[1:15] Okay.

[1:31] » Recording in progress. >> Okay. All right. Welcome everybody to

[1:36] the September 8th Cath regional district board meeting. I want to acknowledge the

[1:40] hold of the meeting on the traditional territory of the Talman nation. Uh we

[1:44] have an agenda in front of us. Are there any changes to that agenda? If not,

[1:50] would somebody like to move it? Director Gizbborne, seconded by Director Elliot.

[1:54] Thank you. All in favor? Motion carries or I guess any against

[2:03] or director Paul. Is there a hand up there?

[2:09] » I can hear us. I don't know if you can hear us.

[2:12] » Director Paul, can you hear us? >> Can you hear us? Director F.

[2:20] » Barely. Director F can't hear us. >> And we all look frozen because we're

[2:25] » Yeah, we're all looking at the screen.

[2:31] » I don't imagine he would be opposed to the agenda. He's

[2:34] » battery full. >> Yeah.

[2:37] » Dr. F, can you hear us?

[2:41] » I just turned my cell phone off. Someone else might want to call.

[2:46] » I'm messaging him on the >> Can you hear me?

[2:50] » Yes, we can hear you. Director McCormick. Thank you.

[2:54] Director Fall, can you hear us? >> Is coming in loud and clear, but not the

[2:59] ski. and make director fall, director makov on the

[3:07] » should we just continue on with the adoption of the minutes?

[3:10] » Yeah, we have quorum. >> Yep, we have quum.

[3:13] » So, uh, regarding the minutes of the regular board meeting August 26, 2026.

[3:17] Are there any errors or omissions? Seeing none, no hands. Moved by director

[3:23] Gizbborne, second director Elliot. All in favor?

[3:27] Motion carries. Thank you. um delegations and inquiries. We are it's

[3:32] our pleasure to have Snapchat Dyson visit us today or his quarterly report

[3:40] and join us today.

[3:44] Thank you.

[3:48] Is yours presentation for uh the first quarter

[3:52] April to June of of this year. Uh going to go over a few of the stats we have

[3:57] here. Our total calls for service uh up very very slightly for the regional

[4:03] district areas. So outside of the city uh from 396 to 402. Um I will in the end

[4:11] I've got a little bit more information on that.

[4:15] Our check wellbeing files are down uh 33% uh for that period. These are files

[4:21] where people call in to they're concerned about a neighbor or a family

[4:25] member and to go and check on them. Mental health act calls are doubled um

[4:32] from 12 to 25 for the same period. So this could be part as a result of check

[4:38] well being files there. We found somebody that's in distress and we need

[4:41] to assist them. Unspecified assistance again calls don't

[4:45] fall neatly into any other category. Fairly stable for the 81 85 year over.

[4:53] Missing persons files um

[5:00] continue. >> A large number of these are um youth

[5:04] that um have chosen not to be found or not to be where they say they should be.

[5:09] Um >> very

[5:11] actual missing missing people. Although we did have a couple of those more

[5:16] recently where engaged with local SAR to go and try to find people.

[5:23] impaired driving static for the quarter 7 to six.

[5:28] Overall person's crimes, so these are assaults, things of those nature, other

[5:31] threats. Again, fairly static, 40 to 44. Assaults themselves were up um from 14

[5:39] to 20. Again, these are for um those within the

[5:44] um non city areas that we cover. Sexual offenses, again, fairly static

[5:51] down to one. Any red reduction is good to see. harassment files um which cover

[5:59] a variety of different things mostly um there's a lot of these right now social

[6:04] media um texts calls standing outside of somebody's property those sorts of

[6:08] things again static 707 for the core uttering threats a reduction from 17 to

[6:14] 15 um over the period overall property crime good to see a

[6:20] reduction there from 15 to 41 an 18% decrease uh from the quarter of last

[6:25] either. Bike theft, no bikes go on. Hoping this

[6:30] has a lot to do with our project 529 which machines have been very successful

[6:34] locally. Breaken enters residential from one to

[6:38] zero which is good and a reduction of the business from 3 to one. Um

[6:45] last year um during this period there was a a person in town that we believe

[6:51] was responsible for the bulk of them and they increase and that person has since

[6:55] left and as a result so have the uh business being easily reduced

[7:00] theft under $5,000 a bit of an increase there 6 to9

[7:05] theft from vehicles. Uh we had a bit of a rash. The person that we believe was

[7:09] the um culpable for most of those has found themselves in custody. As a

[7:13] result, we've seen a reduction those calls to zero.

[7:18] Theft of vehicles again six to zero. Nobody stealing vehicles outside of the

[7:23] city using them. Usually they use them just to get from one place to the other

[7:26] and then drop it. But that hasn't happened. It didn't happen in the first

[7:30] quarter of this year. Frauds 9 to6. Uh many of these tend to

[7:35] be uh reported frauds where somebody has fallen into certain online scams. Uh

[7:40] we've been seeing a bit of a red we saw a bit of a reduction. We're starting to

[7:44] see a bit of a bump up as some other ones are taken over. They find new ways

[7:47] to target people. AI has been sort of pretty uh pretty

[7:53] successful uh in that regard for the culprits.

[7:58] Mischief up from 18 to 25. These are random damages to people's property.

[8:05] drug offenses from three down to one. Uh order drug trafficking, we had no

[8:11] trafficking investigations over the same period last year.

[8:16] Weapons offenses again dropped from one to zero.

[8:20] Uh calls per area, uh you see a 42% increase in Clam, 45% decrease in Saber

[8:28] Island. Tuxeda Island up a little bit, rural and

[8:32] the water areas are up again just 11% for the same quarter.

[8:38] And these are just our total file accounts. We've just left this on. This

[8:41] is um so obviously we haven't got to the end of this year so we don't know our

[8:45] numbers. I will say that for um the first portion of this year we are about

[8:51] five to six weeks ahead number-wise where we were last year. So, uh, our

[8:56] total file counts up for the district or from the city for the detachment, sorry,

[9:02] covering the city and the um, uh, rural areas. So, we're up to up.

[9:09] Last year, we were 6,300 and this year we're looking to be uh, back up again, a

[9:13] little bit higher than that, uh, if things continue the way they've been

[9:17] trending.

[9:20] That's it for stats for the year. Just a couple things I wanted to mention that

[9:24] aren't part of the presentation. Um, again, I just mentioned that we're

[9:28] five to six weeks ahead of where we were last year. Um, currently, sort of beyond

[9:34] the period of this, uh, we have a bit of a resource challenge right now. Um,

[9:39] trying to get we have some members on short-term and long-term

[9:43] um, time off that we're trying to address. Um, some of those will be

[9:48] coming back here shortly. Uh but what it's resulted in, we've had to redeploy

[9:52] some of our resources from their primary mandate to general duty to make sure

[9:55] that we're able to um have members on the road. So that's been a bit of a

[9:59] challenge for us. Uh for Texa Island, one of our members there is scheduled to

[10:04] transfer out. He has um requested and been granted a bit of a delay in his

[10:09] departures. Uh so he'll be here probably till the beginning of 2027.

[10:14] Um and however his replacement is already named and so it should be a

[10:19] fairly sure transition once he goes to get the in and in position and the

[10:24] member that's been there uh for a few months now is really taken over well and

[10:29] doing doing well. So I think that transition will be uh will be good

[10:32] overall. That's my presentation. >> Great. Thank you, Staff Sergeant. Um

[10:38] I'll open it up to the table. Anybody have any questions?

