[0:00] Good evening. The August 4th, 2026 informal public hearing for a development
[0:04] variance permit is now convened at 6:00 PM.
[0:07] I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting is being aired live on
[0:10] Zoom as well as being recorded. The purpose of this hearing is to
[0:14] consider a development variance permit for 1501 to
[0:17] 1523 Elder Drive. The order of business will be as
[0:21] follows: staff report, followed by the presentation by the applicant if
[0:25] there is one, opportunity for public feedback.
[0:28] During this time, any person who believes that their interest is affected by the
[0:32] application will be asked to raise their hand and will be called on in order
[0:36] and provided two minutes to make your views known.
[0:38] For those on Zoom, click the Q&A button, where you can enter your full name with
[0:42] your comments, and staff will read it for you.
[0:45] Please restrict your remarks to the matters pertinent to the application.
[0:48] If you have additional information that you wish to share with council that you are
[0:52] unable to provide during that timeframe, you shall be given a further opportunity
[0:56] to address council after all other interested members of the public have been heard
[1:00] a first time. No one will be, nor should they feel discouraged or
[1:03] prevented from making their views known.
[1:05] Your only opportunity to comment on the application will be during this hearing,
[1:09] as members of council are not permitted to receive further submissions after the
[1:13] close of the hearing. And then we'll have applicant response if there is
[1:17] any.
[1:18] After this hearing has concluded, the development variance permit will be
[1:21] considered at the regular council meeting immediately following this hearing. Mr.
[1:25] Soreflet, the floor is yours.
[1:27] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardozo.
[1:29] This is Development Variance Permit 2026-001.
[1:33] This is two variances to several properties.
[1:36] So it's 1501 to 1532 Elder Drive. The area is
[1:40] zoned R3 high density, and it's also multi-family in our official community
[1:44] plan.
[1:45] Lots 10 to 15 are requesting a reduced floor area
[1:49] variance, and lots 14 and 15 have a reduced lot area
[1:54] variance request. I'll go into those in detail next.
[1:56] So the application is to support the construction of fourplexes on the subject
[2:00] lots with either one or two-bedroom units.
[2:03] The applicant's rationale for the variances and the unit size
[2:07] change is that it allows for more affordable housing options within the community.
[2:10] Council did authorize staff to issue notices
[2:13] for this informal hearing on July 21st.
[2:17] So there are two variances. The first variance, which applies to all six lots,
[2:21] are to reduce the minimum floor area for a townhouse from
[2:24] 78.97 square meters to 60.4 square meters
[2:28] for all subject lots. The second variance, which applies only to
[2:32] lots 14 and 15, is to reduce the minimum lot area for a townhouse from
[2:36] 180 square meters to 175 square meters.
[2:40] In terms of legal requirements, notices were delivered on July 24th and mailed to
[2:44] owners and tenants within 60 meters of the parcel, and development signs
[2:48] were posted on the property.
[2:50] In terms of public feedback, no feedback has been received.
[2:54] In terms of impacts, building smaller units may increase the
[2:58] supply and diversity of housing in the community.
[3:01] There aren't currently many one-bedroom units outside of apartments.
[3:05] Similarly, two-bedroom units are harder to find as well.
[3:08] There are no changes to building height, setbacks, site coverage, parking, or
[3:12] permitted uses.
[3:14] The minimum unit sizes, which some may see as
[3:18] an increase in density, are less frequently used in modern zoning
[3:22] bylaws. Ours have existed in our bylaw since, I believe,
[3:25] 1981. They were typically to ensure that multifamily had
[3:29] larger unit sizes to increase property values in an area.
[3:34] Also interesting to note with the Timbers I and II project, a variance was
[3:37] required for the unit sizes there, as the minimum unit size for the District
[3:41] of Sparwood exceeds the maximum unit size BC Housing will fund for
[3:45] their units.
[3:47] So,
[3:48] also, staff are looking at removing this requirement with the new zoning bylaw
[3:52] project and have had community feedback to that effect.
[3:57] In terms of population changes, it's important to note that once Sparwood hits
[4:00] 5,000 population, a 280 square meter lot will be allowed
[4:04] to have four dwelling units on it,
[4:07] which would be 70 square meters per dwelling unit rather than the
[4:10] 165.
[4:13] As a result of more intensive development
[4:16] will be permitted through provincial law than is currently allowed in our zoning
[4:19] bylaw.
[4:21] In terms of internal referral,
[4:23] there may need to be an analysis of water and sewer services during the building
[4:26] permit review for these units, and a form and
[4:31] character development permit is required in all of these multifamily areas per our
[4:35] official community plan. But there are no impacts on the variance.
[4:38] In terms of next steps, council will be considering this at the regular meeting
[4:42] this evening. That concludes my presentation.
[4:45] Thank you. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation to council?
[4:49] No? Thank you. That completes the presentation portion of the application.
[4:53] I will now open the floor to those present and online who would like to share their
[4:56] views with council. When called upon, please state your name and address for the
[4:59] record prior to sharing your comments.
[5:02] Is there anyone present who would like to speak to the application?
[5:04] Is there anybody online, Megan?
[5:08] There's one person online, but I don't see any hands raised or
[5:12] questions asked.
[5:14] Okay.
[5:16] Going once.
[5:19] Twice.
[5:21] A third and final time. Still nothing?
[5:24] Mr. Soreflet, are there any further comments from the applicant?
[5:27] No, Acting Mayor Cardozo.
[5:29] Thank you. I declare this hearing closed at 6:05 PM.
[5:46] Good evening, and welcome to the August 4th, 2026 regular meeting of council for
[5:50] the District of Sparwood. I would like to call this meeting to order at 6:05 PM.
[5:54] I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting is being aired live on
[5:57] Facebook and Zoom, as well as being recorded, and will be broadcasted on the local
[6:01] cable channel. If you would like to ask a question related to an agenda topic, you
[6:05] will have an opportunity during question period.
[6:07] Those online will have to join the meeting through Zoom to ask a question of
[6:10] council.
[6:13] Is there anything council wishes to add or change to this evening's agenda before
[6:16] we consider adoption?
[6:18] Seeing none, can I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? Moved.
[6:21] Seconded. Discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
[6:24] Motion is carried. The next order of business is the adoption of
[6:28] the minutes from the previous meeting.
[6:29] Are there any errors or omissions to the minutes to note before we consider
[6:33] adoption?
[6:34] Seeing none, could I have a motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of
[6:37] council held July 21st, 2026, be adopted as presented? Moved.
[6:41] Seconded. Discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
[6:45] Motion is carried.
[6:53] Our first bylaw report is from the director of operations regarding the traffic
[6:56] regulation bylaw. Mr. Kaisner, the floor is yours.
[7:00] Thank you. This report is before council to consider a minor amendment
[7:04] to traffic regulations bylaw number 1346,
[7:08] 2026, before adoption.
[7:10] I need to interrupt, Mr. Kaisner. I need to step out of the room.
[7:13] I've got a conflict of interest with this one.
[7:30] So the bylaw was developed to replace the district's 1987
[7:33] traffic, parking, and highways regulation bylaw and includes a
[7:37] number of broader improvements, including modernized definitions,
[7:41] administrative provisions, updating parking and accessibility
[7:45] regulations, improved enforcement tools, and a clearer traffic
[7:49] management framework.
