th. Could we

[0:33] have the adoption councelor King,

[0:34] Councelor Potter Rica? All in favor?

[0:37] Thank you. So, first off, we have a

[0:40] development variance permit application

[0:44] DVP 26-02

[0:47] for 8 Chardonnay Court and our planner

[0:50] um Miss Dwang is online. So, please go

[0:54] ahead, Miss Dwang.

[0:57] >> Thank you. So, I don't have a a

[0:59] PowerPoint presentation for this item

[1:00] since we just reviewed it at the last

[1:02] council meeting. Um, but just as a quick

[1:04] recap, at the last council meeting in

[1:06] July, um, council had postponed

[1:08] consideration of this item pending

[1:10] further information regarding the

[1:11] driveway dimensions at the property. Um,

[1:14] so staff did end up following up on the

[1:16] resolution by undertaking a site visit

[1:17] to measure out uh, the driveway and it

[1:20] was found that the driveway is

[1:21] approximately 6.4 4 m to 6.9 m um as it

[1:24] exists between the building wall um to

[1:28] the end of the driveway as it extends

[1:30] beyond the parcel line but excludes uh

[1:32] the sidewalk area of course and uh we

[1:35] just want to highlight that despite this

[1:37] from a staff perspective uh we just we

[1:40] do reiterate that the purpose of the

[1:41] provision of off- streetet uh parking

[1:43] within the parcel boundaries is

[1:44] generally to avoid externalization of

[1:47] uses on public lands um and also to

[1:49] mitigate potential conflicts associated

[1:51] with those. Um, additionally, we do

[1:53] remain concerned regarding the potential

[1:55] cumulative impacts of similar variance

[1:58] requests coming in um, along Chardonnay

[2:00] court and the potential approval of

[2:01] those requests where this application

[2:03] were to be approved. So, uh, we are

[2:06] continuing to recommend denial uh, with

[2:08] respect to this application. Thank you.

[2:11] >> Uh, thank you very much, Miss Dwong. I'm

[2:14] going to um ask if the applicant, Miss

[2:18] McCay or the applicant's uh um designate

[2:23] would like to speak. You have five

[2:24] minutes. Thank you.

[2:27] >> Thank you, Mayor McCordoff. Um my name

[2:30] is Gina McCay. I am the applicant for

[2:31] the owner at 8 Chardonnay Court. And

[2:34] Terl actually wanted to be here today,

[2:35] but she wasn't able to, so she did

[2:37] provide a letter that I'll read for her

[2:39] on her behalf. Attention to Sue Town

[2:42] Council. Thanks for taking the time to

[2:44] review my variance request in detail. I

[2:46] understand that Ms. Mccay has

[2:47] represented my case thoroughly, but I

[2:49] believe a letter of self-representation

[2:51] will also add some enlightenment to this

[2:53] application. One year ago, my two boys

[2:55] and I purchased the newly built home at 8 Chardonnay Court. I purchased

[2:59] this home in a quiet residential street

[3:02] in Paradise in hopes this would be my

[3:03] forever bungalow in my retirement and

[3:05] later years. In the final negotiations

[3:08] of the sale of the house, it was agreed

[3:09] in the final offer that a full kitchen

[3:11] with all appliances would be added as an

[3:13] independent suite in the house which has

[3:16] a door connecting to the upstairs. With

[3:18] the understanding that this would be

[3:19] done lawfully and with permitting, I

[3:21] agreed to the sale and purchase the

[3:22] home. Based on my single income, it not

[3:25] been feasible for me to purchase the

[3:26] home without the option of having

[3:28] tenants in this independent dwelling.

[3:29] With that in mind, my real estate and I

[3:31] addressed the legalization of the suite

[3:33] and I told her it was paramount to

[3:34] moving forward. We were reassured by the

[3:37] selling agent that the suite would be

[3:38] able to be legalized and met full

[3:40] requirements. My largest concern if

[3:42] there is damage to the home in an

[3:44] independent dwelling, my insurance would

[3:46] not cover the cost of the damage. It is

[3:48] also important in alignment with my

[3:50] morals that we do things right and avoid

[3:52] illegal business activities. Upon taking

[3:54] ownership of the home, um it was

[3:56] incredibly important for me to have the

[3:58] suite legalized. Without approval of the

[4:00] variance, the secondary suite cannot be

[4:02] legalized and the rental income required

[4:04] to sustain home home ownership will no

[4:06] longer be possible. After I moved into

[4:08] the home, I started to legalize the

[4:10] suite, but came up with the issue of

[4:12] tenants parking on my driveway. I put in

[4:14] an application in November last year and

[4:16] then was um weeks later was it was made

[4:18] clear to me that the reason having

[4:20] tenants park in my driveway has become a

[4:22] concern is that the town um property is

[4:26] um is about onethird of my driveway. Um

[4:29] this was a fact that I was never made

[4:31] aware of at the time of the sale of the

[4:32] home. As we move further into the

[4:34] approval, I became aware that the

[4:35] builder had not applied for the required

[4:37] building permit to build the kitchen in

[4:38] the suite, which is another major

[4:40] concern to having the suite legalized.

[4:43] As the matter continued and the

[4:44] terminology in the process became far

[4:46] more complex for me to handle on my own,

[4:48] I withdrew my application and to

[4:50] consider my options. At this point, I

[4:52] was advised that Ms. McCay was available

[4:54] for hire and could professionally handle

[4:56] my application. In this application, my

[4:59] neighbors have brought up many valuable

[5:01] points and concerns regarding parking on

[5:03] the street, and I validate their

[5:05] concerns. I'm also in agreement with my

[5:07] neighbors about the width of our

[5:08] culde-sac road and the ability of

[5:10] emergency vehicles to pass and children

[5:12] at play, mine being two of them. Um,

[5:16] this application is a specific request

[5:18] to allow the town to allow my tenant to

[5:20] park on the town's portion of my

[5:21] driveway and not in the street at all.

[5:24] My neighbors have never comp commented

[5:25] or complained about my tenants parking

[5:27] in the street as it's simply been a

[5:29] non-issue and doesn't happen. After the

[5:31] last council meeting, my driveway was

[5:33] measured and it was proven that there

[5:34] was enough room to park three vehicles

[5:36] in my driveway. My neighbors will agree

[5:38] that over the last year, the tenants

[5:40] have been in my suite, they have never

[5:42] parked on the street. I also believe

[5:44] that my neighbors would agree that only

[5:45] a few times have they ever seen my

[5:47] company park on the street. That is only

[5:49] if it's been a major holiday. If that's

[5:51] a concern, my my family is more than

[5:53] happy to park on 36th Avenue. The

[5:56] application at this variance is

[5:57] regarding whether the town is willing to

[5:59] allow my tenant to park on their portion

[6:00] of the driveway 100% off the street 100%

[6:04] of the time. Once again, I appreciate

[6:06] your careful consideration of this

[6:07] matter and trust you will understand the

[6:10] reasoning to have this parking approved

[6:12] so it's able to be lawful to have a

[6:13] legal suite in my home to manage the

[6:15] costs associated with my home to add

[6:17] well scrutinized reference checked

[6:19] population density to su and to maintain

[6:22] a quiet peaceful culde-sac. Uh with kind

[6:25] regards Terrell Hector. Now I just

[6:27] personally from a professional

[6:28] perspective want to take one moment to

[6:30] just identify four specific points.

[6:32] First council asked that the driveway be

[6:34] measured and then the town's um has

[6:36] confirmed now that it's four 6.4 to 6.9

[6:39] m long which is more than the 6 m

[6:42] minimum. The application does not seek

[6:44] uh permission for street parking or

[6:47] another suite. It seeks a specific sight

[6:49] specific variance for the parking

[6:51] requirement associated with one

[6:53] secondary suite. The precedent uh

[6:56] concern it should be considered for

[6:57] sure. Um but approval of this variance

[7:00] does not create a blanket exemption.

[7:02] Each future application will remain

[7:04] subject to its own sightsp specific

[7:07] assessment. And I just want to remind

[7:09] council that the application for the DVP

[7:12] was made made in order to address the

[7:14] situation that the homeowner became

[7:16] aware of after she attempted to obtain a

[7:18] business license. It was not made in

[7:20] response to a bylaw complaint or for any

[7:23] concerns received at town hall because

[7:25] of street parking um by the owner's

[7:27] tenants. Thank you. Thanks.

[7:30] >> Thank you very much, Miss McKay. Um,

[7:35] council, does anybody have any questions

[7:38] or concerns about this application?

[7:45] I have one question and perhaps Miss

[7:48] McCay can answer it. Perhaps Miss Dwong

[7:50] can. We have heard from several people

[7:54] in the culde-sac that there is not just

[7:58] one um suite in the basement, but in

[8:01] fact there are two. And several people

[8:03] have

[8:05] sent us emails saying that they're they

[8:08] have seen and talked to the two renters

[8:12] in the basement. Has can you answer

[8:16] that, Miss McCay, or um I'm I'm not sure

[8:19] where to go with that information.

[8:21] >> Thank you, Mayor McCordov. I actually

[8:23] cannot either um um collaborate or deny

[8:26] that. I have not seen that portion of

[8:28] the basement. I have seen the suite. I

[8:30] have not been into the other portion of

[8:32] the basement, but the tenant or the

[8:34] owner, Ter

[8:36] a um roommate who whose roommate whose

[8:40] room is in the basement and she can

[8:42] access that suite from outside. So, as

[8:45] part of the building permit application

[8:47] process, the um the owner has no problem

[8:49] having that area of the house inspected

[8:51] and if anything needs to be brought up

[8:53] to code or whatnot, she has no problem

[8:55] with that. But there is only one suite

[8:57] and she's applying for one suite

[9:03] » council. This becomes very confusing

[9:06] because we have had numerous uh

[9:10] residents on the street that have um

[9:14] sent us information that we have to

[9:17] consider. and the um the owner of the

[9:21] property who owned the whole property at

[9:24] one point and did the developing uh of the 18 lots is quite concerned about

[9:32] what is happening. Um so um we're this

[9:36] is a a difficult um issue to deal with.

[9:40] I guess I will go first. I am quite

[9:43] concerned about all of the buildings and

[9:46] the then the cars and the trucks and

[9:49] everything else that could be in there.

[9:51] And um I my my I'm tempted to uh go

[9:56] along with the recommendation that this

[10:00] variance be denied and I am happy to

[10:03] listen to anybody else on council who

[10:05] would like to speak to this.

[10:10] No,

[10:11] go ahead, counselor Chong.

[10:15] >> Thank you. I think me and Jim were just

[10:17] having a little bit of a

[10:24] » fair enough. Um I think it's important

[10:27] to to clarify um this this case here. I

[10:31] mean there is some confusion. Uh there

[10:35] seems to be a consistent theme through

[10:38] all the correspondents and that is a

[10:40] concern of um blocking emergency

[10:44] vehicles um from entering the culdeac

[10:47] because there may be vehicles that are

[10:49] parked on the street. However, as as

[10:52] staff have confirmed, there is adequate

[10:55] space on the driveway for um all three

[10:59] vehicles to park on the driveway. And

[11:02] that space also aligns with our um

[11:05] parking bylaws. The issue here is that

[11:08] by the property line, part of that space

[11:11] is public even though it's paved exactly

[11:14] the same as the rest of the driveway.

[11:17] Um, from the aerial

[11:20] photographs,

[11:21] there is a sidewalk as well, but it

[11:24] seems like staff had measured only the

[11:26] driveway, and vehicles that park on the

[11:30] driveway would not be butdding onto the

[11:32] sidewalk either. So, this comes down, in

[11:37] my opinion, this comes down to the

[11:39] spirit of the law and the letter of the

[11:41] law. the spirit of the law,

[11:44] this property does comply with having

[11:48] adequate space for the parking

[11:51] requirements that we have instilled.

[11:54] The issue is is the invisible lie. Now

[11:58] that is where the letter of the law

[11:59] comes into play.

[12:01] My larger concern is how this

[12:06] development could have

[12:10] passed all those checks. And it seems

[12:13] like there the owner had done as much of

[12:16] her due diligence to check those boxes.

[12:19] But as we know with property purchases,

[12:21] there's always things that rear ugly

[12:22] heads.

[12:24] I think that these variances come to

[12:27] council for a reason and that is because

[12:29] they are case by case determination and

[12:31] then none of them are the same and it's

[12:34] up to us to make that decision

[12:36] and in my opinion this variance I I'm in

[12:40] support of the variance because

[12:44] it doesn't actually there is minimal to

[12:46] no risk of vehicles being parked on the

[12:49] side of the street that driveway in all

[12:52] intents and purposes is does comply

[12:56] except for that invisible eye.

[13:00] » Thank you. I appreciate you saying that.

[13:02] My concern is I guess that that might

[13:05] work for a car if uh we have a truck or

[13:09] a motor home or um some of the vehicles

[13:12] could be quite a bit longer and

[13:14] therefore they would not fit on there

[13:16] and that was one of the issues that was

[13:18] brought up the last time. Um, but you're

[13:21] quite right. It's confusing. We've been

[13:23] dealing with it for a month and we've

[13:25] had lots and lots of correspondence

[13:27] about it. So, is there anybody else who

[13:29] would like to weigh in on this? Go

[13:32] ahead, council.

[13:33] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Could I just get

[13:34] clarity on the width? I'm old school.

[13:36] Can you do it in footage for me? The

[13:38] width and the length.

[13:41] >> Maybe we should ask Miss Dwang. She is

[13:44] the one who wrote the brief report.

[13:46] Could we could you clarify that, please?

[13:50] I am just doing the quick math because I

[13:52] also don't know it off the top of my

[13:54] head. [laughter]

[13:57] So 6.4 m to feet is 20.99 ft.

[14:04] 6.9 m to feet is 22.64t.

[14:14] » Thank you. Does that help? That would be

[14:18] sort of a truck.

[14:19] >> So you feel comfortable if there's three

[14:21] cars side by side, at least one door in

[14:25] each vehicle could open in that width.

[14:30] » So with respect to the measurements

[14:32] provided, those were actually the

[14:33] lengths of the driveway itself, not the

[14:35] actual not the width of the driveway

[14:37] because the width wasn't what was of uh

[14:40] potential concern. It was largely the

[14:42] length.