[10:45] Hey future um you said something that I didn't quite understand when we were

[10:51] talking about fraud. You said AI was successful I wasn't sure if you meant AI

[10:55] was successfully helping frauds people or successfully helping people prevent

[11:00] fraud. >> Uh specifically I was referring to it's

[11:04] successfully helping the culprits be more successful at getting money from

[11:07] people. Um we have been using AI a little bit more in some of our in some

[11:11] of our work. Um I don't know specifically for frauds if it's been

[11:16] useful in tracking down people. Um I know that we have had um subjects here

[11:23] that have been targets of frauds from Canadian-based frauds and we have

[11:27] assisted the agencies from where they're from to provide information to try to

[11:31] successfully target those. >> Great. Uh do we have any other

[11:35] questions? Director Gizbborne and then directors and then director McCormack.

[11:39] Yeah, my question is in relation to I think it was slide four, the mental

[11:43] health act calls which went from 12 to 25. So that was a doubling in that

[11:46] quarter. Um are you seeing it's like the same individuals coming out to the same

[11:52] call like is it the same um members of the public that you're going out and

[11:55] seeing uh are they getting this health the help and services that they need

[12:00] from the Ministry of Health or is it like you know can you explain more on

[12:03] what's happening there? >> It's it's a mix. Um, sometimes they're

[12:06] people that we have dealt with before, so we're familiar with them and their

[12:10] mental health challenges, so we're getting them the help. Sometimes it's

[12:12] new people. We try to get them um, hooked into some of the services that

[12:17] are available for them. So, it it's it varies. Um, and sometimes you'll find

[12:21] people um, specifically Texa Island has a person that tends to go in cycles. So

[12:27] that person results in a number of calls for service over a short period of time,

[12:30] gets whatever treatment that they need, gets back on, you know, medications can

[12:34] be need adjusted or whatever, and then we don't hear from them. [clears throat]

[12:37] So it's very it's in it's a sort of a thing that changes quite substantially.

[12:44] » All right, Director Lennox. >> Yeah, thanks. Thanks again. Appreciate

[12:47] these quarterly updates. Uh a couple of thank yous. We like to acknowledge, you

[12:50] know, your safety coverage is not something you have to battle for

[12:54] funding, you know, uh do extra work for that. So from the community, um people

[12:58] notice that and I think the stats reflect that when we see your presence,

[13:02] we see the stats go down. So good job and to your members that kind of I guess

[13:06] volunteer to do extra and get on a boat and go to savory. I mean there might be

[13:09] some good parts of that day. But again, I appreciate it. And attending things

[13:13] like ASIC, the community, you know, committees and different things where

[13:17] people attend and get the information like that that's very important. So

[13:21] thank you for that. Um, uh, I understand you have a new local officer I met in

[13:27] the grocery store that I've worked with in the mill before. So, I got to say I I

[13:31] hate to hear about staffing problems, but super cool to see a local person get

[13:36] hired from Pal River and on the streets. I saw him the other day and I wasn't

[13:41] speeding so I felt good about that. And now I guess my question is like when you

[13:46] went to Savory, uh, were there any troubles on your visits? I think things

[13:50] slow right down and people behave themselves a little bit better, but also

[13:52] you had some little bit of docking issues. I think the tide can affect

[13:56] maybe your response capabilities. Is that true?

[13:58] » Uh, so there's two things. Um, a couple things there. Conible Alexander is the

[14:01] member you're talking about. He's hit the ground running here really, really

[14:05] well. A great addition. I was a little bit concerned about, you know, being of

[14:08] a place he grew up. We found none of those issues and he has sort of found

[14:12] his place and doing extremely well for a new member. Um, Texa Island. The only

[14:18] issue that we found there, and I think it's sort of something that gets

[14:21] overlooked, is the number of people riding in the back of pickup.

[14:24] » Savory or taxi? >> Sort of savory. Um, riding in the back

[14:27] of pickups all stacked up way up high as we've had to deal with that a few times.

[14:32] One of the taxi drivers there got to meet me uh

[14:35] » in enforcement mode, and I don't think he was very happy with that. Um, but it

[14:40] was for that just purely a safety thing. We just can't have people falling out.

[14:43] I've been to, I think, four different files in my career. Uh, two of them

[14:48] where people died and two of them were people were seriously injured. So, just

[14:51] can't didn't want to see that at all. Um, the docking issue. Yeah, there was a

[14:55] there was a challenge there. Um, our new boat is bigger than our old boat. Um,

[15:00] had drafts a little teeny bit, but probably about the same actually. I

[15:03] thought it would draft a little bit more, but I think it's about the same.

[15:05] But, um, >> there's no draft there. Yeah, we were

[15:08] when we came for the ASIC meeting, the uh end of the of the float was actually

[15:12] sitting on the mud, so it makes it a bit of a challenge to have the taxis coming

[15:16] in. Um we've we've addressed that and you know, we'll be putting the boat

[15:20] where we need to put it and hopefully the taxis can work around us, but

[15:23] » great. Yeah, thank you. Thanks again. >> Thank you, director. I guess

[15:28] » yes, thank you. Thank you, chair. Um and thanks for your presentation, Staff

[15:32] Sergeant. Um my question is about um [clears throat] dangerous dogs and

[15:38] that's been an issue off and on and it's now on again on Texa and I'm just

[15:43] wondering I don't know how many of those cases actually get reported to the RCMP

[15:49] and how many are dealt with locally but I'm just wondering where would they be

[15:54] in your count of various things? Is it unspecified unsistence or or where where

[16:00] would that issue come up? Those would be animal calls uh would be specifically

[16:06] how they would be. I know there was a call where a some livestock was killed I

[16:11] think injured killed recently. Um I just saw that file in our blotter. So I'm

[16:16] looking at that to see what what they're going to do. Um because those files tend

[16:21] to be very very few. We don't include them in our regular reporting. Uh if we

[16:26] had a blip, you know, sort of a year where there was more than sort of a

[16:30] normal, then we would report on that for sure. Uh but that hasn't been the case

[16:33] for the last one. >> Okay. Thank you.

[16:38] » Great. Uh seeing no other hands, I thank you for coming down here for your Puerto

[16:42] Rico report. Appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

[16:45] » And good luck in the upcoming election. >> Um we have no unregistered delegations,

[16:53] so we'll just continue on with the correspondence.

[16:58] Uh we already have it moved to business arising from correspondence

[17:03] a letter of support request. So I don't know if somebody would like to move the

[17:07] recommendation. Elliot second by Paul. Thank you. Any

[17:12] discussion? Seeing none. All in favor?

[17:18] Passes. Approved. Thank you. Consent agenda. Is there anything anybody would

[17:23] like to remove from the consent agenda? See no hands. Would somebody like to

[17:29] mute directors Elliot and Gizbborne? Uh says no discussion. So I'll call the

[17:33] question. All in favor? >> Motion carries.

[17:40] All right. >> Sliding down to 11.1. [clears throat]

[17:44] » I was just going to adise chair that 11.1 and 11.2 are all directors weighted

[17:49] votes. >> Okay. All directors wed votes and

[17:54] Okay. No. Uh item number 11.1 ratification

[17:58] » say thank you from the best of >> right on

[18:02] here on behalf of the chair but thank you very much

[18:07] » uh ratification of clan and south view leaseold lands services agreement 2024

[18:11] to 2028 would somebody like to move the recommendation

[18:17] Elliot seconded by I'll second it

[18:22] » second it discussion Elliott Thank you. Um, so I think that I'm in

[18:27] favor of the motion and I think that um, we definitely need to correct this

[18:32] administrative error of not having voted for it when we were expected to a few

[18:36] years back. Um, puts us in a bit of a conundrum to not

[18:40] do that. I do have a few questions um, just so I understand it better. It's the

[18:45] first time I've seen this um, to us so I I don't fully understand everything

[18:50] about it. One of the questions I had was um is there a particular service area

[18:56] that the that it's paid out of or how do we how is it function um as far as

[19:04] within the regional district around service areas and things like that?