[7:51] Following the third reading, staff identified that the definition of no truck route
[7:55] may be interpreted more restrictively than council intended.
[7:58] To address this, the recommended process is to
[8:01] rescind third reading, amend the
[8:05] definition, and then provide the third reading to the bylaw as
[8:08] amended. Adoption would occur at a future
[8:11] meeting. The amendment does not change the overall
[8:15] intent of the bylaw or council's previous direction regarding Michelle Creek
[8:18] Road. Throughout council's review, the intent was to restrict heavy
[8:22] industrial through traffic from using residential roads where an alternative
[8:26] highway route exists, while continuing to permit local
[8:30] access.
[8:32] That intent was reflected elsewhere in the bylaw through
[8:35] existing exemptions, including
[8:38] Section 3.1K. However, staff identified that the
[8:42] definition of no truck route did not clearly capture the
[8:45] intent and could create an uncertainty regarding other
[8:50] legitimate local destinations located within the
[8:54] no truck route.
[8:56] The proposed amendment would define a no truck route as a highway
[9:00] or portion of a highway designated in Schedule D, where trucks are
[9:04] prohibited except where accessing a property
[9:08] directly served by the no truck route or as otherwise authorized by
[9:12] this bylaw.
[9:13] So trucks would continue to be permitted where their destination is
[9:17] located on the no truck route, but the route could not be used as a shortcut or
[9:21] through route to access destinations that could reasonably be
[9:25] reached from the designated highway network.
[9:28] So council's options. Option A is rescind the
[9:32] third reading, amend the definition, and provide third
[9:36] reading to the bylaw as amended. This option clarifies council's
[9:40] intent and maintains local access while directing through traffic to the highway
[9:44] network. Option B, proceed with adoption without
[9:48] amendment. This may leave uncertainty regarding permitted local access
[9:52] on the no truck routes.
[9:56] And option C, do not adopt this bylaw and retain the existing
[10:00] 1987 bylaw.
[10:02] So staff are recommending option A as the amendment provides a clear
[10:06] interpretation of council's intent.
[10:08] Local access remain permitted, consistent with the exemptions
[10:12] already contemplated elsewhere in the bylaw, while routine heavy industrial
[10:16] through traffic is directed away from residential areas and onto the
[10:19] designated highway route.
[10:23] Thank you, Mr. Kaisner. Any
[10:25] questions of council regarding the report? Councillor Atwal.
[10:29] Yeah. Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardoso. Through you to Mr.
[10:33] Kaisner.
[10:35] I think it was brought up last time we talked about this as well a little bit.
[10:38] I'd just like some clarification on what we have for
[10:42] expectations through the district for enforcement.
[10:47] If we are having trucks coming through with the amended
[10:50] version, and it does clarify our intent that we would like
[10:54] to have the reduction and obviously try to minimize the effect
[10:58] on existing businesses. If we have trucks that aren't
[11:03] utilizing and doing deliveries for those local businesses and are
[11:07] using a through traffic route, it's
[11:11] what the intent is to reduce.
[11:14] How are we looking at for enforcement on that?
[11:16] If there is something specific that we can
[11:21] look at, is there something you can clarify on that potentially?
[11:26] Through the chair.
[11:28] Typical traffic bylaw like this is going to follow
[11:32] up through complaints and
[11:36] regular enforcement opportunities,
[11:41] as happens right now on Michelle Creek Road with
[11:44] vehicles
[11:46] coming through, they're reported to bylaw enforcement officer.
[11:50] The improved bylaw gives the...
[11:55] It provides a better way for a bylaw officer to deal with
[11:59] because they're not pulling over like an RCMP officer.
[12:02] So they can take a license plate and a visual,
[12:06] and follow up in that regard with the three axle rule.
[12:11] Okay. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying.
[12:15] I'm happy with that
[12:18] Councillor Christensen
[12:19] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardozo.
[12:22] Daryl, so Manitoulin going east to Alberta,
[12:26] can they
[12:28] turn down that route then under this new amendment?
[12:32] Through the chair. No, that's not the intent of the no truck route.
[12:36] The no truck route would be to limit that traffic from cutting
[12:39] through and reverting to the highway network,
[12:45] so take a left instead of a right.
[12:50] Any other questions of council?
[12:53] Thank you.
[12:54] Council Barr?
[12:55] Thank you.
[12:57] Through yourself to Daryl as well, just looking for clarification then.
[12:59] So,
[13:01] Manitoulin heading east through to Alberta would not be permitted, but
[13:04] Manitoulin heading east to the Elkview gate,
[13:09] whether it be the current gate or the plant gate, would
[13:12] be accessible?
[13:16] So any three-axle vehicle would not be
[13:20] permitted to go through on a regular basis.
[13:22] If it was an unusual load that
[13:27] may pose a problem on the regular highway network, they can
[13:30] apply for a free permit through our public works office.
[13:34] This is what we do now for the large truck box deliveries that
[13:38] go through to
[13:40] Elkview gates, for example.
[13:44] That would be allowed in the same method that they are now.
[13:48] But otherwise, any traffic with a three-axle vehicle would
[13:52] be heading towards Highway 43 and routing to
[13:55] Highway 3 that way.
[13:58] Okay, thank you.
[14:01] Go ahead. Councillor Nand.
[14:06] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardozo. I
[14:08] have a quick comment, Daryl, before I ask a question.
[14:12] Did you guys think about traffic on Highway
[14:16] 43 and trying to go onto Highway 3?
[14:20] It is going to be stupid.
[14:23] These trucks are big. If there's two or three small cars
[14:26] behind them, they'll be there for two hours before they get on the
[14:30] highway.
[14:32] I'm kind of exaggerating, but you get my point.
[14:39] So how is this going to improve things
[14:41] on Shell Creek Road and Highway 3
[14:45] and Highway 43?
[14:49] Through the chair, that is what's on table today
[14:53] for council to deliberate and decide on.
[14:58] Councillor Christensen.
[15:00] Thank you. Yeah, I'm even more confused.
[15:03] And Daryl, so as Councillor Barr explained,
[15:07] a load coming out from Manitoulin to even
[15:11] Graco, pick up Graco and deliver it outside of a truck box,
[15:16] normal course of business, or even go up to the mine site,
[15:20] grab something from Elkview or Portage River Green Hills,
[15:24] deliver a wheel motor up to Elkview,
[15:28] is not allowed down
[15:30] to store it overnight in their yard and not allowed to go in the
[15:33] morning to deliver that at Elkview.
[15:37] Seems to me that that's a normal course of business that fits that
[15:41] definition, which seems confusing
[15:44] now.
[15:49] Do you have a specific question?
[15:54] Not allowed? In that case, they go get a wheel motor, they store it overnight at
[15:57] their shop.
[15:59] They've got to turn
[16:01] west to deliver that to Elkview in the morning?
[16:07] Through the chair. So,
[16:11] basically a no truck route means that there's no trucks with three axles
[16:15] going through it. That's it. So if
[16:19] they have a three-axle truck that needs to get to Alberta, they have
[16:23] to turn from Highway 43 onto 3 and access Alberta
[16:27] that way with this draft by-law. This is for council to
[16:31] decide upon. This is not a staff decision.
[16:35] This is brought forward based on the complaints from
[16:39] residents to council. Council brought it forward.
[16:44] If they have an unusually large load that
[16:48] cannot go onto Highway 43,
[16:51] ultimately that would be a permit-driven
[16:56] response, and they would apply for a permit to do so.