[14:44] understand that, but it was presented

[14:46] that three cars could park there. So, I

[14:48] just want to make sure we understand the

[14:50] width and the length.

[14:52] I do understand about the concern about

[14:54] the length. That's what we're talking

[14:55] about the variance.

[15:01] Do you have any um any um measurements

[15:06] of the width of the driveway,

[15:08] Mr. One? Um just looking at the permit

[15:11] um it appears that the driveway is

[15:13] approximately 7.2 m in width. Um that's

[15:18] again approximate because we didn't go

[15:20] out and measure um

[15:22] >> the side of the driveway to the other

[15:24] side of the driveway. Um but a vehicle

[15:28] parking space is required to be 2.7 m in

[15:31] width uh as per the zoning bylaw

[15:35] >> each one. So three times 2.7 m Somebody

[15:39] got to figure that out quickly. It

[15:41] doesn't sound like it fits. [laughter]

[15:45] 8.1.

[15:49] Um, thank you. Is there anyone else who

[15:52] has a question or a concern?

[15:56] No, I'm sorry that the this is just

[15:58] council I'm talking to. Um, councelor

[16:01] Bennett, would you like to

[16:03] >> uh Thank you. Yeah. Where I'm a little

[16:05] bit confused is there's three people

[16:08] three suites and three cars that are

[16:11] parked there now. And basically they all

[16:14] fit the driveway and it seems like most

[16:17] of all the driveways are the same.

[16:20] They're all not up to code. They're not

[16:22] long enough according to this. So if if

[16:26] there is a fourth car and that car is

[16:28] parked up in front of the people's in

[16:30] front of them all the time, I could see

[16:32] people have been upset. But if these

[16:34] three cars have been parked there and

[16:35] they're not in people's road when the

[16:37] letters I'm reading from here sounds

[16:39] more like there's a fourth car that's

[16:41] parked on somebody's drive in somebody's

[16:43] lawn that's that's parked out on the

[16:46] street but you're saying it's not.

[16:48] There's three cars parked in the

[16:50] driveway. So I'm not sure what exactly

[16:53] that other car is that fourth car is

[16:56] that in case another suite comes.

[17:01] Don't I don't think there was there's

[17:03] not the two suites. Apparently, there is

[17:07] the person who lives with the owner has

[17:10] a ba a basement suite, a basement room.

[17:12] That's what it sounded like. Who perhaps

[17:15] has a car and the owner has a car and

[17:18] the renter has a car. So, that's three.

[17:20] Yeah. So, I wouldn't probably need four,

[17:22] right?

[17:24] >> Anybody else? Go ahead. Councelor

[17:26] Potter.

[17:27] >> Thank you. Three to Mong. um in a single

[17:32] um

[17:34] in the way this property was originally

[17:35] built, what would have been the distance

[17:37] required for the driveway without um any

[17:41] requirement for um the secondary suite

[17:45] or a proposed secondary suite?

[17:50] » Sorry, was the question uh what was the

[17:52] required length at the time that it was

[17:54] developed?

[17:56] >> Length for the depth. Yes. Uh provided

[17:58] there was no secondary suite or proposal

[17:59] for secondary suite.

[18:01] >> So the development would have been

[18:03] completed prior to the current zoning

[18:06] bylaw being in existence. I believe uh

[18:08] zoning bylaw 1085

[18:10] would have been in place at the time in

[18:12] which the development um occurred. Um so

[18:15] with that in mind, there would have been

[18:16] a reduced parking uh dimension

[18:21] that would have been applied. Um,

[18:25] off the top of my head, I'm not sure.

[18:27] I'm just pulling it up right now.

[18:35] So, under zoning bylaw 1085, the

[18:38] required stall depth would have been 5.8

[18:41] m.

[18:50] » Okay, thank you. Um but may just

[18:54] um as I'm trying to sort through this I

[18:58] think I do share the concern of the um

[19:01] the owner um that you know they uh

[19:04] appear to have purchased the property

[19:05] which they were miss um

[19:08] that they were led to believe by the

[19:10] selling realtor that they were

[19:12] purchasing a property with the legal

[19:14] suite which in fact it is not. I am re

[19:17] recognizing that that was done um

[19:19] originally when they went to proceed to

[19:22] um require a building permit uh for the

[19:24] purpose of a short-term rental and now

[19:26] seeking um this parking amendment for a

[19:29] um legal secondary suite that would

[19:32] obviously have to be meet the code. I do

[19:35] share that frustration with them if that

[19:36] is the case. Um I do share the concern

[19:38] of the neighbors that you know um their

[19:41] conver you know their comments and of

[19:43] course we can't you know without

[19:44] physically seeing whether or not what

[19:46] you know what actually uh fills the

[19:48] basement of that property um based on

[19:51] the diagrams um that have been submitted

[19:53] that's all we have to work with. Um so I

[19:56] do share both those concerns. However, I

[19:58] do share the concern also that um you

[20:01] know the development in existence in

[20:03] Chara um you know there is various

[20:06] lengths and depths of the depths of the

[20:09] parking that's available. Um I did tour

[20:11] that area last week take a look and see

[20:13] especially at the proposed property um

[20:17] that there is concern I think of

[20:18] vehicles on the overhang as they you

[20:20] know some definitely could accommodate

[20:22] that. uh we don't have any knowledge of

[20:24] any legal or uh secondary suites that we

[20:27] can verify in that neighborhood and that

[20:28] is you know obviously another concern

[20:30] because my my concern moving forward is

[20:34] how many more situations are we going to

[20:36] have with this and just the rest of

[20:38] council I think we got to be a little

[20:39] cautious as to that consideration moving

[20:41] forward as to what route we do go down.

[20:47] » Thank you. Um, so the the lengths

[20:52] according to the the report range from

[20:54] 4.36 m to 4.53 m. So regardless of which

[20:59] version of the bylaw, it would not have

[21:01] been long enough either. So my

[21:05] frustration is how is this development?

[21:08] How did it pass all those checks when

[21:12] like we knew that the driveway wasn't

[21:15] long enough period?

[21:17] So

[21:19] the an error was made somewhere

[21:22] and I think it's just fair for us to

[21:25] grant a variance that allows that error

[21:28] to be somewhat rectified

[21:30] because if if we're going to, you know,

[21:33] put the hammer down according to the

[21:35] bylaw by dimensions, then technically I

[21:39] guess that development should never have

[21:40] passed because the driveway was not long

[21:42] enough period.

[21:45] So I guess it's what is council's wish

[21:48] here

[21:51] >> and I mean it's unfortunate that the

[21:53] owner has purchased the house house with

[21:55] the understanding that it was a an

[21:58] aillegal suite in the basement and in

[22:00] fact it was not and that is a problem

[22:03] that I uh maybe it's not her problem but

[22:07] it definitely is a problem of people who

[22:09] are selling and filling out the

[22:12] paperwork for their properties when

[22:14] things have not been done properly. And

[22:16] I'm sure that that um I'm hoping that

[22:19] doesn't happen often or at all, but it

[22:22] seems to have in this place. Um I I'm

[22:26] not sure what you would like to do. So,

[22:28] we have the option of the of uh the

[22:33] recommended motion on here. Um or um if

[22:38] that is not appropriate, then do we have

[22:40] a motion? Somebody like to make put a

[22:42] motion on the floor.

[22:45] [clears throat]

[22:47] Go ahead.

[22:50] Um, I would like to move uh option

[22:56] one

[22:58] that uh the variance be approved but

[23:01] subject to final inspection to ensure

[23:04] that there's only one

[23:07] um [clears throat] suite

[23:09] in the property.

[23:14] Thank you.

[23:16] Have you got that? Um, Mrs. Coulson

[23:20] or or

[23:22] Mrs. Robinson. Did you get that? Okay,

[23:25] thank you. Is there a seconder for that?

[23:29] [clears throat]

[23:32] Okay, that was not seconded. Is there a

[23:36] another uh recommendation? Please

[23:40] move option two.

[23:43] >> I got to support our planner here.

[23:48] Option two is the recommended motion by

[23:50] the planner.

[23:52] Thank you. Is there a seconder for that

[23:54] one?

[23:57] Thank you. It's been seconded.

[24:00] Councelor Puerto Rica. Is there any

[24:03] other comments on this? Then I will call

[24:07] the question. Um,

[24:10] all in favor of the recommended motion

[24:16] against.

[24:18] Thank you. That was a 3 to2 vote. It

[24:20] carries.

[24:22] Um, thank you very much. Thank you, Miss

[24:25] McCay, for coming in. Um, we appreciate

[24:28] it. It was a very difficult issue to

[24:30] deal with.

[24:32] All right, we will move on to

[24:35] development variance permit. Um DVP

[24:40] 265460197th

[24:44] Street.

[24:46] Um Miss Dwong, do you have this one?

[24:50] >> Yes. And I do have a presentation for

[24:52] this one which I will

[24:52] >> Thank you.

[24:53] >> try my best to share.

[24:59] [clears throat]

[25:01] >> All right. Are you seeing the

[25:02] presentation on the screen?

[25:04] >> Yes, we are. Thank you.

[25:06] >> Perfect. So, I'll go ahead and get

[25:07] started. Um, so yes, this is uh this

[25:10] item relates to file number DVP 2605.

[25:14] Uh, this relates to a property located

[25:16] at 460197th

[25:18] Street. So, this is actually the

[25:20] development that's known as Mojave

[25:22] Estates. Uh, the OCP designation that

[25:24] applies to this property is medium

[25:26] density residential and the zoning that

[25:27] applies is medium density residential

[25:29] one sight specific. The property is

[25:32] approximately 1.41 hectares in size. Um,

[25:35] and this application actually speaks to

[25:39] phases 2, three, and four specifically

[25:41] of the Mojave State Estates development.

[25:44] Phase one is actually already complete

[25:46] and is technically a separate parcel

[25:48] currently. Um, and it includes 12 town

[25:51] houses.

[25:54] So, um, I'll just give a bit of a

[25:57] background since there's been quite a

[25:58] bit of permit history as council may

[26:00] recall with respect to this particular

[26:01] property. So, this starts back in 2022

[26:04] when a multif family residential

[26:06] development permit uh number 21-12 was

[26:09] issued for a multif family residential

[26:12] development at the property. Then in

[26:14] 2024, building permits were issued uh

[26:16] for three 4unit townhouse buildings as

[26:20] well as uh civil works and two retaining

[26:22] walls at the property. Now, in January

[26:25] 2026, a new medium d or multif family

[26:29] residential development permit

[26:30] application was received in order to

[26:32] revise the site layout and landscaping

[26:34] plans uh due to changes that were

[26:36] required uh to be made by the developer

[26:38] to the internal access roadway.

[26:41] Following that, in February 2026, a

[26:43] phase strata develop a plan declaration

[26:46] for a form P was approved by the

[26:48] approving officer in order to allow the

[26:50] development to be completed over four

[26:52] phases, which kind of explains why the

[26:54] completed phase is its own parcel

[26:56] currently. Um once the phases start to

[26:59] get completed, they'll become

[27:00] amalgamated um into the last phase until

[27:04] it's just one property at the end

[27:06] essentially. Uh so most recently in

[27:09] March 2026, uh two building permit

[27:11] applications were received by the town,

[27:13] each of which were proposing to

[27:15] construct a 4unit townhouse building, so

[27:17] eight units in total.

[27:20] So as council may recall, uh this

[27:22] property and development have been

[27:23] before council actually twice since

[27:25] 2024. Specifically, council had adopted

[27:28] zoning amendment bylaw number 1395.02 2

[27:31] in 2024 and zoning amendment bylaw

[27:33] number 1395.12

[27:35] just last month. Uh both of these

[27:37] collectively provided sight specific

[27:39] provisions for the property in order to

[27:40] allow for secondary suites within duplex

[27:42] or townhouse dwelling units and to allow

[27:45] for the construction of one duplex at

[27:47] the property. These amendments and the

[27:49] permitting background uh that was just

[27:51] detailed in the last slide um kind of

[27:53] just highlight the extensive work that's

[27:55] been done in the planning and permitting

[27:57] of this particular development.

[28:02] So as I mentioned this development is to

[28:04] be completed in a phased manner with

[28:06] four phases total. Um at this time it is

[28:09] understood that the development of the

[28:10] property is well underway uh with the

[28:13] access road and servicing which was

[28:15] within phase one uh being completed as

[28:18] well as those 12 townhouse units that I

[28:20] mentioned uh within phase one being

[28:21] complete. Uh phase 2 is currently in

[28:25] progress and its completion will see

[28:27] that eight townhouse units be

[28:28] constructed and the completion of this

[28:30] phase is contingent on the subject

[28:32] variance request uh in order to proceed

[28:34] as currently proposed.

[28:38] So specifically the townhouse units

[28:40] within phase 2 comprise uh garages which

[28:43] in undertaking a zoning compliance

[28:45] assessment can only accommodate one

[28:47] parking space to the minimum dimensions

[28:49] that are set out in the zoning bylaw.

[28:51] Now in total there um it is proposed

[28:54] that eight parking spaces be provided

[28:56] for the eight dwelling units. So one for

[28:58] each dwelling unit. While no building

[29:01] permits have yet been received for the

[29:02] dwelling units within phases three and

[29:04] four, it is understood that they would

[29:06] each contain at least a single car

[29:08] garage. And as it relates to zoning

[29:10] bylaw compliance, um it is noted that

[29:13] zoning bylaw number 1395 uh 2024 uh

[29:17] requires the provision of 1.5 off

[29:19] streetet vehicle parking spaces per

[29:21] dwelling unit specifically for town

[29:23] houses. So this would equate to actually

[29:26] a total of 12 parking spaces being

[29:28] required for the eight townhouse units

[29:30] in phase 2 and 42 parking spaces being

[29:34] required for the 28 townhouse units in

[29:36] phases three and four. Accordingly,

[29:40] the applicant has requested to reduce

[29:42] the off- streetet parking requirements

[29:44] from 1.5 spaces per townhouse dwelling

[29:47] unit to one. And it should be noted um

[29:49] that the request encompasses the

[29:51] remainder of the townhouse uh units that

[29:54] are proposed within the overarching

[29:55] development. So, this actually includes

[29:57] 36 townhouse units uh in total within

[30:00] phases 2, three, and four. Phase one, as

[30:03] I mentioned, is already built out and is

[30:04] not included in this request.