[19:08] » Who would be the best to answer this? >> Thank you for the chair. So these

[19:12] agreements are so we can provide services. This first one that we're

[19:17] doing is for um Kohani and Southview. placehold plans. So, so each of those

[19:22] services listed um on page

[19:28] 214 or 1212, those will receive money for providing those services

[19:35] and so that it would be the service areas that are um

[19:40] within the agreement and there isn't some service areas have a map for them.

[19:45] So it would be obviously the ones where that area is included in that bed then

[19:49] like sorry I didn't have much of an

[19:55] understanding before but general services is excluded from receiving

[20:01] benefit and my and I think some regional services like recreation and things like

[20:06] that are part of this agreement and I'm just trying to understand if they are

[20:10] also um some of some parts of it just for area A for for everybody.

[20:17] [clears throat] So um that F indicates that

[20:24] um the area those portions of Tammen which are being designated for

[20:29] occupation by members and non-members of Tammen also known as a Kahani and South

[20:34] View lease hold lands. So that's where it first it

[20:40] app.

[20:44] » Does that answer your question, director?

[20:48] » I guess so. >> Okay.

[20:50] » Uh, any other questions? >> Yes.

[20:54] » Great. Director, >> I have a lot of questions and I'm I

[20:58] guess I'm really almost supposed to ask two. I'm a little confused. Uh, as as

[21:03] you can tell from other directors, there's no map here, so I don't even

[21:07] know what the designated lands are. I It seems like the motion is a little bit

[21:13] like, here, just sign this cuz we forgot to two years ago. Um, which okay, I

[21:19] don't see another agreement for the Londland services. They looked exactly

[21:23] identical to me. Maybe I'm missing something. And I don't see any maps.

[21:27] Maybe they're the same services. >> That's

[21:30] » I know that. So I'm saying I don't see maybe I'm missing it. Um you know these

[21:36] you're right bullet point F. How were the number and types of services

[21:41] provided uh by us to TLA and determined? This is signed by the the board chair

[21:49] in our name and I wasn't involved. I got questions around

[21:55] if we're not even meeting as a C2 or C3, how can we gee further negotiate

[22:02] services? Um

[22:09] what about discussions on services that lease holders are provided by Talon and

[22:15] what are their capabilities or lack thereof and why wouldn't they pay for

[22:19] something or would they pay that? That's not fair to them or us to even like we

[22:23] didn't talk to them about it. I've got the list of services. Each one of them

[22:28] should be looked at in detail. Administration being reduced by 45% or

[22:33] whatever the you know that's substantial. Our highest costs are then

[22:38] um what are the actual costs? I don't see

[22:42] any costs. I don't see any assessed RO values. I don't see any class classes of

[22:48] property. Um point five, right? Um are lease holders aware of the agreement? Um

[22:56] how did the lease holders received representation for their taxation or

[23:00] lack thereof? Is it identified? Have we talked about

[23:04] that? Do they know that? I haven't. [laughter] Anyways,

[23:10] uh the renewal is only two years away. Are we going to talk about it before

[23:13] then or or after that? Again, where's the map? It appears that this was

[23:18] negotiated and signed a couple years ago and it's sort of like here just sign it.

[23:23] Let's get it done because we're out of compliance.

[23:27] Uh page two out of 12 it says the board it would formally confirm its approval

[23:33] of of what is my question. I didn't know anything about it till a couple days

[23:38] ago. And uh again where's the lend land services agreement and where is it

[23:44] defined? Where's the map? what are they, you know, what are we providing or not.

[23:50] So, lots of questions. Uh, understand the intent is to get her done and be

[23:55] compliant. And like I'm I want to be clear to anybody listening, no

[23:59] espersions to follow the process. They're he signed this document.

[24:04] They they are hopefully receiving the services that we say we are providing.

[24:09] Uh, that's not what I'm saying. You know, it's like the boat the principal

[24:13] the matter of signed in absentia.

[24:18] I don't I don't know where I'm at here. I I want more information. I want the

[24:23] people to receive all these good services. Right.

[24:26] Directors fall and Gizbborne. >> Uh thank you chair. I just have a I

[24:30] guess a comment on how to move forward because I I hear what director Linux is

[24:34] saying. This is new to all of us and yet it also has been operating for two years

[24:39] without there being a particular problem. So the the term of this

[24:43] agreement is is December 2028. So what I would actually suggest might be the most

[24:48] constructive way forward would be to to you know approve this just so we can you

[24:52] know deal with this because the slapman have been operating under it. we've been

[24:56] operating under it, but set in motion. And I don't know if uh you know, and I'm

[24:59] just throwing this out for a second, but I I don't know if a motion needed to be

[25:03] made, but maybe leading up to the term of the agreement, the termination of the

[25:08] agreement, >> and presumably its renewal that there

[25:11] would be a process in place, you know, a commitment for a review by the board,

[25:16] you know, maybe starting even six months or a year ahead to to start looking

[25:20] forward at the next term of this agreement so that they can, you know,

[25:23] the board can be fully cognizant any changes can be done with time to do any

[25:28] negotiations cuz otherwise you know change this now I just think it it would

[25:32] cause more uh more grief than than than benefit passing it but not you know not

[25:37] just leaving it un on uh without you know as a loose end I think putting in

[25:42] motion a uh a process to to look at this prior to the renewal so that the 20 you

[25:49] know the 2028 to 2032 agreement would be um fully understood by the board and

[25:55] maybe reviewed >> [clears throat]

[25:57] » Okay. Thank you, Director Good. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. I believe

[26:01] Director Falls said that this was new to all of us, new to all of us, but it's

[26:05] not. It's got the signature of the chair from two years ago. I guess the only way

[26:10] to describe it is exceeding the authority. The ultimate authority of

[26:14] this assembly is the assembly. Section 26. Tom and the regional

[26:19] district warrant to each other that the executive and the board respectively

[26:24] have taken all measures required by law to authorize the entry of this

[26:28] agreement. This was signed two years ago without the board's knowledge or

[26:33] approval. To to reiterate, I think what director

[26:36] Lennox is trying to say. This is not an error from Twomin Nation. This is an

[26:40] error of the regional district. And I find this deeply upsetting, but also

[26:46] not entirely surprising based on what's been going on over eight years.

[26:51] I find it incredibly distressing because

[26:56] as director Lennox said, it says the designated lands known as Clanian South

[27:00] View uh Southview leaseold lands, but I don't have a map. I I can't assume what

[27:06] the overall assessed value is of that. I would like to know more information, but

[27:11] this decision was already made. We're essentially coming in two years after

[27:15] the fact and being asked to just approve it so that we can move on. But if we

[27:20] approve it and move on, essentially, you know, these kind of things happen

[27:26] and unless this board takes action, it's just going to keep happening.

[27:31] It says in here on in the the the staff report, the agreement accurately

[27:36] reflects the intentions of both the cath regional district and common nation.

[27:42] The intentions of the regional district in my opinion are determined by the

[27:45] board and this is the first time the board has seen this document and as

[27:50] director has pointed out on the next report it says

[27:55] lend land land services agreement but what's attached

[27:59] is the clan and south view leaseolds lands agreement not the lend agreement

[28:04] on the next item and it's we're we're essentially trying

[28:09] to retroactively fix a mistake

[28:13] two years after it's been done. And I understand mistakes happen,

[28:20] but when you read it, section

[28:25] I, the board of directors of the regional

[28:29] district, the board, pursuant to a resolution adopted at a duly convened

[28:34] meeting of the board held blank 2024, a true copy of which resolution is

[28:40] attached as schedule C to this agreement, has approved this agreement.