[17:00] If that's something that council doesn't wish to do, you simply do
[17:04] not allow a no truck route. You just take this out of the by-law.
[17:08] That's it.
[17:10] Thank you, Mr. Kaisner.
[17:12] So, council, we have three motions before us this evening.
[17:15] The first motion is that council rescind third reading of the traffic regulations
[17:19] by-law 1346 2026. Can I have a mover?
[17:24] Moved.
[17:25] Seconded. Discussion.
[17:28] Councillor Christensen.
[17:29] Yeah, I vote that we rescind this.
[17:33] We make a revision. We also consider the three
[17:38] areas here that I'm quite concerned about.
[17:41] And the first area is, like Councillor Nand just said,
[17:46] the comment made in our public meeting last time that
[17:50] it's about safety, and heaven forbid we hurt
[17:54] somebody because we don't act. But now we're
[17:58] putting more traffic onto 3 and 43, and we've got
[18:02] Spartel there, and they have children, they have
[18:06] disabled people, elderly, crossing that road.
[18:09] I tried to get onto that intersection today.
[18:13] As Councillor Nand said, it's like a speedway, and we're just going to
[18:17] add more
[18:18] ... trucks onto that, and
[18:21] they've got a job to do and a time limit to keep that they're safe.
[18:25] But at the same time,
[18:28] I don't think we thought that out. The second reason is
[18:33] incremental cost, and we just added to all the businesses.
[18:35] I know the comparison was 30 seconds, you figured out,
[18:39] but
[18:40] that's a car.
[18:42] If they were driving cars all day doing hot shots, maybe.
[18:45] But they're hauling
[18:47] 40,000, 50,000 pounds in a semi with air brakes.
[18:51] I would beg to think that that's a little bit higher incremental cost
[18:55] than
[18:56] comparing to a car. So,
[19:00] plus multiple loads per day. So
[19:04] we don't know the cost impact that we're about to put onto a business
[19:08] like Manitoulin or Dynamics or whoever, or Elfview
[19:12] or Tech, whoever uses that road. That's
[19:15] Tech land or
[19:19] EBR land, too, for heaven's sakes.
[19:22] We're about to affect the landowners of that
[19:26] area.
[19:28] Third reason is permitting.
[19:32] We heard a little bit about permitting.
[19:35] Ed from Manitoulin started putting says he can't comply with that law.
[19:39] He says his permits, which take up to two
[19:43] years to change,
[19:45] I assume, we haven't heard any more information.
[19:48] I'd like to hear, but I assume that's with the Ministry of Highways
[19:52] in BC.
[19:55] Modi, and my guess is that his permits would trump
[19:59] ours and
[20:01] our bylaw. And so again, an added layer of
[20:05] confusion. So
[20:06] I really think the no truck route really has to be
[20:10] delved into a little bit better
[20:12] and get some consulting done.
[20:16] I, for one, can't vote for that, just for
[20:20] fear that the ramifications that could come back to us personally if
[20:24] one of these businesses decide to
[20:27] challenge us. And because of these extra costs, I know
[20:31] we've gone through the procedure, but
[20:35] making the decision based on
[20:38] not enough information is never good.
[20:40] So
[20:41] I vote we just rescind it and bring it back to
[20:45] a bigger study. At least that no truck route.
[20:48] The rest of it, I'm fine.
[20:51] Yeah, and like you said, that is the only issue is that we've already had our
[20:55] informal public hearing, so we can't hear any other information from
[20:59] the residents, from the businesses.
[21:01] They had their opportunity to voice it then, and some of them did.
[21:04] We did hear from them, but that's where we're at procedurally,
[21:08] unfortunately.
[21:10] Any other discussion? Councillor Atwal?
[21:13] Yeah, I think
[21:15] no discussion for
[21:17] rescinding on the first part of the motion, but I'll have a discussion
[21:21] point for part two for the actual amendment of the traffic bylaw.
[21:25] So, I think I'm ready to vote on the rescinding part, and then we'll come
[21:29] back to
[21:30] the second part of the amended motion.
[21:34] Any other discussion?
[21:37] All those in favor?
[21:40] Opposed? Motion is carried.
[21:43] The second motion before us is that council amend the traffic regulations bylaw
[21:46] 1346, 2026 as follows: definition
[21:50] of no truck route means a highway or portion of highway designated in
[21:54] Schedule D, where trucks are prohibited except for the
[21:58] purpose of accessing a property directly served by the no truck route,
[22:02] or as otherwise authorized by this bylaw. Can I have a mover?
[22:06] Moved.
[22:09] Seconder?
[22:11] I'll second.
[22:11] Second it. Discussion?
[22:14] Councillor Barr.
[22:14] Thank you.
[22:15] I'm really not in favor of having the no truck route wording put in there.
[22:20] The way it stands, I would be more inclined to having a local
[22:24] traffic only
[22:25] wording may be applied, which would allow Manitoulin,
[22:29] as they have property along that route, to still be able to use that
[22:32] route. But it would eliminate, in my mind, it would eliminate other
[22:36] companies from using the Michelle Creek Road as a bypass, let's
[22:40] say,
[22:42] for them to be able to haul stuff back and forth on.
[22:44] So I don't know if that's something that we could consider, but that would be
[22:46] something that I would look at being in favor of.
[22:51] Thank you. Councillor Atwal.
[22:53] Yeah. Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardozo.
[22:55] It's one of those things where
[22:58] we've heard from the businesses
[23:01] how it could potentially affect their business.
[23:06] My takeaway is
[23:08] they've also had
[23:10] five, six, seven weeks
[23:14] to engage with the people who have been frustrated about these
[23:19] traffic concerns for years.
[23:22] And I reached out to a few of the residents who had brought up concerns.
[23:26] They haven't heard anything from any of the businesses.
[23:29] They haven't addressed any of the concerns.
[23:31] And I understand that Manitoulin and Reico and them are
[23:35] not the problem children of this.
[23:39] But at the same time, if those residents are raising a concern, we've gone down the
[23:43] route of
[23:45] asking CVSE to come out and do enforcement.
[23:48] We've asked the RCMP to come out and do enforcement.
[23:51] It hasn't led to any changes, nothing that we're seeing there.
[23:55] I feel like this puts another tool within the
[23:59] district's ability to actually curb some of this
[24:03] traffic that is not local specific.
[24:06] I understand Councillor Barr's want for having a local traffic
[24:10] only. I don't think that that has the implication we want it to have
[24:14] of reducing the traffic from
[24:18] those transport trucks that are going through there making deliveries out
[24:22] to
[24:23] Elford to forwarding Green Hills and Line Creek and
[24:27] such
[24:28] is not a punishment piece for the local businesses at all, but it
[24:32] is taking into consideration the concerns that residents have brought up,
[24:36] that we have tried to go down these avenues already that we're trying to talk about
[24:40] now that haven't worked.
[24:43] I look at it and there is the conversation
[24:47] of the trucks having to use Highway 43 instead of Michelle Creek Road.
[24:51] Highway 43 is paid for by the province to repair.
[24:54] Michelle Creek Road is paid by local residents through our taxes.
[24:58] If we have to do any repair on Michelle Creek Road, that's a cost
[25:02] borne by the local taxpayers. End of the day,
[25:06] that road is made for heavier traffic, it's made to haul.