[30:08] So with respect to off- streetet vehicle

[30:11] parking, it is required to be provided

[30:13] as a means of ensuring that there is

[30:14] adequate on-site parking to support the

[30:16] planned use of a property um and that

[30:19] public spaces such as street parking are

[30:22] not supporting private uses. And this

[30:24] ultimately acts then to mitigate

[30:25] conflicts that might result from

[30:27] inadequate site parking provided. Now

[30:30] with this in mind again we expect that

[30:32] property owners provide the parking

[30:33] necessary for use on the property is

[30:35] intended to be carried out on.

[30:38] With respect to building stratas uh so

[30:40] that includes apartments, duplexes and

[30:42] town houses uh that typically provide

[30:45] these typically provide parking within

[30:47] either common property. So that's shared

[30:49] between property owners or limited

[30:51] common property which is designated to

[30:53] specific property owners. So some

[30:55] examples that we typically see with

[30:56] respect to parking provided for building

[30:58] stratas um these include parkades,

[31:01] surface level parking areas or where you

[31:04] might have a duplex or townhouse that

[31:06] has a garage or a driveway um parking

[31:08] can be provided within those garages or

[31:10] driveways as limited common property.

[31:15] It is important to note that of course

[31:17] while the requirements surrounding the

[31:19] provision of off- streetet parking serve

[31:20] an important function when it comes to

[31:22] conflict prevention and ensuring that

[31:24] properties are actually able to

[31:25] accommodate the uses that they're

[31:26] intended to um support. The imposition

[31:29] of overly ownorous parking requirements

[31:32] can hinder development by essentially

[31:33] limiting the overall site design and

[31:35] layout as well as buildable area on a

[31:38] property. Um, so this sentiment was

[31:41] highlighted in the provincial policy

[31:42] manual and site standards document which

[31:44] local governments were required to

[31:46] consider in the adoption of zoning

[31:48] bylaws that relate to the delivery of

[31:49] small-scale multi-unit housing. Uh,

[31:52] specifically, the province has indicated

[31:54] that on-site parking requirements uh can

[31:56] often have the greatest influence on the

[31:58] viability of small-scale multi-unit

[32:00] housing forms, especially when you're

[32:01] considering the small lot sizes that are

[32:03] found in urban and suburban areas. With

[32:06] that in mind, the province uh has

[32:08] encouraged local governments to minimize

[32:10] parking, particularly in areas where uh

[32:13] transit options are available. And I do

[32:16] want to point out that while this

[32:17] property was not within a restricted

[32:18] zone at the time in which small scale

[32:20] multi-unit housing requirements were

[32:21] included in the local government act, um

[32:23] this general principle seemed to be

[32:25] relevant to multif family residential

[32:27] developments as well.

[32:31] So in this particular case, it is

[32:32] understood that the property is located

[32:34] approximately 250 meters from a bus stop

[32:37] uh for line 41. Um and this is located

[32:40] along 89th Street between 97th Street

[32:43] and Primrose Lane. Uh so that's seen to

[32:45] provide an alternate uh transportation

[32:47] option for residents within that

[32:49] development as it gets built out. As

[32:51] such, we do see that this is this has

[32:53] potential to mitigate or reduce

[32:55] potential negative impacts of a parking

[32:57] reduction at this particular property.

[33:01] Additionally, um it is noted um that the

[33:04] development of this property is greatly

[33:06] limited. Um and that's largely because

[33:08] of the previous requirements pertaining

[33:10] to the way in which the road alignment

[33:12] was to be designed and requirements for

[33:14] servicing to be installed. Um, I've

[33:17] previously mentioned this in our

[33:18] discussion regarding amendment bylaw

[33:21] number 1395.12 earlier this year, but as

[33:24] part of the 2024 building permit

[33:26] process, the de the developer had uh

[33:29] previously entered into a servicing

[33:30] agreement with the town, which had

[33:32] required that they undertake

[33:34] construction of the on and off-site

[33:35] works in accordance with approved civil

[33:37] drawings. So, the works that were

[33:39] completed on site included individual

[33:41] service connections that were based on

[33:42] the location of the dwelling units as

[33:45] they were proposed. And with that in

[33:46] mind, any revisions to the site layout

[33:48] and building envelopes would likely

[33:49] require um a fairly lengthy

[33:52] administrative uh and financially

[33:54] burdensome processes. [clears throat]

[33:59] And I did want to just highlight um kind

[34:01] of just the sight specific context here.

[34:03] Um, as you can see, I've circled uh the

[34:06] location of those town houses as they're

[34:08] to be constructed within phase two. Um,

[34:11] they are located kind of right up

[34:13] against the access road, which is seen

[34:17] to limit how uh their building envelopes

[34:19] can be altered due to the um higher

[34:22] elevation of the road and the wall um

[34:26] that would be right behind these

[34:27] properties.

[34:31] So on the other hand, we do recognize

[34:33] that um council had considered parking

[34:36] reductions already um during the time in

[34:38] which the zoning bylaw update project

[34:40] had taken place. And at that time, off-

[34:42] streetet parking requirements that were

[34:44] applicable to townhouse units had been

[34:46] reduced from 1.75 spaces per townhouse

[34:49] dwelling unit to 1.5

[34:51] uh spaces per dwelling unit.

[34:53] Additionally, and as we've highlighted

[34:55] previously, the parking requirements

[34:56] that were adopted in uh the current

[34:58] version of the zoning bylaw generally

[34:59] reflect uh the rural environment that

[35:02] the town is located within. Uh

[35:04] specifically, there is generally a

[35:05] greater reliance on private vehicles to

[35:07] get around and there's a tendency to use

[35:09] larger vehicles as well.

[35:13] That said, we do also note that the

[35:15] zoning bylaw requires 1.5 parking spaces

[35:18] per apartments and uh townhouse dwelling

[35:21] units, but actually only requires one

[35:22] parking space per single detached

[35:24] dwelling and duplex dwelling unit. Uh

[35:27] and in fact, the proposed duplex units

[35:30] within phase three of this same

[35:31] development would actually only require

[35:33] one parking space to be provided per

[35:34] unit, which effectively sets a different

[35:36] parking standard despite being within

[35:38] the same overarching development, which

[35:40] is largely similar in form. Um now,

[35:44] while greater parking requirements would

[35:45] generally accommodate visitor parking,

[35:47] um and the variation in the number of

[35:49] cars per dwelling, it is noted that the

[35:51] development does propose uh five visitor

[35:54] stalls within phase one of the

[35:55] development.

[35:58] And lastly, it should be noted that in

[36:00] response to the referral of this

[36:02] application on relevant internal

[36:03] departments, um the fire department had

[36:05] expressed concerns with respect to the

[36:07] proposed development uh specifically

[36:09] that uh there was the potential for

[36:12] vehicles to encroach into the internal

[36:14] roadway given the length of the

[36:16] individual driveways uh being fairly

[36:18] short and the potential impact then on

[36:20] congestion and emergency access. Um, but

[36:23] I do want to highlight that this

[36:24] variance request does not include a

[36:26] variance uh for in tandem parking and

[36:30] therefore the issuance of this variance

[36:31] as proposed would not expressly permit

[36:33] vehicles to park in tandem on uh these

[36:36] individual lots. So with this in mind uh

[36:39] we are requesting council's direction

[36:41] with respect to this uh particular DVP

[36:43] application. Uh for the reasons

[36:45] previously listed, we are recommending

[36:47] approval. Um, but council does always

[36:50] have the option to deny the application

[36:52] as well. Thank you.

[36:55] >> U, thank you very much, Miss Dwong. This

[36:58] is confusing because we have had um this particular um um application come

[37:05] back several times for variances. Um I

[37:09] know that it says in your report that

[37:11] there are five visitor stalls for phase

[37:15] one. Does that mean that there will be

[37:18] um visitor stalls as well, the same

[37:21] number for phases 2, three, and four?

[37:26] Uh at this time, the developer hasn't

[37:28] indicated whether there would be

[37:29] additional visitor parking spaces within

[37:32] the uh future phases of this

[37:33] development.

[37:36] >> That would be interesting to know. And

[37:39] my concern is cuz I drive by this road

[37:41] all the time on my way down to my house,

[37:44] there is one road in and it's not really

[37:50] visible from the road from the highway.

[37:52] So you sort of you have to go in and

[37:55] then go down as shown in the in in the

[37:58] drawing. Um and obviously just one road

[38:03] back out um for vehicles. I'm wondering

[38:08] on the property, are there any other

[38:11] exits to either walk off of the property

[38:17] um or do you have to go come back up the

[38:20] road to the highway in order to walk

[38:22] along and go down to the to the bus

[38:25] stop, which is not a 20 minute every 20

[38:29] minute bus stop. It um it goes a couple

[38:32] of times a day, I think, and it sort of

[38:34] depends. Um, so it's not something that

[38:37] you could count on to get back and forth

[38:40] um to school or work or or or anything,

[38:44] I don't think. And my other concern is

[38:47] that if these all of these um um condos

[38:51] down here have an accessory suite in the

[38:54] basement then, which we allowed back

[38:57] then, then there's a need for obviously

[39:00] more vehicle parking. I assume one in

[39:04] the garage and one on the on the the

[39:06] apron in front. Is that correct? Do you

[39:09] So, can you answer that question? Is

[39:10] there any exit off of the property other

[39:14] than going up the road to the highway?

[39:18] >> Uh, for that first question, I would

[39:19] have to refer back to the development

[39:21] permit plans um to see if there is any

[39:23] pedestrian access points and pathways.

[39:26] Um, so I'm not sure off the top of my

[39:28] head for that one. Uh but with respect

[39:30] to the secondary suite question, even

[39:32] though it is permitted by zoning, um

[39:34] they would still have to prove out the

[39:36] provision of adequate parking for those

[39:38] to be actually permitted through the

[39:40] building permit process. So if there's

[39:42] not enough space on their individual

[39:44] like limited common property areas to

[39:46] provide for a secondary suite parking,

[39:48] they cannot get a secondary suite.

[39:50] >> Okay.

[39:51] >> Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead.

[39:53] Councelor Kanger,

[39:54] >> the road going in and out, is that would

[39:56] that become a public road in the future

[39:58] or is that kind of private?

[40:02] >> That would be a private uh road.

[40:04] >> So, if there's cars parked in front of

[40:06] houses and the fire department can't get

[40:09] by, what do you suppose would happen?

[40:17] » I'm not sure if I can answer that

[40:18] question in its entirety. Generally,

[40:20] when it comes to things like shared

[40:23] common property strata roads, the

[40:25] stratas themselves would be responsible

[40:27] for ensuring um that they're being used

[40:30] appropriately.

[40:36] » Who's next?

[40:38] >> Councelor Puerto Rica.

[40:39] >> Thank you, Bishop. Um Mr. Wong. Um last

[40:42] time, um the developer came to council

[40:45] with regards to secondary suites. um

[40:48] they were, if I could be wrong here, but

[40:50] I believe they had said that they had

[40:52] four off streetet sites per property or

[40:54] per unit and as we're seeing that

[40:57] clearly is not the case anymore. Um but

[40:59] obviously the justified decision for

[41:01] allowing secondary suites in there. Um

[41:05] so is there that much of a significant

[41:06] change over the course? My understanding

[41:08] is right through from phase one to the

[41:09] end of phases that they were able to

[41:12] support for offstream sites per unit.

[41:18] I'm unclear as to how much the parking

[41:21] arrangements would have uh changed over

[41:24] the course of the years. I understand

[41:26] that phase one would have included

[41:27] secondary suites. This current phase

[41:29] does not actually include any secondary

[41:30] suites within the townhouse units. So

[41:32] those wouldn't have to be accommodated

[41:33] in the same way. Um so

[41:38] and phase three and four have not been

[41:40] applied for yet. So that would have to

[41:43] be considered. Um, so it's only in phase

[41:46] one that they've asked for a secondary

[41:48] suite. Okay, fair enough. I thank Thank

[41:51] you. Um, it's still kind of confusing.

[41:54] Anybody else want to go ahead, counselor

[41:56] Bennett?

[41:57] >> I just like to move option number one.

[42:02] » Is there a seconder for that one?

[42:08] » You have one more qu.

[42:10] >> Is there a seconder? You'll second it.

[42:12] Okay, then you have a question.

[42:17] » Um, thank you again for you, Mr. Wong.

[42:20] Just clarification. Um, and I'm just

[42:22] trying to find the drawing here and it

[42:23] probably is different.

[42:25] Um, in one of the renderings here where

[42:28] it shows the depth of the stalls at

[42:32] just find that page here

[42:36] be different for Shannon.

[42:39] >> The different phases are different.

[42:41] drawing view and

[42:45] where it says driveway parking and it

[42:47] shows a depth of 2.7 m and a width of

[42:50] 5.7. Is that correct?

[42:55] » And you're referring to the proposed off

[42:57] street parking plan, correct?

[42:59] >> Uh this is Yeah. So it's referencing DV

[43:02] 606 of of the actual development permit.

[43:07] >> Yes. So those are the measurements that

[43:08] the developer would have provided. But I

[43:10] do want to be clear that this

[43:13] application does not request the

[43:15] allowance for in tandem parking. So you

[43:19] it wouldn't actually be able to provide

[43:21] the in tandem parking within that

[43:23] driveway.

[43:26] >> Okay.

[43:31] And go ahead, councelor Chong. And

[43:34] then with some rough calculations with

[43:36] page six of six, if you were to extend

[43:38] the 2.7 to the edge of lane, it would be

[43:41] approximately only 5 m

[43:44] roughly if I'm assuming everything is to

[43:46] scale. Um, which is far below our

[43:51] requirements regardless.

[43:53] But uh it seems as council may be in a

[43:57] bit of a pickle with this variance

[44:00] seeing as how the previous variance was

[44:02] denied and they're along the same

[44:04] spirit.

[44:06] >> I see it as a different

[44:08] >> Oh, it's it's

[44:09] >> a different issue, but never mind. Go

[44:11] ahead.

[44:11] >> Zoned RS1, which does allow for a

[44:14] secondary suite if parking requirements

[44:17] and all the other requirements um are

[44:19] fulfilled as well. Um,

[44:22] this one is is a challenge mainly

[44:25] because to I guess triple check, there

[44:29] are no known stipulations for additional

[44:33] visitor parking stalls uh in the current

[44:37] plans.

