[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?