[28:45] that didn't happen. The mistake should have been caught before the document was

[28:50] signed by our chair and CIO on this board's behalf without this board's

[28:54] knowledge. I

[29:00] reading this, I have lost confidence in the chair and I'm wondering if it's

[29:05] appropriate to move a motion of non-confidence against the chair

[29:10] because

[29:13] the chair is not the board. The chair works for the board and I'm wondering

[29:18] what else has been signed on behalf of the board without this board's

[29:21] knowledge.

[29:26] » Director Elliot, >> I just want to correct that the the

[29:29] agreement attached under the item for the lend agreement is the the copy of

[29:35] the land agreement, not the it is has a lot of the similar wording, but it is

[29:39] the lend agreement. It isn't. So, you said it was the same and it's not. So I

[29:44] just wanted to say >> thank you.

[29:48] Is there anybody else that would like to speak who hasn't spoken yet?

[29:53] » I spoke. I'm just going to help have a suggestion.

[29:59] » Okay. >> Um

[30:03] so we do have another regional district meeting

[30:08] um before the end of our term >> that's coming up. This is business that

[30:13] should be tied up by this board prior to then because it's an agreement we've

[30:17] been implementing for the last two years and it puts us in a

[30:22] bit of a bad situation to um not approve it. that we could postpone to the last

[30:30] meeting and use that to ask staff to bring forward a little more

[30:36] information so that we can better understand what we're ratifying. And

[30:41] this is a matter of ratifying not opening up for renegotiation or trying

[30:47] to change anything. And so, um, because I wouldn't be in favor of trying to do

[30:52] that. Um, on the point of non-confidence,

[30:57] um, I see how this happens. People trust

[31:03] that what they're signing has been through due process and and that happens

[31:08] sometimes. I think that all the people who might

[31:13] have been involved in that oversight are probably

[31:17] seeing exactly how they could fix that and are probably working on. Um, I want

[31:23] to give grace to that because we're moving, this term is pretty much done

[31:29] with now and we're going to have elections coming up and I would like to

[31:35] focus on a few I'd like to ratify this in a in a way that we can understand

[31:38] what we're ratifying and I'd like to move forward rather than try to

[31:45] blind people to blame. That's my thoughts on

[31:49] » Okay. Thank you very much, Director Fall and Director Hibborn.

[31:54] » Thank you, Chair. I I concur with Director Elliot's comments. I mean, that

[31:57] when you read the staff report attached to this agreement, it it uses phrases

[32:03] like inadvertent overlook, right? This was not a mistake done uh on purpose.

[32:09] This was not some big thing to be looking into. And if we want to solve

[32:13] things, if we want to address issues that our residents care about, we should

[32:17] be focusing on how to move this forward and resolve it, not trying to find

[32:22] fault, not trying to dig up things or or make problems. I think we should look at

[32:27] this agreement, look, realize that this agreement has been operating. We we are

[32:32] all aware that there have been services provided to these lands. We don't know

[32:35] the exact lands, but we know there have been shared services that have been paid

[32:38] for. We we probably can see it in the budget if we look and we haven't had

[32:43] problems. We haven't had concerns. This is something if it hadn't been put

[32:46] before us would not have been a concern. It's not a concern to our taxpayers. It

[32:50] was an oversight that was a should have come before us. I don't dispute that. I

[32:55] do agree entirely that it should have come before us and that's the proper

[32:58] process. But we need to find ways to constructively move this forward. The

[33:02] agreement has already been in place two years. I think I I agree with uh the

[33:06] idea that director Elliott said maybe if if another meeting is needed to discuss

[33:10] this that's fine. We deal with it this term we try to put it behind us and we

[33:14] and we put in place actions that will be constructive for the future so that if

[33:20] we are concerned if we as a board think that this needs a thorough review by the

[33:24] board then we should put in place that process so that it happens next time.

[33:30] But this we you know it wouldn't be it would be a real mess to try to change

[33:34] this and by the time we changed it it would be another six months or a year

[33:37] next board leaving them with a mess. I don't see any value in that. I see value

[33:41] in trying to be to work together to constructively find a solution that

[33:45] would serve our taxpayers and not be trying to point fingers too much about

[33:48] this. Thank you chair. >> Well, thanks corporate officer. you have

[33:53] » Oh, I just wanted to say that this the agreement um

[33:58] essentially has been in place since at least 2004

[34:02] and the renewals have recurred regularly and I think it was an audit process that

[34:09] showed that this stuff was m missed in this area but it was an oversight people

[34:16] had thought that they had the proper authorities at that point in time when

[34:21] it's Okay. Thank you, Director Gizmore.

[34:26] » Thank you. Um, first of all, to clarify, um, looking at 11.2, 2. [clears throat]

[34:33] The Hatch document Lond services agreement section FA

[34:38] and the regional district have agreed that the regional district will provide

[34:41] the services set out in schedule A of this agreement. The regional district

[34:44] services to those portions of Tammen which have been designated or for

[34:49] occupation by members and non-members of Tammen quote the designated lands also

[34:55] known as Khani and South View leasehold lands.

[35:00] I'm reading from the 11.2 report which has said Londland services agreement.

[35:05] This isn't the Londland services agreement. This is the Clani one. In the

[35:09] agreement itself, it's referencing South View and Clani. And it's the exact same

[35:13] services cuz when I went through this and read

[35:17] the regional district services under section A, I was wondering where the L

[35:21] sewer system was, but it's the exact same services for Khani.

[35:27] And I reiterate not no criticism of Tom Nation. I think they've done their due

[35:33] diligence. This agreement 2024 to 2028. And I get it. Maybe some people sign

[35:41] things thinking that all the proper protocols have been followed.

[35:45] But whenever I sign something, I read it first.

[35:49] And when I'm reading this, it hasn't gone before the board. Now it has after

[35:55] two years. And even if we were to say like, hey, we actually want to do make

[35:59] some changes because the board is the ultimate authority of this organization.

[36:03] That's what the voters put us as a responsibility. They say, hey, we're

[36:07] going to elect our representatives to go in there and represent us. And if the

[36:10] elected representatives don't know what's going on because it's being kept

[36:13] from us or it's being signed on our behalf without our knowledge, I find

[36:18] that unacceptable. I don't think that's good governance. And that's why I'm I've

[36:23] lost confidence in the chair. And I look at this agreement, I agree

[36:29] with it in principle, but there's a few things where I'm like, okay, why, you

[36:32] know, I I can understand why there's a 45% reduction on the payment for general

[36:36] administration services. Maybe it should be a 35%. That should be

[36:40] up to the board prior to the agreement. I see the list of services on the back.

[36:46] administration, regional parks, cemetery, solid waste management,

[36:50] library, septage disposal. What about paratransit? What about the

[36:55] social planning service? What about the subregional recreation service?

[37:00] The board hasn't had a chance to put that forward as, you know, potential

[37:04] considerations. These are the kinds of things that we should be discussing when

[37:07] we hold C3s. We haven't had a C3 between the city,

[37:11] the regional district, and Flomination in years. Even though we applied for a

[37:15] grant, we got the grant, we spent the grant, didn't have a C3.