[44:38] Mong,

[44:41] >> that's correct. outside of phase one

[44:43] where they're providing visitor parking.

[44:45] Um it has not been um we've not been

[44:50] informed whether there was going to be

[44:51] visitor parking in the uh remaining

[44:53] phases,

[44:56] » but we're working on phase two right

[44:59] now. Am I correct? So they've obviously

[45:01] got the okay to do that and there has

[45:04] been nothing said about visitor parking

[45:06] in phase two when as when the

[45:08] development permit was given.

[45:12] Correct.

[45:17] » Tricky, isn't it?

[45:22] [sighs]

[45:24] Reduce off streetet parking requirements

[45:26] for townhouse units. So, it's I know

[45:30] there is and it's been seconded. So,

[45:33] it's to reduce off-street vehicle

[45:35] parking requirements for townhouse

[45:38] units.

[45:39] Does that mean all of them?

[45:44] So, we've got some in there right now

[45:46] and the second phase is being worked on,

[45:48] but three and four are not.

[45:52] [sighs]

[45:54] I don't know.

[45:57] All right. Are we We don't seem to have

[46:00] any other questions. So, I'm going to um

[46:04] to call the question, which is um the

[46:07] recommended motion that the reduce the

[46:10] off- streetet vehicle parking limits be

[46:13] approved. All in favor?

[46:21] Okay, that has not been approved. Um

[46:24] that was a 3 to2 vote again and um so my

[46:28] assumption is that the uh the owner of

[46:31] the property will need to come back and

[46:33] have a look at that again. Is that

[46:35] correct, Miss Dwang?

[46:39] » I may look to Miss Coulson on this item

[46:44] in terms of process.

[46:49] » Yeah, I'm I'm sorry. I'm not prepared

[46:51] for that question. And the one thing I

[46:53] will say is that um this property has

[46:56] been uh disadvantaged in its options

[46:59] going forward because of that

[47:00] requirement that was u made at the

[47:02] outset to pre-ervice all the lots. So

[47:05] the underground utility is all in place.

[47:08] Making changes at this point is very

[47:10] difficult for the developer.

[47:14] >> Um I yes I read that I get that as well.

[47:17] I think that there's sounds to me like

[47:20] there's a couple of other concerns in

[47:22] here as well off streetet parking which

[47:24] has not been addressed for something and

[47:27] so I'd hate to see us say well let's

[47:29] bring it down um and then we discover

[47:33] that um there is no off- streetet

[47:34] parking and there's one road in and out

[47:37] so I think it's not an easy thing to um

[47:40] to adopt

[47:42] all right thank you we have did you have

[47:46] a question go ahead

[47:47] So, procedurally, if option one has

[47:51] if that motion has been struck down, um

[47:55] does a motion need to be voted on or or

[47:58] moved in order to move forward with this

[48:01] case or what happens now?

[48:04] >> If the developer can bring an alternate

[48:06] plan forward for council's

[48:08] consideration, uh we don't need to do

[48:10] anything further with this.

[48:11] >> Thank you.

[48:14] >> Okay. Thank you. We will now move on to

[48:18] the um Miss Mrs. Keith

[48:21] the proposed fire department budget.

[48:33] I have a short presentation for the

[48:36] proposed budget um for you. Uh so

[48:39] annually we bring forward the budget

[48:41] earlier on in the year uh given that

[48:43] it's um a shared service between

[48:45] ourselves uh the Indian band and the

[48:48] rural fire protection district. Just a

[48:51] little background here um the 2027 to

[48:53] 2031 fire department forecast is built

[48:56] from the 2026 base budget and applies

[49:00] category specific inflation assumptions

[49:02] only. These inflation factors are

[49:05] applied to the operating revenues and

[49:06] expenses. The forecast also incorporates

[49:09] planning for capital projects, reserve

[49:11] transfers, grant funding, and borrowing

[49:13] which are identified in the capital

[49:15] plan.

[49:18] Revisiting the um the comment made

[49:20] regarding the shared service. There we

[49:23] go. Um the fire department provides fire

[49:26] protection to the town of Aoyus, the

[49:28] Asus Indian Band and the ASOS fire um

[49:32] rural fire protection district. Under

[49:34] the current fire protection agreements,

[49:35] cost sharing is based on the 2026

[49:37] assessment values as follows.

[49:40] We have the town of Aoyus at 59.4%.

[49:44] The ASOS Indian man sits at 19.3 and the

[49:47] Assaurus rural fire protection district

[49:49] at 21.3.

[49:55] The slide here just talks basically

[49:56] about the revenue and the funding

[49:58] forecasts. uh compares throughout 2026

[50:01] base throughout 2031. Uh for 2027, we

[50:05] show total revenues at 2.3 million,

[50:08] which is up 251,000 or 11% compound with

[50:11] the 2026 base budget. Please keep in

[50:15] mind this isn't an 11.8% increase. That

[50:18] includes the capital funding which will

[50:20] be a transfer from reserves. And you can

[50:22] see that's up significantly from last

[50:24] year. Everything else is based purely on

[50:27] inflation.

[50:30] The expense forecast is listed here and

[50:32] it shows a comparison between the 2026

[50:35] base all the way through to 2031 and

[50:37] highlighting the larger expense items

[50:40] which we have our wages and benefits,

[50:42] our debt charges, and the reserve

[50:44] contribution. Again, the reserve

[50:46] contribution just shows what would be

[50:47] brought out of our reserves to help fund

[50:49] the capital plan.

[50:54] into the capital plan timeline. We've

[50:55] identified uh projects as follows. We

[50:58] show in 2027 the marine rescue craft

[51:01] aerial apparatus as well as a command

[51:03] truck. Uh 2028 we have paving

[51:07] turnarounds the radio and replacement uh

[51:11] sorry radio replacement. My good have my

[51:13] glasses on. It's a little narrow [gasps]

[51:15] here. Uh 2029 we have fire engine

[51:18] replacement which is the uh the larger

[51:20] expenditure we have over the 5-year plan

[51:22] projection. um 20 the next year we have

[51:25] 2030. We have the uh car 193 rescue uh

[51:29] replacement as well with nothing planned

[51:32] at this point for 2031.

[51:37] Reserve forecast shows what we uh

[51:39] proposed to contribute to the reserves

[51:41] and again showing what we're taking out

[51:43] of reserves to help uh fund those

[51:45] projects. Um you can see the big dip

[51:47] there in 2029 which is uh with regards

[51:50] to the larger fire truck replacement.

[51:58] Total revenues and expenses both

[51:59] increased by approximately 251. Again as

[52:02] in the previous slide uh this 11.8% is

[52:05] not an actual 11.8% increase but just

[52:08] showing how we are going to fund uh

[52:11] capital through our reserves.

[52:14] Our

[52:17] budget drivers and considerations are same as every every year. Um wages

[52:22] and benefits our primary operating

[52:25] driver for um our annual costs 3.5%. We

[52:30] have debt charges which remain uh fixed

[52:33] from year to year from MFA. Uh we have

[52:36] our reserve contribution which has

[52:38] increases steadily to help fund our

[52:40] capital and equipment replacements. Our

[52:42] capital plan uh planning is based on um

[52:45] what we can afford uh year after year

[52:47] through our reserves and any type of

[52:49] grants we can we can uh receive and in

[52:52] final review inflation assumptions are

[52:55] used uh cap capital estimates at this

[52:57] point grants and reserve funding will be

[52:59] reviewed before adoption. Adoption for

[53:02] this budget would occur um as it when

[53:04] it's amalgamated with our five-year plan

[53:06] which will be brought forward at the end

[53:07] of the year.

[53:11] Uh before council, we have the option to

[53:13] approve uh and proceed with the proposed

[53:16] fire department five-year plan or

[53:18] request change.

[53:22] » Thank you.

[53:23] very much. Um this is a

[53:25] [clears throat] different way of having

[53:26] it presented that one than we have. So

[53:28] thank you. This um just it was

[53:30] interesting to look through and and uh

[53:33] and see the way that you've presented

[53:34] it. I appreciate it. Um, is there

[53:38] anybody who has any questions or

[53:41] concerns of Mrs. Ke? Go ahead.

[53:45] Uh, sounds like some pretty big numbers.

[53:48] Just in layman's term about how much

[53:50] would it cost the public in a tax

[53:52] increase from 26 to 27.

[53:56] >> Currently, we're not showing any type of

[53:58] tax increase. We're just showing the

[53:59] inflationary um just the inflation

[54:01] projections for the next five years. And

[54:04] that's how we would fund the capital

[54:05] plan as well as the operating.

[54:08] >> So it kind of shows 2.8. Have I read it

[54:10] correct?

[54:10] >> Correct.

[54:12] >> Okay. Thank you.

[54:15] >> Anybody else have any other questions,

[54:17] concerns? Is there anybody who would

[54:20] like to go ahead councelor Bennett

[54:23] >> after after this is done and it's sent

[54:25] to the So Indian Band as well as

[54:28] regional district for approval. Right.

[54:32] Normally what we do is for review we

[54:34] would take it to um our rural friends

[54:36] and we would have a small presentation

[54:37] for them through the the fireh hall as

[54:39] well as we present it to the sorry man

[54:42] with the option for them to also join

[54:44] and to hear the presentation.

[54:48] » Councelor Chong,

[54:49] >> thank you. Um so the fire engine

[54:51] replacement um budget for 2029

[54:56] it's uh 1.5 million. Is that today's

[54:58] estimates or is that 2029 estimates for

[55:01] costing?

[55:04] >> Yeah. Um through the through the mayor

[55:06] to councelor Chong those are estimates based on the current apparatus

[55:10] that we have in our fleet. So the most

[55:12] recent apparatus that we purchased uh as

[55:14] well as inflation as estimated or given

[55:17] to us as an estimate through uh

[55:20] distributors and manufacturers through

[55:22] sales folks. So that 1.5 million is a

[55:25] very good uh I don't want to say guess

[55:28] but it's a very good estimate at what we

[55:30] will be looking at spending to replace

[55:32] our most recent purchase.

[55:37] And then just for for clarification,

[55:40] when we do support uh BC Wildfire with

[55:44] efforts in in wildfire mitigation, um

[55:48] there is, for lack of a better term,

[55:51] compensation. Um whereabouts does that

[55:54] with that fit in in terms of the uh the

[55:57] budget and the revenue?

[56:00] >> We do show that and that's in the first

[56:02] part under recoveries. So, you'll see

[56:04] our third line on the more detailed

[56:07] version of the five-year plan forecast.

[56:09] There's other revenue, fire department

[56:11] recoveries, and that's whenever we um

[56:15] visit a scene if there's an event, as

[56:17] well as any type of support we provide

[56:20] for for wildfire would go into that

[56:21] category.

[56:24] You're welcome.

[56:26] Okay. Is there somebody who would like

[56:28] to make a motion here?

[56:34] Everybody speak up at once here.

[56:36] [laughter]

[56:37] Go ahead.

[56:38] >> I move option one

[56:41] >> that we approve the proposed fire

[56:44] department budget. Is are you seconding

[56:46] that? Are there any other questions,

[56:49] concerns? I will call a question. All in

[56:52] favor?

[56:54] Thank you very much, Mrs. Keith. That

[56:56] passed.

[56:58] All right. Next is Mr. Davis, who I'm

[57:03] assuming is Oh, you're going to do it

[57:06] for [laughter] Thanks, Sarah. Um, this

[57:09] is the resort municipality initiative

[57:11] amendment. Go ahead, please.

[57:13] >> Yeah. So, I'm bringing forward this

[57:15] report. Um, as you all know, um, as a

[57:19] little bit of an executive summary,

[57:21] we're bringing forward a change to the

[57:22] 2025 through 2027 resort development

[57:25] strategy. uh we have a three-year

[57:27] strategy in place and in that time we

[57:31] had a uh a budget item there of for a

[57:34] flag replacement which was for $10,000.

[57:37] Um in further investigation uh in the

[57:39] background we found that the town

[57:41] received funding uh a funding request.

[57:44] Oh, I'm sorry. Going back to the the

[57:46] actual flag replacement. So it includes

[57:49] this flag under further uh review. the

[57:51] flag cost got to be um exorbitant with

[57:54] that it wasn't our property and after

[57:56] further review the actual post to the

[57:59] flag was going to cost a lot more uh to

[58:01] repair it to make to stabilize a large

[58:03] flag. So this project hasn't really been

[58:06] able to go forward just given it is cost

[58:08] prohibitive. In the meantime, we did

[58:10] receive a funding request for $8,000 for

[58:13] fire and ice festival organization from

[58:15] organizers to help offset the cost of an

[58:17] outdoor concert to Gyro Park to be held

[58:20] on the Friday evening of November 27th,

[58:22] 28th, and 29th. The event organizing

[58:26] committee includes representatives from

[58:27] Spirit Ridge, Watermark Resort, Asoyas

[58:30] Art Council, the town of Aoyas, the

[58:31] Asoyus Museum, and the Asoyas Farmer

[58:33] Market, and Music in the Park. and the

[58:36] Asus Arts Council will serve as the

[58:38] league organizer for the funding

[58:39] application.

[58:41] So, we are just requesting we are able

[58:43] to move that $10,000 funding for the

[58:45] flag replacement to support this

[58:48] festival uh through our current

[58:50] development strategy and uh we have

[58:52] already checked in with the RMI

[58:54] community and uh they have no problem

[58:56] with us changing changing gears on this

[58:58] one project.

[59:00] >> Thank you very much. Thank you for

[59:02] looking into that. Um, anybody have any

[59:06] questions? Any concerns?

[59:10] » And it's been seconded by councelor

[59:12] Chong. All in favor?

[59:15] Thank you very much.

[59:18] Okay. Next is the uh Mrs. Coulson, the

[59:22] Asuous airport management agreement

[59:24] term.

[59:25] >> Thank you, your worship. Uh this is this

[59:27] is the final step in establishing an

[59:29] agreement between the town and the

[59:31] Isoyas airport development society or

[59:33] ODS uh to manage airport operations. Uh

[59:37] council heard uh from the former CEO in

[59:40] October 2025 when council approved

[59:42] entering into a one-year agreement for

[59:44] the management of the airport with ODS.