[25:09] I understand the concerns. I am very much in favor of at least
[25:13] putting this forward, seeing what the implications look like, and making
[25:16] adjustments in the upcoming year of what that is.
[25:21] I don't feel like paying for a study out of taxpayer dollars again
[25:25] is going to make any difference. I don't understand the point of that.
[25:28] Why are we spending money to come back to a similar result again
[25:32] when residents have brought this concern forward?
[25:34] And I commend those residents for coming forward and saying, "We've
[25:38] tried things." They've also gone down avenues and gotten no result.
[25:42] I'm not a fan of lamed up policies and putting things
[25:46] forward for the fact of just putting things forward and setting it off, kicking the
[25:49] can down the road. We tried that. We're a year and a half into this.
[25:53] I really feel like we've gone through avenues, we've gone through things.
[25:57] I feel like those businesses, including EVR, have had ample
[26:01] opportunity to go and engage with these residents who have these complaints, who
[26:05] brought them to council, and everything in between.
[26:08] I'm here to make sure that those residents are heard and taken care of,
[26:12] and that's the rest. It's as simple as that.
[26:15] They have had ample opportunity to engage.
[26:17] I feel like I have also reached out to these folks as best
[26:21] I can from a distance.
[26:24] The onus lies on us to do better for those people, and I am
[26:28] not a fan of kicking this down the road and hoping somebody picks it up down the
[26:32] road. Not my style of way of going forward.
[26:35] And so I'm in support of this. I feel like it is something that should've been
[26:39] put forward before. And I'm happy to support this, at least to
[26:43] see what the implications come out of it for those businesses.
[26:47] Adjust where we need to adjust down the road.
[26:49] But the fact of doing nothing and hoping that things change, but they
[26:53] haven't in the past three years, I'm not a fan of that.
[26:58] Support the people. If the business are that concerned, there are opportunities for
[27:02] them to come out post,
[27:05] and make adjustments and amendments to this bylaw.
[27:07] But I am fully in favor of pushing this forward and proceeding,
[27:11] and seeing how it goes, because I think that's the most important thing to push
[27:15] forward, that we've tried things, hasn't changed, do something, or
[27:20] what's the point?
[27:23] Councilor Christensen.
[27:24] Yeah. Thank you, Acting Mayor. I could go on
[27:28] all day to argue some of those points that I disagree with about
[27:32] 90% of what was just said.
[27:36] I support what Councilor Bard just stated.
[27:39] It's
[27:41] look at a local-only option and
[27:45] maybe even add a dangerous goods option, which EVR said that
[27:49] they've already made arrangements for and have taken care of.
[27:55] But
[27:57] yeah.
[27:59] Yes, we've heard from the individuals who wrote letters, but
[28:03] let's be clear, we still haven't seen anything but a letter,
[28:07] and
[28:08] that's it. A letter. And
[28:14] just as valid as EVR's
[28:18] letter to us stating their reasons for keeping it open and
[28:21] Manitoulin stating why they'd like to see it kept open.
[28:25] So I'd be
[28:29] supportive, just getting rid of the no truck and
[28:32] readdressing it.
[28:34] I don't think we're asking for a study for somebody to come in and
[28:38] consult us on this.
[28:41] So, thank you.
[28:45] Councilor Nand.
[28:48] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardozo. I wholeheartedly agree with Councilor
[28:51] Christensen and Councilor Baugh on this issue. Thank you.
[28:59] I tend to agree with Councilor Atwal.
[29:01] We've been kicking this down the road for a long time, and nothing has
[29:04] changed. We've heard the concerns from the residents, and we need to try
[29:08] something different. As Councilor Atwal mentioned, we can look
[29:12] at something else down the road. If this doesn't work, if it doesn't have the
[29:15] intended effect, we can always change it again.
[29:18] That's the prerogative of council. That's something that we can do.
[29:21] But to do nothing
[29:23] and hope that things will change,
[29:26] that's crazy to me.
[29:28] Why not give this a try? See if it works.
[29:31] I would be open to local traffic. I think that would be
[29:35] okay, but again, we'd have to see is it
[29:38] working, because that would be trying something different.
[29:42] So I don't know. Councilor Atwal.
[29:46] Yeah. It's one of those pieces that I find that
[29:50] I
[29:51] can get frustrated about and I don't bring up very often
[29:54] with what it is. But
[29:59] Councilor Christensen did ask for a study earlier
[30:03] in the discussion. He said, "I want to make sure that we have a fulsome
[30:07] discussion, have a study conducted." And now,
[30:10] I don't like the back-and-forth piece of it either, but I did want to make sure
[30:14] that we're being clear on what was...
[30:17] I didn't just bring it up out of nowhere.
[30:19] I want to make sure that we're clear on this.
[30:23] But I think that's a big piece. I think that we have a lot of information
[30:27] that did come from residents. They've supplied Photos.
[30:31] They've invited us out for walks to come out and take a look at the
[30:35] situation for the highway. And again,
[30:39] there have been a lot of concerns they've brought up to the companies and stuff as
[30:43] well on what they can do. They've gone to the
[30:46] RCMP themselves, CBSC. I feel like the residents have done
[30:50] a lot of the brunt work of trying to make a solution come
[30:54] forward for this, and they've come to council
[30:57] to assist and help to actually make
[31:00] a difference in what they're seeing.
[31:03] And I always remember that the decisions I make, and I try to make
[31:07] consistently, is for the benefit of the community,
[31:10] and I think that this is the right path forward, at least for that.
[31:13] And if there's a change that needs to come down the road, make a change come down
[31:16] the road. Nothing here is written in stone. We change bylaws all the time.
[31:19] But I'd like to see something done instead of nothing.
[31:25] So Megan, if we were to try and add a
[31:28] local traffic piece to this,
[31:32] how would we go about that?
[31:40] That would take some
[31:45] thoughts on how to word that for the bylaw.
[31:48] My suggestion is deal with the motion that's on the table right
[31:52] now,
[31:53] and then potentially the council could look at amending it to remove the no truck
[31:57] route on Michelle Creek Road, and then adopt this bylaw
[32:01] as written, and then bring back an amendment to add a local
[32:04] route, potentially in the future,
[32:07] would be one way. But right now, I would deal with the motion on the floor.
[32:12] How does council wish to proceed?
[32:15] Any discussion on that?
[32:17] Can we have the motion reread, please?
[32:19] Yes. The motion before us is that council amend the traffic
[32:23] regulations bylaw 1346-2026 as follows:
[32:27] Definition of no truck route means a highway or portion of highway
[32:30] designated in Schedule D where trucks are prohibited except for the purpose of
[32:34] accessing a property directly served by the no truck route or as
[32:38] otherwise authorized by this bylaw.
[32:41] Call the question, please.
[32:44] I'll call the question. All those in favor?
[32:48] Opposed? Motion is defeated.
[32:53] That's a nice little different one.
[32:57] Yep.
[32:57] Yep.
[32:59] Council Christensen.
[32:59] Could we make a motion now to remove the no truck route
[33:03] and
[33:05] continue with the...
[33:09] Okay, so
[33:11] a new motion before us. Oh, hang on.
[33:27] Okay, the new motion before us is that council amend the traffic regulations bylaw
[33:31] 1346-2026 as follows: remove the no truck
[33:35] route provision for Michelle Creek Road. Can I have a mover?
[33:38] Moved.
[33:40] Seconded. Discussion.
[33:45] No discussion?