[37:19] And and I read this in section 26 says that the

[37:25] board respectively taken all measures required by law to authorize the entry

[37:28] of this agreement. We have not been we have not been compliant with this

[37:32] agreement because the board hasn't been aware of it. And I'm looking around the

[37:37] table going, I guess I'm kind of hearing a very clear picture of does this board

[37:41] find this acceptable? This is a bigger issue than the

[37:45] agreement.

[37:48] » Director Lennox. >> Thanks, Chair. I understand this isn't

[37:52] really comfortable, right? This is the tough business, but um I think it's

[37:56] important that we we flush this out. I I think Director Fall hit it on the head,

[38:00] right? And and others, we've all agreed we have to learn from our mistakes. And

[38:05] so, the good news is our audit process caught it, right? Like I actually really

[38:09] do understand more and more. I see director Paul naughty but I mean others

[38:13] that I work with professionally do that QAQC and audit stuff and it matters and

[38:18] it caught it. So this is a actually there's a little bit of a silver lining

[38:23] and and then from there on what my I have a lot of fears here right this is a

[38:27] tough time especially in area A and in London this is what this is about and

[38:31] again this is why I say like lack of information at the very least we need to

[38:35] wait until the next board meeting why because I hope people are paying

[38:39] attention now lease holders and people that are like and non- lease holders

[38:43] like we lack of information leads to mistrust conspiracies and all sorts of

[38:48] stupid behavior. And so like as we move ahead, Director Gizbborne put it very

[38:55] well like we should be talking about a whole host of other services. Lond water

[38:59] being the top dog. I mean [clears throat] whether or not it's in

[39:02] this one. It should have started back then. And if I'd have been aware of

[39:06] this, guess what I would have put on the list? So who's running the bus? Like

[39:09] who's driving the bus? So what I'm saying is we have to you're right

[39:14] directors all of you move productively out of this because I want to talk to

[39:19] slam and tell them about about Lond water. Why? Because they're the major

[39:23] business user. This is their future not just selfishly. We're in it together.

[39:28] We're supposed to be. So like come on, right? Like so this is why I'm a little

[39:33] upset about this is because with again a few days notice this is and again I

[39:38] would humbly suggest that we do postpone this until our next board meeting and

[39:43] and be quite uh maybe accepting of potential amendments

[39:49] because I people may come to me and say well what about this and what about that

[39:53] and as director Gizbborne and others have said well this formula you know

[39:58] honest to goodness representation comes so thank Thank you for that. I'd like

[40:02] you to hear from everybody else, but that's mad.

[40:05] » Dr. South. >> Thank you, chair.

[40:09] The date of the signature, which I don't see here.

[40:15] » That was signed, is July 2024, which is about two months before I I actually

[40:21] [clears throat] took a seat on the board. Now, I was an alternate before

[40:24] that. So, pres I'm pointing at myself for I should have been

[40:31] possibly more aware of what was really going on. When I did go through this um

[40:36] and I saw that date, I made the assumption that as was suggested in the

[40:42] report that you know this is and explained by our corporate officer that

[40:48] this has um you know the due process and what was necessary what was appropriate

[40:55] um was achieved. But and it's very interesting to hear

[41:00] that this is a succession from a long time ago.

[41:05] Doesn't even take that long ago for me. Um

[41:10] even in the past five years, the contexts that we're working in have

[41:15] changed drastically. Uh particularly six years. And I hearken back to COVID as

[41:21] being a mark a time of mark change. um you go back a few more years and you get

[41:28] to far greater change even. So the reason why I'm mentioning this is

[41:33] because um something I've just realized recently is

[41:38] that perspective is scalable. I really respect particularly what uh

[41:44] director Lennox all those questions that you've asked. These are very valid

[41:47] questions. They're extremely valid in our current time right now and they're

[41:53] questions that if they aren't answered will be asked by others because now this

[41:57] is a public meeting. So they need to be answered. But even two years ago, I

[42:03] question whether these questions really would have been asked. And it certainly

[42:07] I'm assure I feel confident that there wouldn't have been the kind of um

[42:14] [sighs] serious uh they wouldn't have seemed as serious and I think that quite

[42:19] possibly we would have asked them with quite a different um tenor. But we're

[42:26] the way we need to ask these questions now is the way we need to ask these

[42:30] questions now because this is now and that was then and again the risk of

[42:35] repeating myself. You go back not too much more and I'm very sure that these

[42:41] questions could have would have been answered with a whole different like way

[42:46] way way less serious. So I really appreciate what director fall um

[42:51] suggested. Uh perhaps some um more information

[42:56] could be provided to us by the next meeting at the end of um before the end

[43:02] of this term which I think would for me would be entirely adequate to accomplish

[43:09] what we absolutely need to do right now which is continue [clears throat]

[43:14] the business that's been going on obviously in order and you know what

[43:20] appropriately and Well, but more some detail needs to be filled

[43:25] in. I do accept that. Um and then subsequently commit to examining it more

[43:31] thoroughly because everything needs to be examined more thoroughly apparently

[43:35] um these days. That would be what I u would like to see happen and um I'd like

[43:41] to see a motion. I'm not exactly sure what a motion would be to that effect.

[43:45] basically minimal amount of information necessary by the next meeting and then

[43:50] specifically what director fall um suggested going forward past this

[43:57] term. So I probably am asking for assistance from staff as to what might

[44:04] be appropriate or if that really sounds like it would work. [clears throat]

[44:08] comment on it after >> I think um

[44:14] it likely wouldn't occur by next meeting there's

[44:20] it just is too turn around given where our next meeting is

[44:24] » um >> the fact that UBC is happening and and

[44:28] auction process is underway

[44:32] » well the part we could do is postpone this these two items to the next

[44:38] meeting. Since we have emotional withdrawal, we have to rather than call

[44:41] the question, we have to postpone. So that that could be one thing we could

[44:45] do. Um if if directors want to bring forward um motions beyond ratification

[44:53] of this agreement um that could affect process in the

[44:57] future, I suppose they could u get those on the agenda before the

[45:03] deadline as you know new motions. somehow, but it wouldn't come as staff

[45:09] report, you know, to be fair staff, they don't have that that ready and we're all

[45:15] going to UBCM. And so that's that's hard to do all that.

[45:21] So, um, the other thought I had was if we are hoping to discuss something other

[45:27] than ratifying this agreement, then we should probably bump it to in Canada to

[45:31] have that conversation because that could have legal ramifications and

[45:36] weren't we're not supposed to talk about legal things in open when it comes to

[45:41] negotiating agreements between governments. And so, those were my

[45:45] process thoughts. At this point in time, I'd be prepared to move the motion to

[45:50] postpone to next week. I would ask for input from my office for putting it into

[45:57] in camera uh maybe later this afternoon to ask a

[46:02] few other questions that might have those implications.

[46:06] And um that's that. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um,

[46:14] just make a quick comment, I guess, on my thoughts here. I mean, in two weeks,

[46:17] we're not going to have any more information from staff that's been made

[46:21] clear given the heavy workload that we have that they have right now. Um,

[46:28] errors happen. I apologize for my part in this, but it I'm not perfect. I've

[46:33] never claimed to be perfect. Um I tend to agree with director fall's

[46:40] approach that we have an agreement in place that has been going on for more

[46:46] than 20 years. So this isn't a new initiative that has occurred and I think

[46:51] to start making changes now would be kind of it would be very disruptive to

[46:59] uh the situation and um I would be more inclined to support this

[47:06] and then look at it more closely for the next goound. But generally

[47:14] we rely on staff to engage in negotiations. That's not

[47:19] really a governance thing. That's more of an administrative thing. And then

[47:22] we're called upon to either approve it or disapp or not approve it. So I don't

[47:27] think that getting you know sitting down and trying to work it out

[47:32] this board with the executive council from this is the right way to go. I

[47:39] think at this point the right way to go is to vote in favor of these two motions

[47:43] that we have in front of us with the caveat that the next time it comes

[47:48] around more information is provided to the board prior to it being signed. So,

[47:56] I mean, as far as I know right now, we still have just the original motion on

[47:59] the table. And if there's no other comments to be made or no other motions

[48:05] to be made or director, >> I have a comment chair, but I saw

[48:07] director McCormack had her hand up. I don't know if she still has it up.