[59:46] U the execution of the uh agreement was

[59:49] postponed while ODS uh secured some

[59:52] documents that were required for the

[59:54] agreement. Um, so, uh, now that we're at

[59:57] the point a year later that we are

[1:00:00] wishing to execute the agreement, ODS is

[1:00:02] asking if they can have a 2-year rather

[1:00:04] than a one-year term. This will help

[1:00:06] them establish the services uh, more

[1:00:09] securely and uh, importantly, it g it

[1:00:13] places them well when they apply for a

[1:00:14] grant. They have a term long enough to

[1:00:17] be able to apply for the grant,

[1:00:18] hopefully get the grant, and complete

[1:00:20] the work that's grant funded. So, it is

[1:00:23] recommended that we approve um the

[1:00:26] two-year term for the agreement.

[1:00:29] >> Can I just ask a question? So, um it

[1:00:32] would be once we okay this or whatever

[1:00:35] we Okay, is this starting date is that

[1:00:38] date and it goes for two week two years

[1:00:40] after that. Thank you. Just wanted to

[1:00:42] check. Go ahead.

[1:00:44] >> I'm just going to move option one.

[1:00:47] >> Is there a seconder? Councelor King.

[1:00:51] Okay. Go ahead.

[1:00:52] >> Does it go back to 25 26 27 or we go 26

[1:00:56] 27 28?

[1:00:58] >> Uh it would be two years from the time

[1:00:59] we signed the agreements.

[1:01:01] >> Okay. So like moving forward now two

[1:01:03] more. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:01:05] >> Okay. Is there any other concerns about

[1:01:07] this? Um call question. All in favor?

[1:01:12] >> Thank you. That's carried.

[1:01:15] >> Um next water conservation plan update

[1:01:20] report.

[1:01:21] Um, Mrs. Coulson, thank you.

[1:01:23] >> Got my name on it. Um, but we're pleased

[1:01:25] to have our engineer, Steve Underwood

[1:01:27] from True Consulting with us today. And,

[1:01:30] um, Mr. Underwood is going to present

[1:01:33] council with a water conservation plan

[1:01:35] update.

[1:01:37] >> Thank you. Please go ahead, Steve.

[1:01:49] » Yeah. So, Um, last fall we prepared an

[1:01:52] update to the water conservation plan.

[1:01:55] Um, it's been in a draft form for too

[1:01:59] long and for so now we finally got it

[1:02:01] here today to uh present to council

[1:02:04] hopefully um have it endorsed. Having an

[1:02:07] endor a council endorsed water

[1:02:09] conservation plan is usually a

[1:02:11] requirement of grant funding

[1:02:13] applications. Um new requirements are

[1:02:16] also that these uh conservation plans

[1:02:19] contain actual targets like values that

[1:02:22] are measurable and that there's a method

[1:02:24] in which we um propose to report our

[1:02:27] compliance with them and or you know

[1:02:29] achieving our targets. So this new plan

[1:02:33] um while your last plan did have a

[1:02:34] target, we didn't really check in on it

[1:02:38] um very regularly or at all. Um and and

[1:02:42] so this plan actually gives you targets

[1:02:45] for the next for every 5 years for for

[1:02:48] moving forward for the next foreseeable

[1:02:50] future.

[1:02:53] The other big thing that this plan's

[1:02:54] going to do for you is inform the sizing

[1:02:57] of your water treatment plant project.

[1:03:00] Uh right now your water treatment plant

[1:03:02] is proposed to be a $51 million water

[1:03:07] treatment plant. That's without the

[1:03:08] intake. $65 million a width in intake,

[1:03:11] but the actual plant facility itself is

[1:03:13] 51 million and its capacity is 24.7

[1:03:17] megaliters per day.

[1:03:20] What we're proposing in this water

[1:03:22] conservation plan is that we reduce that

[1:03:25] number from 24 to 17 through

[1:03:29] conservation.

[1:03:31] And really the uh 54 or 51 million

[1:03:34] scales with with that. So that's like a

[1:03:36] 28% reduction in what in the size of the

[1:03:39] plant and it corresponds generally not

[1:03:43] exactly but to a 28% reduction in the

[1:03:46] cost of the plant. Um and really when we

[1:03:50] look at this this is MDD so that's

[1:03:51] maximum day demand. That is the plant

[1:03:54] has to be sized to be able to meet our

[1:03:56] maximum day demand every um day in the

[1:03:59] summer. Um, our current demand this year

[1:04:04] has peaked out at 14 MLDD. So, we're currently well under that number,

[1:04:09] but we're under some pretty serious

[1:04:11] restrictions. Since our new restrictions

[1:04:13] came in, we've actually dropped it down

[1:04:14] to 12 or 11 since August 1st. So, we're well under the numbers already

[1:04:21] with the measures that we put in place

[1:04:22] that we're proposing.

[1:04:25] But we're also proposing that as

[1:04:27] population grows that we continue to

[1:04:29] reduce our per capita demand.

[1:04:33] Right now um our 5year trailing average

[1:04:38] day demand so add is 1,044

[1:04:42] liters per capita per day. Um we we've

[1:04:46] chosen that as a metric for our targets

[1:04:50] mainly because most other jurisdictions

[1:04:53] report that as well. like we can go into

[1:04:55] everyone else's annual water reports and

[1:04:57] find out what their um annual average um

[1:05:01] daily demand is per capita. Um there's

[1:05:04] Canadian averages published, there's BC

[1:05:06] averages, there's lower mainland like

[1:05:08] the Canadian average is 320 liters per

[1:05:11] capita per day add. We're at,044.

[1:05:16] But our MDD is what's really important

[1:05:18] to us. Um for the last 20 years it's

[1:05:21] almost exactly at 2.4 44 multiplier for

[1:05:25] our ADD to MDD

[1:05:27] and it's been it's been that way every

[1:05:29] year. So we by targeting a reduction in

[1:05:32] ADD will see a a corresponding reduction

[1:05:36] in MDD and and MDD is actually what

[1:05:39] drives um the sizing of our plant. So

[1:05:42] managing MDD is most important to us but

[1:05:46] all the targets I tell you in here are

[1:05:48] actually add targets. Moving forward, we

[1:05:51] could come up with some goals to try and

[1:05:53] reduce that multiplier of 2.44. Um, but

[1:05:56] that that would achieve the same thing

[1:05:57] as trying to make our treatment plant

[1:05:59] smaller.

[1:06:01] Another note is that, you know, this

[1:06:03] plan targets, you know, water treatment

[1:06:06] plant size in the 17 range and our wells

[1:06:10] can provide 17.2. So, our it's kind of

[1:06:14] within the range of our current ability

[1:06:15] to supply water as well.

[1:06:20] Within the water conservation plan, um

[1:06:23] there's kind of like three different

[1:06:26] options that were analyzed for what we

[1:06:28] think growth could be and and what our

[1:06:32] um demand reduction could be. This graph

[1:06:34] is is of the recommended option, which

[1:06:37] is to assume that growth is going to be

[1:06:39] what the average growth has been in the

[1:06:40] Okonogan for the last 20 years, which is

[1:06:42] 1.3%.

[1:06:44] Um there's lots of other studies that

[1:06:45] have been done that use higher growth

[1:06:47] factors, but what we're trying to say is

[1:06:49] here's a realistic one. Like let's plan

[1:06:51] on a on actual numbers, not these two

[1:06:54] and three and 4% growth because they compound annually. And so it's a

[1:06:59] 1.3%

[1:07:00] growth um coupled with a 1.7%

[1:07:05] annual reduction in ADD. So what we're

[1:07:09] saying is every year people need to save

[1:07:12] 1.7% of their water uh from the last

[1:07:15] year and our demand will slowly drop

[1:07:19] kind of as this graph shows. Uh that's I

[1:07:22] guess the laser pointer there's a middle

[1:07:24] line there where you see an immediate

[1:07:25] drop of like 20% and then it goes flat.

[1:07:28] That's actually more likely what's going

[1:07:30] to happen as we start reading our

[1:07:31] meters. We're probably going to actually

[1:07:32] see a significant drop. will go below

[1:07:34] our current goals and we can report that we're below our goals and then we

[1:07:39] don't have to pull any other levers on

[1:07:41] conservation

[1:07:43] immediately. We just have to keep our

[1:07:45] eyes on our goals and know that you know

[1:07:47] we're well as we reapproach our uh

[1:07:50] future goals that we might have to pull

[1:07:51] other levers to to achieve them.

[1:07:59] This graph shows it on the MDD um chart.

[1:08:03] I'm going to flip to it because I'm

[1:08:05] having troubles reading those numbers.

[1:08:06] But uh you can see that uh our current

[1:08:10] MDD has has fluctuated you know previous

[1:08:13] to 2026

[1:08:15] somewhere between the high 14s and you

[1:08:19] know 17 or 18. Um and that's our

[1:08:22] historic MDD.

[1:08:24] it has trended down u even as we've

[1:08:28] grown our the trend line has been

[1:08:30] slightly down so things have been

[1:08:32] working uh we have been doing public

[1:08:34] education we have metered our major

[1:08:36] users we have done a lot of things over

[1:08:38] the years um moving forward we're going

[1:08:42] to see a a larger reduction with our new

[1:08:45] metering and and we now have really

[1:08:49] clear data on what's happening with our

[1:08:52] water we we know, frankly, who's using

[1:08:55] water every day of the week because we

[1:08:57] can we can record that if we want and we

[1:08:59] know who's complying with our irrigation

[1:09:01] restrictions and how many people aren't.

[1:09:04] Um we know um generally where all the

[1:09:08] water is going. um except

[1:09:12] when we look at you know how much we're

[1:09:14] reading and how much um how much we're

[1:09:17] pumping there is maybe between two and

[1:09:20] three megaliters a day that we haven't

[1:09:22] accounted for yet in our metering

[1:09:24] program. So that is something that it's

[1:09:26] another lever we can pull. we can try

[1:09:28] and look for it and and see what we can

[1:09:31] do to to explain that water, whether

[1:09:34] it's leakage or whether it's being used

[1:09:36] on unmetered services that may be town

[1:09:40] um properties that we hadn't uh or parks

[1:09:42] that we haven't metered yet. Um and so

[1:09:46] that is something that we can look at.

[1:09:48] But as we as we achieve these goals, the demand we're projecting the demand

[1:09:54] to actually drop over the next 20 years

[1:09:57] down into the 14 range and it may even

[1:09:59] be lower, like we may even get down to

[1:10:01] 12. Um and and then there'll be a limit

[1:10:05] where we our residents can't necessarily

[1:10:08] conserve more. Um there there won't be

[1:10:11] as it won't be as easy to dial back the

[1:10:14] lawn irrigation or change out fixtures

[1:10:16] or whatever. and and then the demand

[1:10:18] will start to increase as population

[1:10:20] goes up because these graphs show us

[1:10:23] going down till we hit that target which

[1:10:25] is in the water conservation plan of six

[1:10:27] an add of 600 L per capita per day and

[1:10:31] then once we get there we don't show any

[1:10:33] additional uh conservation past that so

[1:10:36] it does creep up and so by 2080

[1:10:40] the year 2080 if we use the you know the

[1:10:42] 1.3% growth model we hit a treatment

[1:10:46] plant design of 17.4

[1:10:49] um which is many years out like planning

[1:10:52] for a size of that is very reasonable

[1:10:55] and there will be growth obviously to

[1:10:58] trigger that 1.3% growth there'll be

[1:11:02] dcc's and stuff collected in that time

[1:11:04] that will pay for these plant

[1:11:05] expansions. So what we're proposing here

[1:11:08] is if we can adopt these targets that we

[1:11:11] can plan this plant for 50 years knowing

[1:11:15] that uh we only have to um build it to a

[1:11:18] 17 capacity.

[1:11:22] If the growth was 2%

[1:11:24] um you can see that it does go up to

[1:11:27] that 24 number which is the green line

[1:11:30] on this chart by uh by the year 2080. Um

[1:11:34] the original idea behind the 2.4 or 24

[1:11:38] megal liters a day plant sizing was no

[1:11:40] conservation. So like the the reason

[1:11:43] that number was chosen was assuming that

[1:11:45] we weren't capable of conserving

[1:11:47] anymore. But what we're now saying is we

[1:11:50] have to conserve. We have to drive this

[1:11:52] down to try and reduce the cost of this

[1:11:54] flat to make things affordable.

[1:12:00] So, our recommendations um out of this

[1:12:03] report um is that council endorse the

[1:12:07] [snorts] report and its recommendation

[1:12:09] to target um demand reduction in five

[1:12:13] year the five-year targets down to 600 L

[1:12:16] per capita ADD.

[1:12:19] Um we also recommend that you maintain

[1:12:23] your current

[1:12:24] um metered rate structure. If you have a

[1:12:26] metered rate structure, we want to

[1:12:29] recommend that you um you know

[1:12:31] transition your users to it and start

[1:12:33] charging volutrically based on

[1:12:35] consumption per your current uh rate

[1:12:38] structure.

