[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.