[48:11] » Oh, sorry, Director McCormack. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, really just to say

[48:15] that I do agree with Director Th's approach. Um, I think it makes sense to

[48:22] approve it now. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not going to change for now.

[48:28] It's halfway through the agreement. So, let it go. Let it be, but take a really

[48:34] hard look the next time this comes up in 28 or whenever it is. And that's where

[48:40] some really thorough discussions should be should take place. But my question

[48:45] actually was about uh in camera because I'm I'm sensing because this is a lease

[48:52] issue that we're treading on the boundary of what would be appropriate to

[48:57] discuss in public and [clears throat] in camera. So I wouldn't mind um you know

[49:02] an opinion from staff regarding if it would be more appropriate to do this in

[49:07] camera.

[49:10] » Yeah. I mean, staff has decided that this was appropriate for an open.

[49:15] » Yeah, we've already had the discussion. I think we're at the point where I'm

[49:18] just going to call the question on the motion in front of us and we'll go from

[49:21] there. Director Fall, you have one more comment or

[49:23] » Yeah, I had one more comment. So, I'm I'm happy to vote on this. I'm happy to,

[49:27] you know, I think it I don't see the likelihood [clears throat]

[49:30] the difficulties of changing this would be hard. If if there's a strong feeling

[49:34] to postpone it for until next meeting, that's not a problem either. This has

[49:37] been, you know, something that got signed two years ago. So, there's no

[49:40] hurry either. if there's more comfort there. So, I'm okay either way. I'm not

[49:43] I'm not particularly worried about that, but I I do have a suggestion for

[49:46] director Lennox perhaps uh to help maybe esage some of his concerns. And it's

[49:51] that, you know, I think it would be nice if we could lay out a bit of the path

[49:55] for the next board. So they they kind of set things in motion and and what I'm

[49:59] going to suggest and you know because I don't um I'm not running so I'm not even

[50:02] going to be there next term uh that maybe director Lennox would consider

[50:07] putting forth a notice of motion right now to something related to asking staff

[50:12] for a report on timelines and and I'm happy to help director Lennox on such a

[50:15] motion but I I could imagine next meeting in two weeks we could uh ask

[50:20] staff not for information for and two weeks but put in you know plant that

[50:24] seed of asking staff for a report on timelines to review and and and engage

[50:30] on on the renewal for the next renewal because I I when I'm the more I think

[50:35] about it, the more I could imagine this the that review and and in the board and

[50:40] maybe in camera maybe open and then with the Tatman and the other uh parties uh

[50:45] could take a long time. I mean that could take a year or more of meetings in

[50:49] in elapsed in elapsed time in terms of meetings. So, so that's actually more

[50:53] feasible to actually start and and get a timeline. So, maybe staff could put

[50:57] their mind to think, well, if we wanted to do this by 2028, then you know, dot

[51:01] dot dot and maybe it needs to start in, I don't know, in a year or something. I

[51:05] don't know. So, so that's just a suggestion to plant a seed just for

[51:08] director Lennox. If you put in a mo notice of motion now, I'm happy to help.

[51:12] And then a motion could come forward at next meeting. We could ask the staff for

[51:15] that and then when that report came, it would it would come if it passed. So,

[51:19] I'll leave it there. Dr. Warren, final comment.

[51:23] » Yeah. Um, I guess [clears throat] I'm just a little confused because I heard

[51:27] that this agreement's been in place for over 20 years, but the Plleman Nation

[51:31] schedule CLAN achieved independence with the Clemen final agreement on April 5th,

[51:36] 2016. Prior to them signing treaty, the Plleman Nation lands were they weren't

[51:43] treaty settlement lands. So, they were actually part of the regional district.

[51:46] So I'm kind of confused of how we would have had an agreement with the Toman

[51:51] nation when the Toman nation wasn't really they weren't pretty settlement

[51:55] before 10 years ago. I guess that's kind of where my confusion is. And there's

[52:00] another question that's kind of come up which is the designated lands. Um I know

[52:05] some folks are curious about like what is the map? What is the um assessed

[52:11] value? And as I believe Director F pointed out, this agreement has been in

[52:15] place for the last two years. It's already been signed. So what is the rush

[52:20] with making sure it gets done today because it didn't seem to be a rush over

[52:23] the last two years. So I would actually move that we postpone this decision to a

[52:29] future meeting and we get the information from our staff related to

[52:33] the designated lands with a map and assessed value. I

[52:40] » second that. Any

[52:44] discussion? Director L.

[52:48] » Yeah, thanks chair. Um, I just I I think the points have been made there.

[52:53] Obviously, it hasn't, you know, we found an error. We've identified some some

[52:57] gaps here. Like, we reviewed tribute policies.

[53:01] we take the time to like have us look at like minor policies that are, you know,

[53:08] in my mind not super impactful, but we we should still be either approving or

[53:12] not. So, please, I mean, this seems reasonable and it'll give people out

[53:16] there in the community chance to digest and I think they would agree, yes, we're

[53:22] probably not going to make any major changes, but and the points raised about

[53:26] a notice motion, excellent. But right now, what is the big rush to get this

[53:32] done today? So, I I support this motion.

[53:38] » Um, I can support postponing to the next

[53:42] meeting, but not postponing beyond that because it then leaves us um knowingly

[53:48] in breach of an whereas before we weren't knowingly in breach. Being

[53:52] knowingly in a breach of an agreement is part of the rush. Um, and so there is

[53:57] legal risk affiliated with that. I don't know that we should necessarily discuss

[54:01] all of that in an open meeting. So I'm kind of torn between

[54:06] um explaining myself and not explaining myself because of the invitations there

[54:13] potentially. Uh, so I could only support postponement to the next meeting which

[54:19] still gets it done as you know within a reasonable time of us being aware that

[54:24] we're knowingly in breach that agreement. I don't see that making any

[54:28] changes to this agreement at this point in time is without risk and therefore

[54:34] the best uh solution for all of us is to uh accept that we have to ratify this

[54:41] agreement and if we make any changes or want to make changes or get educated

[54:46] better about what's happening that we have to do that for the next not this

[54:52] um

[54:55] I Don't I don't agree with the motion because it it's not getting it done

[55:00] before the end of this term. >> Okay. Director Southkat.

[55:05] » Thank you. I can't support postponing because to make any sense it would have

[55:09] to be postponed to the next term. That doesn't make any sense to me either.

[55:14] We I think we've generally come to an agreement that information does need to

[55:20] we need to relook at this. I am satisfied with director fall's idea

[55:26] and I agree with u director Elliot that we just need to resolve this now because

[55:34] we have no clear evidence that there is a problem other than the fact that we've

[55:40] uncovered some things that we'd like to know more information about. Um I don't

[55:44] consider that um adequate for me to wait till two weeks from now when we're not

[55:52] really going to get any more anyway because we have UBCM next week anyway.