[1:12:40] Um we have noticed lots of major water

[1:12:43] users and it sounds like um staff have

[1:12:46] already been investigating them. We can

[1:12:49] like I said we can read the data. We've

[1:12:51] been True has been reading your meter

[1:12:52] data daily. We've been tracking it daily

[1:12:55] by address to get an idea of of you know

[1:12:58] where and how our water is using and

[1:12:59] there is some major users out in normal

[1:13:03] neighborhoods. Um and so public work

[1:13:06] should visit them. Uh some of them are

[1:13:08] consuming 30 cubic meters a night. Like

[1:13:12] that's 30,000 liters in in one day. Um

[1:13:15] so we do need to figure out where that

[1:13:17] water is going. Could be the meters

[1:13:19] installed wrong. Like it doesn't mean

[1:13:20] they're actually doing it. uh we need to

[1:13:22] understand some of these anomalies and

[1:13:24] um and get to the bottom of them because

[1:13:28] um basically your top 100 users are

[1:13:31] using 25% of your water according to the

[1:13:33] data and so we need to get on those

[1:13:37] um

[1:13:40] as we move forward. I don't think we'll

[1:13:42] have to do much more than at the

[1:13:44] beginning than just start billing by

[1:13:46] metered rates. But there the re the

[1:13:49] report does recommend other levers you

[1:13:52] can pull by like giving rebates for

[1:13:54] irrigation controllers um you know

[1:13:57] different targeted rebate programs. We

[1:14:00] wouldn't propose to put anything in next

[1:14:01] year's budget or likely the year after's

[1:14:03] budget for any programs like that. That

[1:14:05] would be something that that staff could

[1:14:07] bring forward at a future date if we're

[1:14:09] trying to get to a goal and we just

[1:14:11] haven't been able to get there that we

[1:14:13] look at we analyze our data where our

[1:14:16] water is going and then try and choose

[1:14:18] programs that might uh be able to reduce

[1:14:20] those numbers down. But the most

[1:14:22] important recommendation here is that we

[1:14:25] report our progress annually. We're

[1:14:28] proposing to add a section to the at

[1:14:30] least the water annual water report that

[1:14:34] just is conservation where we revisit

[1:14:36] these targets. We check that we're um

[1:14:39] working towards them because if we're

[1:14:42] not our plant will not if and we build a

[1:14:44] plant down to 17 uh our plant won't be

[1:14:47] large enough to meet our growth

[1:14:48] projections. So we will either have to

[1:14:51] start um budgeting for a plant expansion

[1:14:54] or start reducing our demand. Um, so

[1:14:57] constantly looking back at these targets

[1:15:00] and where our progress is to them is the

[1:15:02] best thing that we can do and take them

[1:15:04] seriously. Once we've built a plant

[1:15:06] that's that this size, we will have to

[1:15:09] make sure we achieve this.

[1:15:14] » That concludes my report.

[1:15:16] >> Thank you, Steve. Um that was that was

[1:15:19] quite interesting to read the whole

[1:15:20] report and see where we can what we have

[1:15:23] done and what we can do and we don't

[1:15:25] know what we can do until we have the

[1:15:27] information and that's why water

[1:15:29] metering is so important because we do

[1:15:31] get that a lot more information now did

[1:15:34] that did they go through the same

[1:15:37] concerns when this was done in Oliver

[1:15:40] when they did it a while back where same

[1:15:42] size community sort mostly although we

[1:15:44] get a lot more visitors I think than

[1:15:46] they do that.

[1:15:47] >> Yeah. So Oliver saw a 40% reduction in

[1:15:52] water demand almost immediately with the

[1:15:55] installation of meters. Oliver at the

[1:15:57] same time had um their two largest wells

[1:16:00] become contaminated with uranium. and

[1:16:04] Oliver was able to simply turn them off

[1:16:06] and was able to supply water to their

[1:16:09] customers for many years with their two

[1:16:12] largest sources offline because of their

[1:16:14] metering that came in in '07.

[1:16:16] >> Wow.

[1:16:17] >> And they've kept it down. They've done a

[1:16:18] good job. They have had to add one new

[1:16:21] source since then to replace one of the

[1:16:23] two that have come down, but they are in

[1:16:25] a a really good supply situation. The

[1:16:28] other thing Oliver was able to do was

[1:16:31] defer a sewage treatment plant upgrade

[1:16:35] by 40 years with this. Again, the same

[1:16:38] reduction in water demand created a

[1:16:41] corresponding reduction in sewer demand

[1:16:44] and and made their current plant size

[1:16:48] reach, you know, 40 years beyond where

[1:16:51] it thought we thought it was going to be

[1:16:52] able to go.

[1:16:55] That's good to hear because um when when

[1:16:58] we always hear bad news and what's going

[1:17:01] wrong, it's nice to know that we there

[1:17:03] are things we can do to um to make this

[1:17:06] work well. Good. Thank you, Councelor

[1:17:08] King.

[1:17:08] >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam. I have two or

[1:17:10] three questions. One would be I think

[1:17:12] you should report every 6 months instead

[1:17:14] of a year because I think a year would

[1:17:16] be past what we might need to know. And

[1:17:19] I just want a clarity. You said maybe a

[1:17:21] 100 people consume 25% of the water. Who

[1:17:25] goes out and talks to them? I just

[1:17:26] wanted clarity on that.

[1:17:31] » Mark, do you have the answer to who's

[1:17:33] going?

[1:17:34] >> Yeah, we we've had people from our

[1:17:35] waterworks division go out as they have

[1:17:37] time. Uh starting with the top users

[1:17:40] that we can't explain where the water is

[1:17:41] going. They're they're just working

[1:17:43] through them kind of one address at a

[1:17:44] time. But also if they choose not to cut

[1:17:47] back, they just will pay a lot more.

[1:17:50] >> That will be the end result. Yes. But in

[1:17:53] the interim, they're ruling out, as Mr.

[1:17:55] Underwood said, the possibility of a

[1:17:57] malfunction in the meter. And if they

[1:17:59] talk to them and say, "Yes, we are using

[1:18:01] 30,000 LERs a night." Then we know

[1:18:04] there's no malfunction. It's their

[1:18:05] choice.

[1:18:06] >> I guess one last question. Can you

[1:18:08] explain to me the difference between a a

[1:18:11] portable water treatment plant and a

[1:18:14] portable W water filter system?

[1:18:17] >> I would say there's probably no

[1:18:19] difference. Like it I think that's just

[1:18:21] a terminology question, but a port a

[1:18:24] portable water treatment plant would

[1:18:26] just be something that's likely been

[1:18:28] containerized that we you could pick up

[1:18:30] and move. Um they're common in the

[1:18:33] mining camps up in the north. You would

[1:18:35] kind of order one from somewhere. The

[1:18:37] size of them aren't usually at the scale

[1:18:39] that we're talking here. We're not like

[1:18:42] uh when we talk 17 megaliters a day or

[1:18:44] 25 megaliters a day, you don't usually

[1:18:46] see a portable one that's that size,

[1:18:52] » councelor Chong.

[1:18:54] >> Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:18:56] Not going to try to hog the mic here,

[1:18:57] but um with the per capita calculation

[1:19:02] is the the population that's used for

[1:19:05] the denominator is that the 55 56

[1:19:08] population that's reported by census.

[1:19:11] >> Yeah. Um so it's it's plus the rural

[1:19:15] area. So it's it's so it's more like a

[1:19:18] 6,000 and something denominator. And I

[1:19:21] acknowledge it's not necessarily fair uh

[1:19:24] because of the tourist influx here. And

[1:19:26] so I I think we always have to keep that

[1:19:28] in mind that when I say your neighboring

[1:19:31] community has a per capita demand of

[1:19:33] 500, which some of your neighbors do,

[1:19:35] and you're at a thousand, um you're also talking about the water

[1:19:42] consumption that comes from um your

[1:19:44] tourist population. So your residents

[1:19:46] are being punished by saying you know

[1:19:49] their demand is it the tourist demand is

[1:19:51] on to your 6,000 residents.

[1:19:54] Then to get higher resolution data

[1:19:57] there's we can differentiate the meter

[1:20:01] data based on the size of the meter. So

[1:20:06] most residences are I forgot the the

[1:20:08] width but we can just parse data from

[1:20:10] them and but also see what stratas or

[1:20:14] hotels and motel are also using right

[1:20:16] >> yeah so one way easy way to sort our

[1:20:18] data is by meter size so we can sort it

[1:20:21] by 3/4 in andor 5/8 meters and see what

[1:20:26] that generally represents our residents

[1:20:28] so we can see what they're using and we

[1:20:30] can totalize that easily and yes each

[1:20:33] address so strata uh you know has a

[1:20:35] number of units associated with it. So

[1:20:37] we do know which ones are stratas and

[1:20:39] how much the individual stratas are

[1:20:41] using kind of per unit but we don't know

[1:20:42] how much has been used in the individual

[1:20:44] units because we just measure the strata

[1:20:45] at the property line. So, since we've

[1:20:49] been collecting data, excuse

[1:20:50] [clears throat] me, since the uh the

[1:20:52] water meters are installed, is there a

[1:20:55] better way to kind of calculate what our

[1:20:57] per capita usage is based on the meter

[1:21:00] size, which mostly

[1:21:03] pertains to residential and there's some

[1:21:05] commercial in there as well, right?

[1:21:09] >> Yeah. So, and it comes down to the

[1:21:11] target like the target is just an add um

[1:21:14] that is a simple calculation. Um but

[1:21:17] yes, we could do high resolution

[1:21:20] um data crunching for you to say what

[1:21:22] our residents are actually using, but

[1:21:25] the people we're benchmarking ourselves

[1:21:27] against like the city of Pentictton

[1:21:29] aren't doing that, right? So their

[1:21:31] number I think last year was 585 liters

[1:21:33] per capita per day um that they have a

[1:21:37] similar tourist influx. Maybe not as but

[1:21:41] we'd have to like see what the

[1:21:42] comparison is but they've have managed

[1:21:44] to get their number significantly lower

[1:21:47] than you've managed to get your number

[1:21:48] and and and the reason we've chosen that

[1:21:50] add is is more just that benchmarking

[1:21:52] between uh us and and like the Canadian

[1:21:55] average which is 320.

[1:22:01] » Um thank you water counselors. Any

[1:22:04] concerns questions from you guys? Okay.

[1:22:07] I've just wondered. Um, so what we're um

[1:22:11] what the recommended motion is that we

[1:22:14] adopt the 2025 water conservation plan

[1:22:16] update um and direct staff to begin

[1:22:20] researching the implementation of the

[1:22:22] strategies incorporating the future capital and operational work

[1:22:27] plans for the town of Isuyas. Is there

[1:22:29] somebody

[1:22:31] >> Thank you. seconded. It's been moved and

[1:22:34] seconded.

[1:22:35] Absolutely. Go ahead.

[1:22:37] >> Thank you. [clears throat] Is there an

[1:22:39] opportunity to do to obviously want to

[1:22:42] start with education? Um is there a

[1:22:45] possibility to do a quarterly like

[1:22:48] billing mock cycle if we were to use our

[1:22:50] current fee structure just to show the average household like this is what

[1:22:56] it would cost

[1:22:58] according to and this is how much you

[1:23:00] you've used. Just so that it gives them

[1:23:02] some context.

[1:23:08] Yes, we we trying to figure out how to

[1:23:10] word this properly. Um, so we do have

[1:23:12] the water consumption and of course you

[1:23:13] saw that we have implemented the portal

[1:23:15] which allows uh our 360 portal allows

[1:23:17] people and residents to sign up see

[1:23:19] their cons their consumption in real

[1:23:21] time. Um we any type of questions we do

[1:23:24] get we have um put out kind of

[1:23:26] communication through our um e-news and

[1:23:29] website of what the rates currently are

[1:23:32] today uh based on if it were metered and

[1:23:35] given them kind of like a calculation

[1:23:37] matrix like take your base plus your per cap you know your per per cubic

[1:23:42] meter per the price and that's what your

[1:23:45] bill would be. Um we have not been in a

[1:23:48] position to do mock billing although

[1:23:49] that had been discussed just given um we

[1:23:53] are still haven't completed the whole

[1:23:55] phase of installation of of meters. We

[1:23:57] still have a few out there and we're

[1:23:59] still working and troubleshooting

[1:24:00] through a couple other issues with the

[1:24:02] meters but um um yeah over overall we we

[1:24:07] can highlight it I guess more on a

[1:24:09] website more of a general this is a

[1:24:11] formula to calculate it if that kind of

[1:24:14] answers your question.

[1:24:17] So, um I think one of the things on our

[1:24:19] website when you go on right away is the

[1:24:21] water advisory and there's quite a lot

[1:24:23] of of information on it um right right

[1:24:26] away that you can get. I think maybe we

[1:24:29] need to do something similar to put on

[1:24:32] the website uh about water conservation.

[1:24:36] And I know it it I mean this is a big

[1:24:38] report that we've got, but if we could

[1:24:41] have something that would give a a two

[1:24:44] or three pager on on what we're talking

[1:24:48] about here, it's a lot to absorb. I

[1:24:50] think that would be helpful and it's

[1:24:51] something we could direct people who are

[1:24:54] concerned to go and and read.

[1:24:58] >> Yes. Go ahead.

[1:24:58] >> Yes. And I think it would be important

[1:25:00] to try to encourage more people to sign

[1:25:02] up to my 360. I've been going on regular

[1:25:05] and looking at it and it's quite

[1:25:07] interesting. It's really simple to use.

[1:25:09] You only really got to push a couple

[1:25:11] buttons after you've logged on. So, you

[1:25:13] can see your own consumption and I think

[1:25:16] a lot of people be happy and maybe

[1:25:17] there'll be a few people unhappy but it

[1:25:19] is quite accurate on reading your own

[1:25:22] meter. It's kind of exciting to do that.

[1:25:24] >> We have launched um when we launched the

[1:25:27] program, we did put out a various

[1:25:29] different e-newses and on our Facebook

[1:25:31] and on the website here's instructions

[1:25:32] on how to do it. We we help people here

[1:25:35] in the office. If they come to the front

[1:25:36] desk, we'll help sign them up for it. Um

[1:25:39] and then on this latest quarterly

[1:25:42] billing, we did put a section right on

[1:25:44] the bottom that we do encourage you to

[1:25:46] see your, you know, to sign up so you

[1:25:47] can see your daily consumption.

[1:25:51] >> Question.

[1:25:52] >> Thank you to you and through you

[1:25:54] director Keith. Do we know roughly how

[1:25:56] many we've had um register or subscribe

[1:25:59] to that data?

[1:26:00] >> I think we're up to over 200 now.

[1:26:03] >> Thank you. Yeah.

[1:26:05] >> Okay. So, we have had a mover and a

[1:26:08] seconder on the recommended motion. Um I will call for the question. All in

[1:26:14] favor?

[1:26:16] Thank you. And that was unanimous. All

[1:26:18] seven. Thank you very much.

[1:26:30] Steve, for um

[1:26:32] providing that for us. Next, we're going

[1:26:35] on to bylaws. Uh zoning amendment um

[1:26:38] bylaw. Um yeah, zoning bylaw amendment

[1:26:42] for 28 Empire Street. Is that Miss Dwong

[1:26:45] again? Good. Thank you, Miss Dwong. Go

[1:26:47] ahead, please.

[1:26:49] >> We'll do. And I do have a quick

[1:26:51] presentation for this one.