[33:47] Councillor Atwal.
[33:50] I think that this will have at least
[33:54] broader implications, and I hope it does,
[33:57] about ineffectual government and how citizens bring
[34:01] up a concern and it goes nowhere.
[34:05] I think that there is long-drawn frustration on where this
[34:09] leads to. We've had this discussion for
[34:12] months upon months to come forward with this.
[34:16] Lot of opportunity to have the discussions and conversations,
[34:20] and then have members from council coming in and saying, "Have
[34:23] we engaged? Your responsibility is to engage."
[34:27] We are the elected officials. If you're not engaging, then what's the
[34:31] point? You're not supposed to sit here and just wait for reports for staff to go do
[34:34] the work. Show up, go talk to residents, go talk to business owners.
[34:38] Don't wait for somebody to do it.
[34:41] I find this quite frustrating,
[34:44] but that's just me. I feel like my hope is that
[34:48] residents don't lose perspective
[34:53] on local government and hoping to make changes that
[34:56] they are wanting,
[34:58] and not be directed by
[35:00] a handful of folks who feel like they can
[35:04] put things the way they want to and
[35:06] just take away the wants from local residents who are
[35:11] bringing up concerns. So I hope that
[35:13] that does have the implication. I hope it does. So thank you.
[35:17] Councillor Christensen.
[35:19] I appreciate the reprimand,
[35:22] but that's a pretty big assumption to assume that none of us talk to
[35:26] residents and none of us talk to the businesses and
[35:30] heard from them. So I take a little bit of issue with
[35:34] that. But you're free to reprimand if you want,
[35:38] Sam, but
[35:40] you're speaking from a lack of information, so you shouldn't do
[35:44] that. And
[35:47] thank you.
[35:49] Any other-
[35:50] If I may, Acting Mayor Cardoso, it's not from a lack of
[35:53] information. It's the discussion that happens in council chambers and
[35:57] has happened for the last two months where the discussion has been, have we
[36:01] engaged? Have we talked to business owners? Do we realize what it is?
[36:05] My assumptions are based on your conversations
[36:09] for all of us at this council table.
[36:11] So I am happy to
[36:15] take the information and the correction if you feel that
[36:19] is where we should take it. But
[36:22] my
[36:25] assumption on this is based on conversations that have happened at this table.
[36:29] So I appreciate the clarification
[36:35] Any other discussion?
[36:36] I'll call the question. All those in favor?
[36:40] Is there any more discussion?
[36:41] Can you read the motion again?
[36:42] Yep.
[36:43] Yeah.
[36:43] Motion is that Council amend the Traffic Regulations Bylaw 1346,
[36:47] 2026 as follows: remove the no truck route provision for Michelle
[36:51] Creek Road.
[36:56] All those in favor?
[36:57] Opposed?
[36:59] Motion is defeated.
[37:01] Carried. Carried. Sorry.
[37:05] Okay, and the third motion before us is that Council give third reading to Traffic
[37:08] Regulations Bylaw 1346, 2026 as
[37:11] amended. Can I have a mover?
[37:14] Moved. Moved and seconded. Discussion?
[37:17] All those in favor?
[37:19] Opposed?
[37:21] Motion is carried.
[37:22] Second.
[37:25] Yeah.
[37:49] Our first report is from the Director of Planning and Development regarding a
[37:52] development variance permit for 1501,
[37:54] 1523 Elder Drive. Mr. Sofley, the floor
[37:58] is yours.
[38:00] Thank you, Acting Mayor.
[38:02] So this is DVP-2026-001, 1501 to
[38:06] 1523 Elder Drive.
[38:08] This is an area zoned R3 high-density residential and is also identified as
[38:12] multi-family residential in our OCP.
[38:14] There are two variances before you this evening, and I'll go into those in detail
[38:17] in a moment.
[38:18] The variances are requested to allow for four-plexes to be built
[38:22] with either one or two-bedroom units, so smaller four-plexes on these lots.
[38:26] The applicant's rationale is to provide more affordable housing options within the
[38:30] community. Council authorized staff to issue notice for an informal hearing on
[38:33] July 21st, and the informal hearing was held earlier this evening.
[38:37] The two variances, one is to reduce the minimum floor area for a townhouse
[38:41] from 78.97
[38:44] square meters to 60.4 square meters for all of the lots.
[38:47] And the other is to reduce the minimum lot area for a townhouse from 180 square
[38:51] meters to 175 square meters per unit for lots 14
[38:55] and 15.
[38:57] That's these lots here identified in red.
[39:00] No feedback was received through the informal hearing.
[39:03] In terms of impacts, smaller units may increase the supply and diversity of housing
[39:07] in the community. Important to note, there are no proposed changes to existing
[39:11] building height, setbacks, site coverage, parking, or permitted uses for this
[39:15] zone. Minimum unit sizes are a less frequently
[39:18] employed
[39:20] metric in modern zoning,
[39:23] as they have a direct impact on costs.
[39:25] Staff are likely to be recommending removal of this metric in the R3 zone in the
[39:29] new zoning bylaw project.
[39:31] Also important to note that once Sparwood hits 5,000 population,
[39:36] the minimum allowable density on a lot of 280 square meters
[39:40] will be four units. That means someone can build one or they could build four
[39:43] dwellings on a property of 280 square meters, which
[39:47] equates to one per 70 square meters rather than one per
[39:50] 175.
[39:52] In terms of next steps, if Council approves this DVP, we'll register
[39:56] the DVP with the Land Title and Survey Authority, and it is our
[39:59] recommendation that Council approve Development Variance Permit DVP
[40:03] 2026-001. If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
[40:06] Thank you. Any questions of Council on the report?
[40:10] Seeing none, the motion before us is that Council issue Development Variance Permit
[40:14] DVP 2026-001 to vary Section
[40:18] 3.8.2.F.I of the District Zoning
[40:22] Bylaw 264, 1981 as amended to
[40:25] decrease the minimum floor area for a townhouse from 78.97
[40:29] meters squared to 60.4 meters squared for lots 10 to
[40:33] 15 DL 4135 KD Plan
[40:36] EPP 139278 on Elder Drive,
[40:40] and Section 3.8.2K.I
[40:44] of the District Zoning Bylaw 264, 1981 as
[40:47] amended to decrease the minimum lot area for a townhouse from 180
[40:51] meters squared to 175 meters squared for lots 14 and
[40:55] 15 DL 4135 KD Plan EPP
[40:59] 139278 on Elder Drive. Can I have a mover?
[41:03] Moved and seconded. Discussion?
[41:05] You missed a letter.
[41:07] Would you like me to reread it?
[41:11] Any other discussion?
[41:13] All those in favor? Opposed? Motion is carried.
[41:21] Our next report is from the Director of Community Services regarding Columbia Basin
[41:25] Public Art Program grant application. Ms. Jensen, the floor is yours.
[41:29] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardoso. This report is coming before Council to seek
[41:33] approval to apply for the Columbia River Basin Public Art Program grant.
[41:38] In June of 2020, following a successful
[41:41] 75%-funded grant application from Columbia
[41:45] Basin Trust, the District of Sparwood launched the Street Art
[41:49] Banner Program. This program was designed to showcase the work of local
[41:53] artists and beautify the community, with selected art pieces to be
[41:56] printed and displayed on aluminum banners and hung on select
[42:00] street poles throughout the community.