[55:56] So staff doesn't have time to really work anything that's going to make any

[56:00] difference to to two weeks from now. So that's why I can't support postponement

[56:06] of this motion for the moment. >> Okay, that [clears throat]

[56:10] thank you chair. Um the motion to postpone to a future meeting is also

[56:14] requesting the information which would have a map and the assessed value. I

[56:19] don't think that should be overly ownorous if it is too difficult for our

[56:22] staff to have that in the twoe turnaround window. Uh that's why the

[56:26] motion is not specific to the next meeting. It's for an upcoming meeting.

[56:29] And with all discussion around the election coming up in the end of this

[56:32] term, I'd like to remind everyone that the board is a continuous body that the

[56:35] election doesn't nullify the actions of the previous board. We don't have to get

[56:40] this done before the election. The board is continuous. If we don't if we

[56:45] postpone this and it ends up coming before the next board, that's okay. If

[56:50] there is an issue related to the enforcability of this document because

[56:56] of course there's an error in it that's been an error for two years. I'd like to

[57:00] remind everyone that there's a dispute resolution under section 2021 22 23 24

[57:05] and 25. So if the Colombian do feel that we are in breach for which we have been

[57:12] in for the last 2 years um there is a dispute resolution process and if that

[57:17] is the case I believe that the chair at the time can call an emergency meeting

[57:21] and call us together in short order but this motion is about getting the

[57:26] information and making sure that it is the board that is making the decisions

[57:31] for this organization. That's what this motion is about. And the board needs to

[57:36] make informed decisions. This is about getting the information so

[57:40] that the board will make an informed decision. And that's out of respect for

[57:44] the TAMAN, for our staff, and for our constituents. So, I'm in support of this

[57:50] motion because it's about getting the information that has been asked at the

[57:55] very beginning of this discussion. And I really don't support

[58:01] just constantly approving things after the fact. The board needs to be the one

[58:08] in control of this organization. Thank you.

[58:13] » I see no other hand. Oh >> too late.

[58:16] » Yes. Apologies chair. One more question through. So the motion on the tables to

[58:20] postpone to some a future meeting which may be more than two weeks maybe past

[58:25] the election and with the addition of two items of information. One is a map

[58:29] of the lands associated with each agreement and the other is assessed

[58:34] value. I can understand the map. I'm not so sure about the assessed value.

[58:37] question I have to the chair. Is it feasible for either of those to be done

[58:42] within two weeks or are both of those complicated enough that this would push

[58:46] it past the election? >> Officer,

[58:52] » thank you for the chair. Um, I'm looking at the work schedule plan for the next

[58:57] three weeks and I' I can't I would never be able to

[59:02] guarantee that it would be given all of the external appointments and scheduled.

[59:07] So, and it's not me that's doing this work. So,

[59:11] I'm not able to guarantee that it'll be done in that time frame. And really,

[59:17] just so we're clear, it's one week that we would have to turn that around in

[59:22] because that's when the agenda will be produced,

[59:26] » right? And I think that's where I I kind of get stuck on the assessed values. I

[59:29] think the map is more likely in the sense that there's there must be a map

[59:33] out there. It's just here's the land. Whereas getting assessed values on land

[59:37] that's lease hold, on land that's slott land, and so on, it seems more

[59:41] complicated. So I um I I'll amend the motion and I'll make a motion to amend

[59:46] the motion to strike the uh the the the information regarding um the assessed

[59:52] values. >> Okay. So you're amending the motion to

[59:57] postpone. >> Yeah.

[59:59] » So they would just include the map and not include the assessed values for the

[1:00:03] properties. >> Correct.

[1:00:04] » Yeah. Because I think that's feasible within that's maybe more feasible. I

[1:00:07] don't want to put the pressure on staff, but that seems possible.

[1:00:10] » Okay. But we're still >> it's still an open-ended uh

[1:00:14] postponement. So it's not specific to two weeks from now.

[1:00:20] » Yeah. I mean unless we well um I mean what I heard from staff is it's

[1:00:25] difficult to put that. If we put that then it might not actually happen

[1:00:28] anyways. So >> well do we have a second for this

[1:00:32] » amendment to the postponement motion? Dr. McCormack I believe said. Yeah.

[1:00:36] Okay. discussion on this one now. Director

[1:00:40] Lennox follow um I totally get what you're trying to do. Reduce workload on

[1:00:44] staff. Totally get it. But respectfully, isn't a majority of this like admin as

[1:00:50] part of the cost? We should have this information from last year like we were

[1:00:54] saying that both of our staff are sharing these information in this report

[1:00:59] about and class classes of of property too. So I don't like am I missing I

[1:01:06] guess it takes a while but shouldn't that already have to interchange between

[1:01:10] staff that's the whole purpose of love it

[1:01:16] what am I missing

[1:01:20] there's an answer to that

[1:01:25] » okay uh I had director south first then director Elliott

[1:01:31] » thank you chair Um, Director Elliott brought

[1:01:36] made a comment that there's a question in my mind. Is there actually any

[1:01:39] liability to organization

[1:01:44] with this not being signed now that it's been presented here at the at this

[1:01:48] meeting? officer.

[1:01:59] » I mean, it's been like this for a few years now. So,

[1:02:02] » yeah, >> Director Gizbborne.

[1:02:06] » Oh, thank you. Um, section Wait, I got to make sure I read

[1:02:09] » I'm sorry, I forgot. >> I apologize. Can you go after Director

[1:02:13] Elliot? >> Um, thank you. Um

[1:02:18] I think if we want to discuss things that are specifically

[1:02:23] about legal liability issue going like we we can't really

[1:02:28] » um for me uh the amendment still doesn't um move us forward in a

[1:02:37] timely fashion. Uh I believe that now that we know know that we're in in

[1:02:43] breach of an agreement that it It pretty much negates any ability to

[1:02:49] make changes to this agreement no matter how much information we have. I do agree

[1:02:54] we should understand what we're approving and some of the questions you

[1:03:00] have could easily be answered by people who know the background of what happened

[1:03:07] at treaty and what was before treaty. for example, uh reserve lands got got

[1:03:11] transferred to treaty lands, but reserve lands were still governed by the the

[1:03:15] same the nation. And so that's why those agreements could could stay virtually

[1:03:21] same. Um [sighs]

[1:03:27] I don't think this amendment helps us make sure that we're addressing this uh

[1:03:32] in a timely fashion. It looks as like we could be postponing it till after

[1:03:36] Christmas pretty much. and I don't think that that's

[1:03:41] reasonable. So unless the amendment to postpone is

[1:03:46] to specifically next meeting which is this 23rd I think it is um I I would not

[1:03:53] be voting in favor of a postponement that is indeed.

[1:03:57] » Good point. >> Thank you. The motion before us is to

[1:04:02] remove the request for the assessed value.

[1:04:06] » [clears throat] >> That's my understanding is director

[1:04:08] false put for a motion to remove the assessed value as part of the motion to

[1:04:12] postpone. Um, section five of the proposed agreement says, "For the

[1:04:18] purposes of providing the regional district with a basis for determining

[1:04:21] the annual service payment payable by Tlammen for the regional district

[1:04:25] services, Tlammen shall on or before March 31st provide to the regional

[1:04:31] district a summary by class of the most recently dated revised assessment role,

[1:04:36] including the converted and net taxable values of land and improvements for

[1:04:40] those properties located on both Kahani and south view roads that will be used

[1:04:45] by Tlmen in that year as the basis for the taxation of the designated lands.