[1:26:54] Mhm. [clears throat]

[1:26:56] >> And

[1:26:57] see,

[1:26:59] and is the slide coming up on your side?

[1:27:02] >> Yes, we can see it. Thank you.

[1:27:05] >> All right, perfect. So, uh just a quick

[1:27:06] heads up on this one. I am presenting uh

[1:27:09] the overview of this application,

[1:27:11] although um I do have Colin Martin also

[1:27:13] with me in the room, um who is the file

[1:27:16] manager for this application, just in

[1:27:17] case any questions come up at the end.

[1:27:19] Um but with that, I'll just go ahead and

[1:27:21] get started.

[1:27:22] So, this is a zoning uh bylaw amendment

[1:27:25] application for the property at 28

[1:27:27] Empire Street. The OCP designation that

[1:27:30] applies to this property is industrial

[1:27:32] and it has a corresponding zoning of

[1:27:34] general industrial. The parcel is just

[1:27:37] over 4,000 square meters in size and is

[1:27:39] currently understood to contain an auto

[1:27:42] body shop as well as an automotive

[1:27:44] museum.

[1:27:46] So the automotive museum is actually the

[1:27:48] subject of this resoning application as

[1:27:50] the applicant is proposing to operate an

[1:27:52] indoor automotive tourist uh attraction

[1:27:55] uh being the desert speed heritage

[1:27:57] museum at the subject property. It is

[1:27:59] understood that the museum is currently

[1:28:01] operating.

[1:28:03] the general industrial or I1 zone and

[1:28:05] that applies to this property is

[1:28:07] intended to support a variety of

[1:28:08] industrial uses and that includes um

[1:28:11] various uses um including but not

[1:28:13] limited to construction supply center

[1:28:15] manufacturing salvage operation service

[1:28:18] industry establishment and vehicle sales

[1:28:20] and rental. Now um museums um are

[1:28:24] actually not permitted within the zone.

[1:28:25] So despite being um currently in

[1:28:28] operation, this is not an outright

[1:28:29] permitted use within the I1 zone and

[1:28:31] they're actually only permitted within

[1:28:33] the administrative and institutional and

[1:28:35] town center zones throughout the town.

[1:28:39] As such, the applicant is requesting to

[1:28:40] amend the zoning of the applica of the

[1:28:42] property under the town's uh zoning

[1:28:44] bylaw uh from general industrial to

[1:28:47] general industrial site specific in

[1:28:48] order to allow cultural facility as a

[1:28:51] permitted principal use and specifically

[1:28:53] that that be in the form of a museum.

[1:28:57] Now, in considering this proposal, staff

[1:28:59] do note that industrial lands within the

[1:29:00] town are limited to those lands in the

[1:29:03] uh Buenov Vista Industrial Park, which

[1:29:05] is located at the northwest corner of

[1:29:07] the town. expansion of these lands is

[1:29:09] greatly limited by uh just its location

[1:29:12] uh specifically jurisdictional

[1:29:14] boundaries as it's located right at the

[1:29:16] border of the town and electoral area A

[1:29:18] of the RDOS. It's also bounded by

[1:29:21] existing industrial and non-industrial

[1:29:22] development as well as competing land

[1:29:24] uses such as those lands that are

[1:29:25] located to the south uh which are

[1:29:28] designated under the OCP for

[1:29:29] environmental conservation purposes.

[1:29:33] >> [snorts]

[1:29:33] >> Now, the OCP sets out intended use uh

[1:29:36] the intended use of industrial lands as

[1:29:38] being to support light and heavy

[1:29:40] industrial uses and this is reflected in

[1:29:42] the town's zoning bylaw by way of

[1:29:44] permitted uses within the general

[1:29:45] industrial zone. Now, general industrial

[1:29:48] uses uh or non-industrial uses are those

[1:29:51] which are typically not seen to be

[1:29:52] compatible with industrial uses are not

[1:29:54] permitted within this zone and would

[1:29:56] otherwise require the discretionary

[1:29:58] approval on a case-byase basis through a

[1:30:00] reszoning process just like this one.

[1:30:02] Now, in these instances, council can

[1:30:03] assess whether a proposed use is

[1:30:05] appropriate within the context of the

[1:30:06] industrial designation and whether it's

[1:30:09] an effective use of land uh in the

[1:30:11] industrial area.

[1:30:14] So, in this particular case, the request

[1:30:16] is understood to allow an automotive

[1:30:18] museum in addition to all other uses

[1:30:20] which would normally be permitted within

[1:30:21] the I1 zone. So in this regard, the

[1:30:23] property owner would be maintaining

[1:30:25] their ability to undertake all other

[1:30:26] forms of industrial uses which are

[1:30:28] currently permitted in the I1 zone even

[1:30:30] if the reszoning is approved.

[1:30:33] Additionally, the museum is focused on

[1:30:34] automobiles and relates to an existing

[1:30:36] principal auto body shop at the property

[1:30:38] which would reduce the overall

[1:30:40] likelihood that users would be affected

[1:30:41] by any typical negative impacts of being

[1:30:43] near industrial sites uh such as

[1:30:45] nuisances like noise and air quality. As

[1:30:48] such, we do see that the proposal is

[1:30:50] generally seen to be compatible with the

[1:30:52] existing industrial use of the property

[1:30:54] and wouldn't be hindering its use for

[1:30:56] industrial purposes into the future.

[1:30:59] We do also recognize that as a resort

[1:31:02] municipality, the town does face unique

[1:31:04] challenges um with respect to how it can

[1:31:07] balance year-round businesses with

[1:31:08] tourism priorities. The OCP does contain

[1:31:11] supportive policy which encourages the

[1:31:13] expansion of the attractiveness of the

[1:31:15] town year round and prioritizes

[1:31:17] attracting new businesses. But it is

[1:31:19] also recognized that of course uh there

[1:31:21] is limited industrial land and the OCP

[1:31:24] then supports um the infill and

[1:31:26] redevelopment of underutilized

[1:31:28] industrial uh properties. In response to

[1:31:31] this, as the proposal is seen to provide

[1:31:34] for an indoor year-round attraction, u

[1:31:36] it does appear to be consistent with the

[1:31:38] town's priority to support year-round

[1:31:40] tourism and a year-round economy.

[1:31:43] On the other hand, and as mentioned,

[1:31:45] industrial lands within the town are

[1:31:46] very limited, and there may be more

[1:31:48] appropriate locations to site and

[1:31:50] operate a museum. As mentioned, cultural

[1:31:52] facilities are typically found within

[1:31:54] the administrative and institutional

[1:31:55] zone where they're permitted outright.

[1:31:57] But these lands are also very limited

[1:31:58] and are generally already occupied by

[1:32:00] existing uses, which makes it quite

[1:32:02] challenging to identify other suitable

[1:32:04] administrative and institutional lands

[1:32:06] for the proposed use. Uh that being said

[1:32:08] though, the applicant may have

[1:32:10] opportunities to identify town center

[1:32:12] zone lands within the downtown core,

[1:32:13] which could also permit uh cultural

[1:32:16] facilities as well.

[1:32:18] So, at this time, we are uh requesting

[1:32:20] council's direction with respect to the

[1:32:22] proposed bylaw amendment and further

[1:32:24] reasons uh provided. We are um

[1:32:26] recommending that the amendment bylaw be

[1:32:28] read a first and second time and proceed

[1:32:30] to public hearing on September 8th uh

[1:32:32] 2026. Um should the reasonzoning be

[1:32:35] successful if council supportive of it,

[1:32:36] a change of use permit may be required.

[1:32:38] Um and improvements may also be required

[1:32:40] to satisfy BC building code

[1:32:42] requirements. Thank you.

[1:32:45] >> Thank you very much, Miss Dwang. I

[1:32:47] appreciate that. Go ahead, Council.

[1:32:49] >> Great presentation. Thank you very much.

[1:32:51] I'll move option one

[1:32:54] >> and it's been seconded

[1:32:57] and yes, go ahead for a question. Yeah,

[1:33:00] >> thank you. You too, Mr. Um, does the um

[1:33:04] zoning by amendment does that uh change

[1:33:06] the parking requirements for the

[1:33:07] property? Would those stay the same?

[1:33:12] Um it would the use itself is what

[1:33:16] triggers the parking requirements. So

[1:33:17] that's not altering parking requirements

[1:33:19] at the site. Um cultural facilities have

[1:33:21] their own parking requirements under the

[1:33:23] zoning bylaw and those would need to be

[1:33:24] met um in order for the use to take

[1:33:26] place.

[1:33:27] >> Thank you.

[1:33:29] >> Okay. So, it's for uh it's the the

[1:33:33] entire recommendation that that be read

[1:33:36] a first and second time and that there

[1:33:38] be a a scheduled um uh open public

[1:33:41] meeting public hearing on September the

[1:33:43] 8th and that staff give notice to the

[1:33:46] public hearing in accordance with the

[1:33:48] recommendations. That's what we're

[1:33:49] voting on. All right. All in favor

[1:33:52] against? No. Thank you very much. That

[1:33:55] car

[1:34:08] Sorry, we will now have um a chief

[1:34:12] administrative officer report. This is

[1:34:17] >> uh in community services, the park

[1:34:19] benches and picnic tables have been

[1:34:21] ordered for Metoark Park and

[1:34:23] Playgrounds, which good news for lots of

[1:34:25] people. and the outdoor uh fitness

[1:34:27] equipment has been ordered as well. The

[1:34:29] cactus kids day camp is slowly winding

[1:34:32] down. The leaders have done a great job

[1:34:33] in entertaining the kids despite not

[1:34:35] being able to go outside due to the

[1:34:37] smoke. And the last day of camp is on

[1:34:39] August 21st. Fall program planning is

[1:34:43] underway and staff are looking to put in

[1:34:45] new programs in response to the program

[1:34:47] survey that was online and many of our

[1:34:50] residents responded to. At Sun Bowl, ice

[1:34:53] times are filling up with both scheduled

[1:34:55] hockey events and with private users. In

[1:34:59] corporate services, the front counter

[1:35:00] staff are fielding calls as Miss Keith

[1:35:03] mentioned uh about setting up the My 360

[1:35:07] online water monitoring app. And uh as

[1:35:11] we also mentioned, there is been about

[1:35:13] 200 residents register for the free

[1:35:15] service already. Bylaw officers are w

[1:35:18] issuing watering tickets now and

[1:35:20] following up on boats and sidus that

[1:35:22] have been parked on the town's beaches.

[1:35:25] Parking tickets were suspended during

[1:35:27] the period of time of some fire evacuees

[1:35:30] being in town. Um they were taking

[1:35:32] refuge on our street. So we suspended

[1:35:34] all parking tickets for the for that

[1:35:36] period of time.

[1:35:38] Uh preparations for the election are

[1:35:40] well underway now with the development

[1:35:41] of forms and the assembly of mail ballot

[1:35:44] packages minus the ballot of course and

[1:35:47] uh initial testing of the automated vote

[1:35:49] counting machines. Uh I want to

[1:35:51] highlight the fact that nominations for

[1:35:53] candidacy uh in the upcoming election

[1:35:56] will be formally accepted between the

[1:35:59] statutory dates and times of September

[1:36:01] 1st at 9:00 a.m. and September 11th at

[1:36:04] 400 p.m. Anyone considering running in

[1:36:07] the election must submit those forms to

[1:36:10] the chief election officer Amy Robinson

[1:36:12] or her designate between those times for

[1:36:15] their names to appear on the ballot.

[1:36:17] Also for those who may be considering

[1:36:19] candid candidacies but wish to know more

[1:36:22] uh please feel free to come into the

[1:36:23] municipal office talk to the election

[1:36:25] officers or to any of the current

[1:36:27] elected officials whether it be in a

[1:36:29] Soyas or another jurisdiction. We really

[1:36:31] recommend firsttime candidates to have a

[1:36:34] full understanding of what it's like to

[1:36:35] be an elected official. Um, there's also

[1:36:38] a number of great videos that were

[1:36:40] produced by the province of BC on the

[1:36:42] town's website under 2006 election and

[1:36:45] information for candidates that walk

[1:36:47] through all the aspects of being an

[1:36:49] elected official. In the communications

[1:36:51] area, uh, on Facebook, we now have 94

[1:36:55] followers and there have been 30 posts

[1:36:58] since the last update and 35,000 page

[1:37:01] views. uh websites had 28,000 views

[1:37:04] since the last report and our parking

[1:37:08] survey results are live and online on

[1:37:11] that survey page. If anybody hasn't had

[1:37:13] a look at them, we had over 600

[1:37:16] responses and lots and lots of great

[1:37:19] feedback.

[1:37:21] Uh the water conservation survey has

[1:37:24] just closed, so those results will be up

[1:37:26] shortly and there was over 200 responses

[1:37:28] to that. In the planning and development

[1:37:31] services, business licenses issued since

[1:37:33] the last update are the Palmus Kitchen

[1:37:36] and Bar at the Holiday Inn, Oracle Real

[1:37:38] Realy, which is home occupation, LS

[1:37:41] Sports and Entertainment for the Isoyas

[1:37:43] Coyotes, and a numbered company uh

[1:37:47] 2179639

[1:37:49] Alberta, which is a home occupation for

[1:37:51] painting. Six residential building

[1:37:54] permits were issued during the month of

[1:37:55] July in the amount of $1,460,000.

[1:38:00] Uh the building official has posted two

[1:38:02] stop work orders on residential

[1:38:04] properties that were either building or

[1:38:06] renovating without permits. The planning

[1:38:09] department also issued three preliminary

[1:38:11] layout reviews uh for sub subdivision

[1:38:14] applicants. So things are really ramping

[1:38:16] up in the in the planning area. Finally,

[1:38:18] for planning, we did get confirmation

[1:38:20] from the ALC that they have received our

[1:38:22] application for the block exclusion and

[1:38:25] they have cautioned us that they are

[1:38:26] facing staffing shortages. So, they're

[1:38:29] um they anticipate there will be delays

[1:38:31] in processing that for financial

[1:38:34] services. Quarter 3 utilities billings

[1:38:36] were issued on August 14th and the bills

[1:38:39] will show water consumption for um for

[1:38:43] clients information only. The town

[1:38:46] continues to encourage residents to sign

[1:38:48] up for my 360 in order to have that

[1:38:50] real-time water consumption information

[1:38:53] and uh they can go to either a soyc.ca

[1:38:57] there's step-by-step instructions or

[1:38:59] call the town office or come in for

[1:39:01] assistance in signing up. 2027 budget

[1:39:05] planning is underway with the fire

[1:39:06] department and sunbo budgets coming

[1:39:08] forward to council for the August and

[1:39:10] September meetings respectively. fire

[1:39:13] department. Over the first six months of

[1:39:16] the year, Soy Fire Department responded

[1:39:18] to 34% fewer calls for service than over

[1:39:21] the same period of time last year. But

[1:39:23] it's important to note that when

[1:39:25] comparing July, just the one month of

[1:39:28] July, 2026 to 25, the calls have

[1:39:31] increased by 20%. So it's it's variable.