[42:03] The Street Art Banner policy was developed to guide the program, and artists from
[42:07] Sparwood, the Elk Valley, and the Columbia Basin were invited to submit
[42:11] artwork that falls within the scope of heritage,
[42:15] environment, connection to the community, and love of Sparwood.
[42:19] Submissions at the time were then evaluated by the Street Banner Advisory Group,
[42:23] a committee established by Council.
[42:26] The program ran in both 2020 and 2021.
[42:29] It was very popular, and a large number of submissions were received.
[42:34] Following this program, Council did express interest in continuing with the
[42:38] program, and budget was earmarked should the grant become available again in the
[42:42] following years. After several years of the grant no longer being
[42:46] available, the budget was removed
[42:49] Staff have recently identified a new grant opportunity that directly
[42:52] supports the proposed program. The grant is
[42:55] administered by the Columbia Kootenay Cultural Alliance and
[42:59] funded through Columbia Basin Trust.
[43:02] With funding up to $75,000 available and
[43:06] eligibility for 100% of project cost coverage,
[43:10] the program presents a significant funding opportunity for the district.
[43:14] If council is supportive of continuation of the Street Art Banner program,
[43:19] staff can proceed with the grant application.
[43:23] Thank you, Ms. Jensen. Before we get to the motion, I'm wondering if staff can
[43:27] just take a moment to briefly
[43:29] explain how grants work,
[43:32] what the funds can be used for, and maybe differentiate between provincial
[43:36] funding and funding that's received from CBT.
[43:40] Ms. Sheila Camp.
[43:41] Thank you, Mayor Codyzo.
[43:45] Grant funding,
[43:46] the philosophy of the District of Sparwood is that we don't
[43:50] chase grants. So we will look into grants
[43:54] for opportunities that have already been identified by council
[43:58] as priorities or
[44:02] needs within the community. So that is the first
[44:06] philosophy that we follow. Often what happens is a
[44:10] grant might come up for X, and it's not on our capital plan,
[44:14] strategic plan, but then we divert funds there.
[44:17] So that is the number one thing that we look at is for something.
[44:22] Different grants,
[44:25] Columbia Basin Trust,
[44:27] it's
[44:30] a third-party grant funding.
[44:33] They are very supportive of projects within our
[44:37] region, and their turnaround time is
[44:41] quite quick. The grants are smaller, I would say,
[44:45] in size, although we've had some very
[44:48] successful applications as well.
[44:53] And typically grants, this example here
[44:57] is 100% funded. Typically, grants require
[45:01] contributions from the district as well.
[45:04] So the larger provincial-type grants will, say, be
[45:08] 50% funded or X% funded, so the remainder of the
[45:12] money would have to come from our taxpayers.
[45:16] Example is the wastewater treatment plant.
[45:19] I think we were successful in receiving just under $8
[45:22] million with a project cost of $30
[45:25] million.
[45:27] So the rest, we had to levy
[45:32] parcel taxes to pay for that difference.
[45:37] So typically, the way we approach it is
[45:40] the project would have been identified as an emerging or
[45:44] strategic topic
[45:47] many years in the making.
[45:50] An example is the Centennial Plaza
[45:54] stage and washroom.
[45:56] That was part of the initial design of the Centennial Plaza.
[46:01] When we received the quotes, they were too high.
[46:03] We couldn't afford to do the project.
[46:05] So the project was put on hold, but staff were asked to
[46:09] pursue grant opportunities. So then we'll go out, and we will
[46:13] pursue grant opportunities to bring
[46:17] it within the affordability of the community.
[46:21] Great. Thank you. Councilor Callius.
[46:23] You mind a point of clarity,
[46:25] Acting Mayor Codyzo?
[46:26] Sure.
[46:26] Yeah.
[46:28] Ms. Sheila Camp, so it's serendipitous that you mentioned the
[46:33] Centennial Plaza stage, and for a layperson,
[46:38] just so I'm understanding correctly, we don't just
[46:42] chase grants. The grants we
[46:44] pursue are based on what council is already
[46:48] prioritizing, and in the case of the Centennial
[46:52] Plaza grant, the stage, it wasn't just it fell out of thin air.
[46:56] We've always had that on the books.
[46:58] It was part of the original plan,
[47:00] and we had budgeted it previously.
[47:03] It's just a fantastic
[47:06] good news story that we happened to also get a grant for something we had planned
[47:09] on over the last few years. Am I understanding that correctly in just
[47:13] a very simple layperson's type interpretation?
[47:17] Yes. We would have proceeded when we
[47:21] budgeted, but we didn't have sufficient funding, and so council
[47:25] put it on hold until we could find sufficient funding,
[47:29] and so it's an ongoing process when opportunities do come about.
[47:34] So with this last grant opportunity now,
[47:37] we still haven't received bids on the project yet,
[47:41] so who knows where those bids might come in.
[47:44] But this opportunity made it possible that we could carry
[47:48] forward on this project that had already been planned.
[47:51] Just one further, if you wouldn't mind.
[47:53] Yep.
[47:53] So what I'm understanding then is that essentially we're not
[47:57] just finding grants which give us partial funding and
[48:01] then perpetuating even more spends which we had not
[48:05] previously planned for. These were planned spends-
[48:08] Yes
[48:08] ... and we're now searching for
[48:11] other avenues for not tax increases.
[48:14] It's essentially, "Here's our plan."
[48:16] Yes.
[48:17] If we got no grants, we would
[48:21] fund it through taxpayer, which is part of our strategic priority
[48:25] plan. We're not just finding
[48:28] money or investing half of it and then just saying, "Oh, by the way, we hadn't
[48:32] planned on this, but
[48:34] now that we've got partial funding, we'll now put the burden on the
[48:38] taxpayer to put this thing that's no longer planned." There's
[48:41] a method to the madness, is what I'm hearing.
[48:43] Exactly. Like when the cost came in so
[48:47] high, council was looking at alternative solutions that may be
[48:51] portable or something cheaper. Whereas with this grant
[48:55] opportunity, it gave us an opportunity to fulfill the proper
[48:58] scope of the project. Yes, that is correct.
[49:01] Thank you for the clarity.
[49:02] Councillor Christensen.
[49:04] Thank you, Acting Mayor.
[49:06] Just for Councillor Kelly, so did we put any money into
[49:10] reserves? We just budgeted and we took it off when we
[49:13] decided not to do it? Or did we put some into reserve for
[49:19] this already?
[49:20] They are in reserves.
[49:22] So we do have funds-
[49:23] Yes
[49:24] ... available in reserves for if we go beyond the
[49:27] CBT grant. Is that correct?
[49:30] Yes. I think the report that came to council on that specific one
[49:34] was with the expected cost and where the funding would come
[49:38] from. Yes.
[49:39] Okay. So those reserves have not been spent elsewhere?
[49:43] No.
[49:43] We're making interest on them right now.
[49:45] That is correct.
[49:45] Okay. Thank you.
[49:48] Sorry for the sidebar, but I feel like we just needed to get that information out
[49:51] to the public. Any questions on Ms.
[49:54] Jensen's report regarding the art program grant application?
[50:01] The motion before us is that council authorize the submission to the Columbia River
[50:04] Basin Public Art Grant for the maximum value of 75,000 for the
[50:08] continuation of the Street Art Banner program. Can I have a mover?
[50:12] Moved and seconded. Discussion.
[50:16] All those in favor?