[1:04:50] Talman shall also provide the regional district with a summary by class of the

[1:04:55] completed assessed role including land and improvements for the designated

[1:04:59] lands prior to January 15th in each year during the term which shall be the basis

[1:05:05] for a preliminary calculation of the annual service payment. In the

[1:05:08] preparation of its assessment role, Twoman shall utilize a method of

[1:05:12] calculating assessed values comparable to that used by the British Columbia

[1:05:16] Assessment Authority. So I assume everyone's been complying with this

[1:05:21] agreement and based on number five, that information should be in the possession

[1:05:27] of the regional district of the most recent assessed role. So I am actually

[1:05:33] opposed to removing this request because according to the agreement it should

[1:05:39] already be in our possession and really I think having the map having the

[1:05:45] previous assessed role will help our board make sure that you know we're

[1:05:50] making an informed decision. That's it. So I'm opposed to this motion because

[1:05:54] I'm asking for information which according to the agreement we should

[1:05:57] already have. Okay. So this is I'm not seeing any

[1:06:04] other hands. So we are going to deal with the amendment which would remove

[1:06:08] the uh the ask for BC assessment values on the properties. So I'm going to call

[1:06:14] the question on the amendment to the postponement.

[1:06:17] All in favor of the amendment. We have two three in favor. Any opposed

[1:06:24] to the amendments? There are four opposed. So, the amendment doesn't pass.

[1:06:28] Back to the motion of postponement. We've gone around this an awfully long

[1:06:33] time. So, I'm just going to call the question on that. Uh on the motion to

[1:06:38] postpone. All in favor? Two. Three in favor. Any opposed?

[1:06:45] Four opposed. That does not pass. Um pardon. And now we're back to the

[1:06:52] main motion. Again, we've been around this quite a few times. So, I think

[1:06:57] we'll just call the question on the main motion. All in favor of the main motion

[1:07:01] as is. We have four in fa five in favor. Any

[1:07:06] opposed? I guess opposed. So, we're going to

[1:07:11] vote. Moving on to I have director.

[1:07:16] » Sure. >> Dave.

[1:07:18] » Yeah. Uh my question is the suggestion that uh director fall made. Um I wonder

[1:07:24] if director fall intended there to be a motion of the suggestion.

[1:07:30] » Well, I was I was sort of suggesting just since I won't be here and I'm you

[1:07:33] know I can do it but I mean I I think it's it's for area A primarily. So I

[1:07:37] would prefer if Director Lennox were to do it and I'm more than happy to help

[1:07:40] but I was suggesting a notice of motion and then developing something to

[1:07:45] » plant a Sure. Since we're talk I was going to wait till after the next one

[1:07:49] but since we're talking about it now thank you director Paul that is quite

[1:07:53] appropriate. I will make a not motion for future meeting. Uh basically uh to

[1:07:59] ask staff to provide a routine uh service agreement uh review. Uh what did

[1:08:05] you write down? I can't read >> report on timelines for review of

[1:08:11] » service agreements renewal. >> Fancier way to say it but yes. Okay.

[1:08:16] Well, make sure that gets to the staff and

[1:08:19] » we will do I'll take you up on that offer. Thank you.

[1:08:22] » Okay. Moving on to 11.2. Very similar situation here. So,

[1:08:29] anybody interested in moving the recommendations

[1:08:34] Elliot seconded by directors during this session is born.

[1:08:39] » Yeah. I'd like to actually move that this be referred to staff and that staff

[1:08:42] bring us the lone blend services agreement. Second that corporate

[1:08:47] officer, >> I think you might need to clear your

[1:08:49] cash. Um because mine is showing the lens the

[1:08:56] » Yeah, I believe mine is two. >> Yeah. So, so section F for me is showing

[1:09:01] Flammen and the regional district have agreed that the regional district will

[1:09:04] provide the services set out in schedule A to this agreement to those portions

[1:09:09] situated in unincorporated area of Lond designated lands also known as the

[1:09:15] lenlands that change mind the old

[1:09:20] » I think was noted early on but we have heard reports that it's

[1:09:27] » even more helpful. >> This is the printed copy I printed this

[1:09:31] afternoon and it says ratification of Colomin Nation Londland services

[1:09:35] agreement and it reads Kahani and Southview leaseold lands and our

[1:09:39] procedure bylaw says that these things need to be put and published within a

[1:09:44] timely manner with enough time before our meetings.

[1:09:48] » CO through the chair we discovered the error of the attachment today. Oh,

[1:09:55] » and the attachment was wrong. So you had a duplication of the same attachment on

[1:10:00] two subsequent reports. So the correct attachment was put on

[1:10:06] today. Okay. So I haven't read I haven't read

[1:10:09] this new attachment agreement because it is

[1:10:17] it is different than the one that I was reading this afternoon.

[1:10:22] » C through the chair. Fair enough. My changes will be the uh

[1:10:28] is they would be distinct to the Londlands and so are treaty settlement

[1:10:32] lands.

[1:10:37] Well, I don't like making rush decisions and quite often we need to be giving our

[1:10:42] board as well as our public adequate information and notice before we make

[1:10:46] these decisions. and any member of the public that was, you know, taking a look

[1:10:50] at our agenda would not have actually able to read this agreement. So my

[1:10:56] motion I still believe I still think we should postpone this because we haven't

[1:11:00] given sufficient time. >> We have a second or

[1:11:05] a second. Any discussion on the motion director Elliott?

[1:11:09] » Uh is there a motion to postpone specific to the meeting that we have

[1:11:14] scheduled to? >> Yeah.

[1:11:17] Now that we actually have it. Okay. >> Any other comments on motion to postpone

[1:11:22] to the final board meeting of >> 23rd?

[1:11:30] No other comments? We'll call the question. All in favor?

[1:11:35] Any opposed? None opposed.

[1:11:39] So, we'll have the basically the same thing in front of us, but we'll have the

[1:11:44] uh the attachment that is included in the online version of today's agenda.

[1:11:50] Uh, no bylaws, new business, inaugural regional board meeting time change.

[1:11:55] Director Elliot, >> that's a thing. I'm just going to change

[1:11:59] I suggest that the motion be that the board change the time of the November

[1:12:04] 5th inaugural meeting and just authorized staff.

[1:12:07] » Okay. is removing authorized staff from >> the board has the authority to change

[1:12:10] it. >> Yeah.

[1:12:11] » I move that the board change the time of the November 5th.

[1:12:15] [laughter]

[1:12:18] » Elliot and Gizbborne. Um

[1:12:22] any discussion? See none. All in favor?

[1:12:26] Passes. Unanimous. Period. Mr. Linsky. Any questions?

[1:12:32] » Uh yes, Chair. Uh just one. I'm wondering if there's any institutional

[1:12:36] recollection of how the oversight occurred.

[1:12:41] » I don't know it.

[1:12:46] » No, >> it's not something I can answer.

[1:12:48] » Not something that we could answer at this time.

[1:12:52] » I thank the chair for that. I have no further questions.

[1:12:55] » Sure. Um any other questions? Seeing none, uh we we're have an in camera

[1:13:02] session. So, somebody like to move that >> director Lennox.

[1:13:07] All in favor? Let's go in.

[1:13:11] » Hi, Roger.

[1:17:00] recording in progress. >> Hey, we are back from the in camera

[1:17:04] session. The board would like to rise and report on the following items. Uh as

[1:17:08] authorized and subject to the conditions set below.

[1:17:12] Um, the board appointed Jack Barrett to the Luski Island Solid Waste Plan

[1:17:16] Monitoring and Advisory Committee for a term expiring December 31st, 2026. And

[1:17:21] the board directed staff to author a letter of thanks to Julie Clark for her

[1:17:24] service to the Texas Island Recreation Commission. With that, we've reached the

[1:17:28] end of our agenda. We are adjourned. Thank you very much for joining us.

Regional Board - 08 Sep 2026

Transcript