[1:39:35] uh town the autonomous waste fire

[1:39:37] department has been assisting

[1:39:39] firefighting efforts throughout the

[1:39:40] region from August 7th to the 16th. The

[1:39:44] fire department worked alongside other

[1:39:45] fire departments from across the

[1:39:47] province in protecting the town of

[1:39:48] Summerland. The fire department has also

[1:39:51] provided standby coverage to the BC

[1:39:53] Wildfire Service for the Southern

[1:39:55] Okonogan for the past two weeks. This

[1:39:57] week, the fire department anticipates

[1:40:00] receiving a shipment of face coverings

[1:40:02] from the Canadian Red Cross to assist

[1:40:04] people in the community that are feeling

[1:40:06] the impacts of the smoke. These

[1:40:08] coverings will be distributed throughout

[1:40:09] the community for both visitors and

[1:40:11] residents free of charge.

[1:40:14] Finally, in operational services, public

[1:40:16] works department has received the

[1:40:18] replacement fountain pump. We've noticed

[1:40:20] our our down at Pioneer Walkway, the the

[1:40:24] fountain is not working right now. Um we

[1:40:27] will be installing the new pump in the

[1:40:28] fall. Quail place capital works are

[1:40:31] complete and phase one of the 89th

[1:40:32] Street construction is uh paved and um

[1:40:35] nearing completion. Uh director of

[1:40:39] operations Tyler Madison Madson, I'm

[1:40:42] sorry, has left his position with the town to take a position as CEO in

[1:40:47] Liilowette. So we wish him all the best

[1:40:49] in his new job. And we're very pleased

[1:40:51] to have Deputy Director of Operational

[1:40:54] Services, Jill Abney, acting as

[1:40:56] director.

[1:41:04] » Thank you, Risha. Thank you very much.

[1:41:07] And thank you, Jill, for stepping in.

[1:41:09] Appreciate it. Um,

[1:41:11] >> did you have a question? Sure.

[1:41:12] >> Just one question. Has the town received

[1:41:14] any update if the musical right is

[1:41:16] moving forward this Saturday or has it

[1:41:18] been cancelled?

[1:41:20] As far as I know, it's it's uh it's

[1:41:22] still scheduled to

[1:41:23] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:41:25] >> And it's Sunday,

[1:41:26] >> not Saturday.

[1:41:28] >> But [laughter]

[1:41:30] [gasps] okay. Um can we go to council?

[1:41:34] Oh, we need to receive the CEO report

[1:41:37] for information, please. Thank you,

[1:41:39] Councelor Puerto Rica. Councelor King.

[1:41:40] All in favor? Thank you. Okay, councelor

[1:41:44] King, you're next. Yeah, not too much to

[1:41:46] report other than I guess people might

[1:41:48] know my wife he ordered her back. So now

[1:41:50] I become the chief cook and bottle

[1:41:52] washer.

[1:41:54] >> Do you make cookies too?

[1:41:56] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[1:41:59] » Good. Okay. Thank you, Councelor

[1:42:01] Bennett.

[1:42:03] >> I have nothing to report for this

[1:42:05] meeting. Thank you,

[1:42:08] >> Councelor Chong.

[1:42:11] >> I have something to report.

[1:42:12] >> Oh.

[1:42:14] Uh oh. What did you win?

[1:42:16] >> A so every year Assus and in Assus Golf

[1:42:20] Club and Incom Golf Club play against

[1:42:22] each other for the Ryder Cup and I'm

[1:42:24] happy to announce that Assus has won two

[1:42:27] years in a row. [gasps]

[1:42:29] So just wanted to gloat a bit. So thank

[1:42:32] you to all the staff from both Inkam

[1:42:34] Golf Course and Assus Golf Club for all

[1:42:37] the hard work they do. And uh also thank

[1:42:40] you head pro Matt for the pity pick of

[1:42:43] me for being on the team.

[1:42:48] » Terrific. Thank you councelor Potter

[1:42:50] Rica.

[1:42:51] >> Uh worship no trophies this week but uh on July 29th attended yourself. Um

[1:42:57] the um Suz Center had the official

[1:43:01] ribbon cutting and unveiling of their

[1:43:02] new accessible washroom project uh which

[1:43:05] has added two uh fully wheelchair

[1:43:06] accessible uh washroom stalls um to

[1:43:10] their uh center. Uh a great addition

[1:43:12] there obviously um as part of the

[1:43:15] accessibility improvements have been

[1:43:16] made over the last couple years uh to

[1:43:18] the property uh allowing uh more

[1:43:20] visitors um easier access to the

[1:43:22] property. And aside from that, just some

[1:43:24] meetings with I've had some recent

[1:43:25] meetings with regards to the fire and

[1:43:26] ice festival uh currently planned for uh

[1:43:29] later this year. And that's my report.

[1:43:33] >> Thank you. So um yeah, I have a couple

[1:43:36] things. Um one, I was also at the Desert

[1:43:39] Center um opening of the of the very

[1:43:44] nice washrooms which used to be at 7710,

[1:43:48] our property. uh and um it was well

[1:43:52] attended and despite the fact there was

[1:43:55] smoke um it was um there were quite a

[1:43:58] few people there so appreciate being

[1:44:00] invited to that. Um I've been on several

[1:44:03] RDOS meetings, regional district

[1:44:06] meetings. Um I do get updates

[1:44:10] two or three times a day on fire issues

[1:44:13] in the regional district and I know that

[1:44:16] there that certainly that's available on

[1:44:19] all the news media. So including um uh

[1:44:23] updates from our fire chief as well on

[1:44:26] not necessarily the ones uh close to

[1:44:30] Summerland but mostly the ones across

[1:44:32] the line that we're still dealing with.

[1:44:34] them and we seem to have a few more. So,

[1:44:37] that's been a lot. Um, recently um I

[1:44:42] have also been on EMCR, that's emergency

[1:44:45] management, climate readiness meetings

[1:44:48] um uh probably every two weeks,

[1:44:52] sometimes it's every week, just updates

[1:44:55] on um the river forecast, the wildfires,

[1:45:00] and how many um how many there are and

[1:45:03] where they are. And that information is

[1:45:05] pretty available to everybody too. But I

[1:45:07] do attend those ones. Um the the meeting

[1:45:11] that we had um here um we had an an

[1:45:16] invitation from uh Walrus, the water uh

[1:45:20] land and resource stewardship um

[1:45:23] minister to um attend a meeting in

[1:45:27] Assuyas and uh talk to um us about um

[1:45:32] some of the big concerns that they that

[1:45:35] they had were drought um and drought

[1:45:38] preparation.

[1:45:40] and response. Um and also um agriculture

[1:45:45] was another one of their issues that

[1:45:48] they wanted to talk about and also um

[1:45:51] their uh department have also taken on

[1:45:53] zebra kaga muscles. So they they know

[1:45:57] that um that I have been involved with

[1:46:00] that for many years with Okonogan Basin

[1:46:03] Water Board and the Okonogan Basin Water

[1:46:05] Board um three of them from uh attended

[1:46:08] the meeting as well. So um uh Mrs.

[1:46:12] Coulson very kindly put out some water

[1:46:16] resource management briefing um notes

[1:46:19] and I have some here for council um for

[1:46:22] them to um to have a look at. um she was

[1:46:26] here and her staff for um an hour and a

[1:46:30] half or so and we had a good

[1:46:32] conversation about about water issues

[1:46:35] and what we're doing um in the town of

[1:46:38] Asuyus to help things and of course

[1:46:41] Okonogan Basin Water Board also um gave

[1:46:44] the gave some information for that one.

[1:46:47] Um I know that it was mentioned this

[1:46:49] morning the [clears throat] Etsy BC

[1:46:51] grant that um destination is Suya Scott.

[1:46:56] Um the new grant application time is

[1:46:59] September 1st to October the 8th 2026.

[1:47:03] So that goes for everybody in the

[1:47:05] Thompson Okonogan and the Columbia

[1:47:08] Coupney region to apply for grants. I

[1:47:11] can provide information on that, but

[1:47:13] there's a lot of information online as

[1:47:15] well. Of course, we've been dealing with

[1:47:18] a lot of of um of water issues um not

[1:47:22] only in the town, but u reducing our our

[1:47:26] um water down to one day a week. It's I

[1:47:30] think it's it's made quite a difference

[1:47:33] to people to think, how am I going to do

[1:47:36] this? Um because you can only water your

[1:47:39] lawns. um once a week. But I do know

[1:47:42] that um Sigree Kendrick, who is the

[1:47:46] Okonogan Zeroscape Association

[1:47:49] um executive director, has pointed out

[1:47:52] that do handwatering

[1:47:55] um with your plants because save those.

[1:47:58] They if your lawn goes golden, that will

[1:48:01] come back at some point. But um make

[1:48:03] sure that you hand water. So, in the

[1:48:05] morning, I've got my bucket and I'm out

[1:48:08] watering my plants and my couple of

[1:48:10] tomato plants. So, um we certainly

[1:48:12] recommend that people take it seriously

[1:48:15] and remember we had um suggested at the

[1:48:19] last meeting that if anybody had any

[1:48:22] good ideas on how to um save water or um

[1:48:26] they should come up with it. So, a

[1:48:28] friend of mine said to me, you know,

[1:48:30] when I get in the shower in the morning,

[1:48:33] I have a bucket in there because I'm not

[1:48:36] ready to step into the shower until it's

[1:48:38] warm enough to get into. So, I save that uh water in your in my bucket and I

[1:48:45] then take it out after. And I thought,

[1:48:47] "Wow, I hadn't thought of that one, but

[1:48:49] that's a good one." I think that the

[1:48:51] other thing is better uses of gray

[1:48:54] water. And we we probably need to put

[1:48:57] that into um into our thinking as well.

[1:49:00] And having rain barrels and I know we've

[1:49:03] had no rain, but um occasionally when we

[1:49:06] do get um uh rain, it's quite easy to

[1:49:10] collect um stuff in a rain barrel. So

[1:49:12] those are all ideas that we need to come

[1:49:15] up with. And um and the other thing that

[1:49:18] I want to mention is the rolling barrage

[1:49:22] which is a coast to coast ride

[1:49:24] motorcyclists um they're come across

[1:49:27] Canada. It's the 10th annual and they're

[1:49:29] coming to combat uh PTSD and they're

[1:49:33] coming through OSUS on Friday afternoon.

[1:49:37] That's the 21st from 4:00 till 5:15 I

[1:49:42] believe. and they're going to be at what

[1:49:44] I call the husky um the co-op up beside

[1:49:48] the visitors center and um they have

[1:49:52] asked that anybody who would like to

[1:49:54] come out and support them uh please do

[1:49:57] so. So council, if I will certainly be

[1:50:00] there, if any of you want to um to join

[1:50:04] and come out and support these people,

[1:50:06] there are then on their way to Princeton

[1:50:09] and then to Vancouver. But um this is

[1:50:12] being handled by um our fire chief uh

[1:50:15] Chief Cook. And I'm just wondering if

[1:50:17] you could give us a little bit more

[1:50:19] information on this, please.

[1:50:22] >> Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. Actually, you uh you touched on many of the uh the

[1:50:26] main points uh with this ride coming

[1:50:28] through town. Uh what I can add is that

[1:50:31] it's estimated between 150 to 200

[1:50:33] motorcyclists will be entering town on

[1:50:35] along Highway 3 from the east. Uh the

[1:50:37] Soyuse Fire Department, uh we will have

[1:50:40] apparatus on the east side of town to

[1:50:41] welcome everyone in. And then we will

[1:50:43] set up a table uh with an engine. um at

[1:50:46] the uh co-op gas station uh we'll have

[1:50:49] water, Gatorade, uh treats uh and things

[1:50:52] of those nature or of that nature,

[1:50:54] pardon me, for for the writers. Uh there

[1:50:56] is an opportunity for council uh myself

[1:50:59] even uh to meet with the ride organizers

[1:51:02] uh Jim and Steve um who will who are

[1:51:06] leading the uh leading the charge so to

[1:51:07] speak across the country uh where we can

[1:51:10] welcome them to the town and of course

[1:51:12] uh that's where council uh is is

[1:51:14] obviously more than welcome or be great

[1:51:16] to have council there to to welcome the

[1:51:18] group there.

[1:51:20] >> Thank you. So, if anybody uh in the

[1:51:22] community would like to come out and see

[1:51:24] them, um please anybody who wishes to

[1:51:27] please come and uh and stop in and say

[1:51:30] hello to them. Um and certainly council,

[1:51:34] you're um invited as well. So, that's on

[1:51:37] Friday. So, I think that's all of the

[1:51:40] issues that I have today. So I will um

[1:51:45] move to the in camera portion of the

[1:51:48] meeting and that pursuant to section 91

[1:51:51] of the community charter a part of the

[1:51:53] council meeting may be closed to the

[1:51:55] public if the subject matter being

[1:51:57] considered relates to one or more of the

[1:51:59] following. 91K negotiations and related

[1:52:02] discussions respecting the proposed

[1:52:05] provision of a municipal service that

[1:52:07] are at their preliminary stages and that

[1:52:10] in the view of the council could

[1:52:12] reasonably be expected to harm the

[1:52:14] interests of the municipality if they

[1:52:16] were held in public. Could I have a

[1:52:19] motion to go in camera? Thank you.

[1:52:21] Councelor Puerto Rica. Councelor King.

[1:52:23] All in favor?

Regular Open Meeting - 18 Aug 2026

Transcript