[50:17] Opposed? Motion is carried.
[50:22] Our next report is from the director of operations regarding the Shore Grant
[50:26] application. Mr. Kaisner, the floor is yours.
[50:29] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cordoza.
[50:32] This report seeks authorization to submit a Columbia Basin Trust Shore
[50:35] Stream One grant application for planning and
[50:39] design work related to future Elk River access and amenity
[50:43] improvements near the Elk River Bridge.
[50:45] The project area currently serves as an active transportation connection
[50:49] between Sparwood Heights and Pine Avenue and functions as an
[50:53] informal access point to the Elk River Trail Network.
[50:57] The concept has been identified as an emerging strategic priority
[51:01] and has been discussed since 2019, but has not advanced due
[51:05] to competing priorities and funding availability.
[51:08] The Shore Stream One program provides funding of up to
[51:11] $50,000 and may cover up to 75% of
[51:15] eligible planning and design costs.
[51:19] The work includes concept planning, engineering review,
[51:23] environmental considerations, permitting assessments, and cost estimating.
[51:28] Staff are requesting authorization to apply for the maximum grant amount of
[51:31] 50,000 toward a total estimated planning budget of
[51:34] 66,700,
[51:37] with the remaining funding to be supported through the capital works reserve
[51:41] if the application is successful.
[51:43] Completion of the planning phase would provide council with a better understanding
[51:47] of project feasibility, costs, permitting requirements, and
[51:51] future implementation options while improving
[51:54] readiness for future funding opportunities.
[51:58] Please note that the approval of this application does not authorize
[52:02] construction. Any recommendations arising from the planning work would
[52:06] be brought back to council for future consideration, and any construction
[52:10] would require separate council approval and funding authorization.
[52:14] Should council support the recommendations, staff's next step will be to submit the
[52:18] Shore Stream One grant application.
[52:21] Thank you, Mr. Kaisner. Any questions of council on the report?
[52:25] The motion before us is that council authorize the submission of the Shoreline
[52:28] Outdoor Revitalization and Enhancement, Shore Grant application under
[52:33] Stream One to Columbia Basin Trust for funding up to $50,000,
[52:37] representing 75% of the eligible project costs towards
[52:41] the planning and design of Elk River access and amenity projects and
[52:45] support further planning costs up to an additional 16,700
[52:49] from the capital works reserved for a total planning cost of
[52:51] 66,700. Can I have a mover? Moved and seconded.
[52:55] Discussion.
[52:57] Councillor Kalis.
[53:00] I'm going to speak in favor, but I do
[53:03] want to go on record for those that will return for 2027
[53:07] budgeting.
[53:09] Along with staff to consider is that
[53:14] as we
[53:16] improve access to the Elk River,
[53:19] while today we don't see the same public rafting day
[53:23] trip type thing that we see just
[53:26] a little bit west of here, if it was to transition to that, I know that
[53:29] Fernie Fire Rescue had to take on additional training for
[53:33] swiftwater rescue, which was a shift
[53:37] about 15 years ago as we've seen more improvements to the
[53:41] access to the river, more users, which meant more
[53:45] risk. We're not in that particular place today, but
[53:48] if we do continue to support it, it's something to consider for Chief Tennant in
[53:52] future budgeting, in that we see more people on the river, there's
[53:56] more interaction. It is a risk and, as part of the Elk
[54:00] River does go through the District of Sparwood, we need to consider that.
[54:03] So
[54:04] in support today and not
[54:07] saying we need to change anything, but keep it in mind for future.
[54:11] Thank you.
[54:13] Councillor Atwal.
[54:15] Yeah. Thank you, Acting Mayor Cordoza.
[54:18] Speaking in favor of this, I just want to say a shout-out and kudos to
[54:22] staff. I know this was
[54:24] something that we as council discussed way early on and felt
[54:29] like a very nice to have type of situation on our
[54:33] strat planning sessions way back when.
[54:35] So I'm glad that there's an opportunity to seize an
[54:39] opportunity and pursue it, at least in the future.
[54:42] So,
[54:44] kudos and shout-out to staff for recognizing something that was
[54:48] shortlisted at one point, and an opportunity for us to take it. So thank you again.
[54:54] Councillor Christensen.
[54:55] Yeah, I concur with both comments there.
[54:59] I went back to the previous council as well, so it'd be nice
[55:02] to see a grant just to get it completed, but
[55:07] we're heading that way, so that's good. Thank you.
[55:12] Yeah, I do believe it was our 2018 strategic planning
[55:16] session, and Councilor Joe Dorina had really wanted to
[55:20] see a park-like space alongside the river that people
[55:23] could enjoy. So I think he would be very happy to hear about this.
[55:27] Any other discussion?
[55:30] All those in favor?
[55:32] Opposed? Motion is carried.
[55:36] Our next report is from the Director of Community Services regarding a land use
[55:40] agreement for the community garden. Ms. Jensen, the floor is yours.
[55:44] Thank you. This report is before council to consider the renewal of the
[55:48] community garden land use agreement for the municipally owned
[55:52] property located at 440 Ingleman Spruce.
[55:55] Council first directed staff in December of 2020 to work with the community
[55:59] garden group to establish a community garden.
[56:02] At that time, the group was not yet incorporated as a nonprofit society, so
[56:06] the New to You Society acted as the sponsoring organization.
[56:11] Following those discussions, council approved a five-year land use permit,
[56:15] and the permit allowed the community garden to operate on district land for a
[56:19] nominal fee of $10 per year. Also, the
[56:23] agreement established a number of requirements related to maintenance, public
[56:27] access, insurance, fencing, weed control, wildlife
[56:30] protection, and overall stewardship of the site.
[56:34] Since that time, the community garden has become a valuable community asset.
[56:37] It currently provides individual rentable garden plots, shared
[56:41] plots, common herb beds, accessible low beds and standing
[56:45] height beds,
[56:47] a tool shed, fencing, and other amenities.
[56:50] And in addition to supporting local food production and gardening
[56:53] opportunities, the garden has hosted various community events and activities
[56:58] and continues to provide an inclusive outdoor space for residents.
[57:04] The proposed renewal keeps the arrangement substantially the same as the original
[57:08] agreement, with only a few minor administrative and operational
[57:11] updates. Key changes being proposed are updating the
[57:15] terminology from land use permit to land use agreement to better reflect the
[57:18] nature of the arrangement,
[57:21] entering into the agreement directly with the Sparwood Community Garden Society,
[57:25] which has since become an incorporated nonprofit.
[57:28] The society will now be responsible for maintaining the required insurance and
[57:32] continuing to name the district as additional insured.
[57:36] Adding language that formally identifies the location of the main water line
[57:39] within the site and confirms the district's right to access the
[57:43] area for inspection, maintenance, or repairs.
[57:46] And this is something that the Community Garden Society was aware of at
[57:50] the time
[57:52] of the original agreement. This just formalizes that within now.
[57:56] And then establishing a new five-year term.
[58:00] Overall, staff believe the community garden has demonstrated responsible
[58:03] stewardship of the site and continues to provide significant community
[58:07] benefit. The proposed renewal will provide organizational
[58:10] stability for the society while ensuring appropriate
[58:14] operational maintenance and access provisions remain in place.
[58:18] Staff are recommending that council authorize the renewal of the land use agreement
[58:22] for a five-year term.
[58:24] Thank you, Ms. Jensen. Any questions on the report?
[58:28] Seeing none, the motion before us is that council authorize the acting mayor and
[58:31] corporate officer to execute a five-year land use agreement with the Sparwood
[58:35] Community Garden Society for a portion of land located at 440 Ingleman
[58:39] Spruce Drive for the use of operating a community garden at the cost of
[58:43] $10 plus GST per year, commencing May 1st,
[58:46] 2026, through April 30th, 2031, upon
[58:49] completion of the statutory notification requirements set out in the community
[58:53] charter. Can I have a mover? Moved. Seconded. Discussion?
[58:58] Councilor Kalys.
[59:00] Just some commentary. Again, I'll speak in favor.
[59:03] First off, I feel like we could get at least 11, maybe $12 instead of 10.
[59:08] It's a little tongue in cheek. Congratulations to
[59:12] the whole group. When I first moved to Sparwood in 2020,
[59:15] Dina Dominic had a vision, and she was working with a bunch of these folks that are
[59:19] still involved. Dina's no longer with us.
[59:22] Was a very dear friend from
[59:25] times past.
[59:27] A great legacy. I know Rose Sharma has been driving it.
[59:30] She calls me every couple of months and says, "Steve, can you come
[59:34] out and move some mulch? Can you help me with a truck?
[59:36] Can you find all these things?" So, tenacious and wonderful.
[59:39] It's great to see that the society is getting some solid
[59:43] footing, and that it'll be a permanent fixture. So, in favor.
[59:47] Congratulations to all that. And I know it's not just Rose, but I can't, from
[59:50] recollection, pull in. I think Joanne Singleton may be also deeply involved and
[59:55] a great legacy for Ms. Dominic as well. Thank you.
[59:59] Any other discussion?
[1:00:01] I'll call the question. All those in favor?
[1:00:03] Opposed? Motion is carried.
[1:00:08] Our next report is from the CAO regarding a signing authority update.
[1:00:11] Michela Camp, the floor is yours.
[1:00:13] Thank you, Acting Mayor Cardoso. This report is coming to council
[1:00:18] just to approve the signing authority for Carl
[1:00:21] Kennedy
[1:00:23] for our banking institutions, the district banks with the
[1:00:27] Royal Bank of Canada, the Municipal Finance Authority of
[1:00:31] BC, and Stellar Vista Credit Union, and this will
[1:00:35] give Carl the signing authority to process
[1:00:39] district financial transactions. Thank you.
[1:00:42] Thank you. Any questions on the report?
[1:00:45] The motion before us is that council appoint the new Director of Finance, Carl
[1:00:48] Kennedy, as signing authority with the Royal Bank of Canada, Stellar Vista Credit
[1:00:52] Union, and Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, effective August
[1:00:56] 24th, 2026. Can I have a mover? Moved.
[1:01:00] Seconded. Discussion?
[1:01:02] Councilor Kalys.
[1:01:03] If we're giving someone access to the cookie jar, as it were, it's
[1:01:08] a bit indicative that they're not in the room.
[1:01:10] It's a lot of money there to know
[1:01:15] I'm just excited that we've found a new finance
[1:01:19] officer. That's really great news.
[1:01:21] It'll take some pressure off our finance department, and congratulations.
[1:01:27] I've read the discussion, move. Yep.
[1:01:29] Reply to that?
[1:01:30] Yeah.
[1:01:31] All good accountants retire early, Steve.
[1:01:37] I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed?
[1:01:40] Motion is carried.
[1:01:45] Our next report is from the director of community services regarding a
[1:01:48] recommendation from the Recreation Facility Advisory Committee. Ms.
[1:01:52] Jensen, the floor is yours.
[1:01:54] Thank you. I am pleased to present the final recommendation from
[1:01:58] the Recreation Facility Advisory Committee, also
[1:02:02] known as RFAC, regarding the future of recreation infrastructure
[1:02:06] in Sparwood.
[1:02:08] RFAC was established in July of 2024 with a specific mandate
[1:02:12] to explore options for the future of recreation facilities in our community
[1:02:16] and to provide counsel with a community-informed recommendation.
[1:02:20] Over the past two years, the committee has undertaken an extensive and
[1:02:24] comprehensive review process. Supported by
[1:02:27] RC Strategies and technical consultants, RFAC
[1:02:31] examined facility needs, recreation trends, community
[1:02:34] priorities,
[1:02:36] and many other impacts.
[1:02:39] A significant focus of the committee's work was community engagement.
[1:02:43] RFAC worked diligently to ensure residents had multiple opportunities to
[1:02:47] participate and provide feedback throughout the entire process.
[1:02:51] Engagement activities included community surveys, stakeholder
[1:02:55] meetings, cohort discussions, one-on-one conversations,
[1:02:58] public information sessions, very large and free community
[1:03:02] barbecue, town hall discussions, pop-up booths, and many
[1:03:06] other activities.
[1:03:09] The committee's goal throughout the process was to hear from as many residents and
[1:03:13] user groups as possible and ensure that all perspectives were
[1:03:16] considered in evaluating future recreation facility options.
[1:03:22] RFAC reviewed numerous facility concepts and explored a wide range
[1:03:26] of potential approaches before narrowing the options to those that would
[1:03:29] undergo detailed costing and further community review.
[1:03:34] Building on the feedback gathered through the engagement process, the committee
[1:03:37] returned to the community one final time and asked residents to consider
[1:03:41] four options.
[1:03:44] Option A was to maintain and save. Option B, to
[1:03:47] maintain, renovate, and upgrade.
[1:03:50] Option C, maintain and construct a new building using an
[1:03:53] alternative building method, and option D, maintain and construct a new
[1:03:57] building using a traditional building method.
[1:04:01] A total of 192 responses were received during this final
[1:04:05] round of engagement.
[1:04:07] At its July 2026 meeting, RFAC reviewed the collective
[1:04:10] information gathered throughout its mandate, including consultant reports,
[1:04:14] facility assessments,
[1:04:16] the district's financial position, stakeholder feedback, and public engagement.
[1:04:21] Following those discussions, the committee unanimously approved
[1:04:25] a recommendation to council.
[1:04:27] The recommendation was that the district maintain, renovate, and upgrade
[1:04:31] the current recreation facility with a focus on developing a
[1:04:35] community gathering area while continuing to explore the potential
[1:04:39] for a future new rec facility as part of a regional initiative with
[1:04:43] neighboring communities.
[1:04:46] This recommendation reflects the committee's assessment that improvements to the
[1:04:49] existing facility represent the most practical and achievable path
[1:04:53] forward at this time, while still recognizing the long-term value of
[1:04:57] exploring future opportunities with our neighboring communities.
[1:05:02] With the submission of this recommendation, RFAC has now fulfilled their mandate
[1:05:06] established by council. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the members of
[1:05:09] RFAC for their significant commitment over the past two years.
[1:05:13] They all dedicated considerable time and effort into reviewing information,
[1:05:17] participating in discussions, and engaging with the community, and
[1:05:21] ultimately developing a thoughtful recommendation for council's consideration this
[1:05:25] evening.
[1:05:28] Thank you. Are there any questions on the report?
[1:05:31] Seeing none, we have two motions before us this evening.
[1:05:34] The first motion before us is that council receives the recommendation from the
[1:05:38] Recreation Facility Advisory Committee to maintain, renovate, and update the
[1:05:42] current recreation facility with a focus on a community gathering area
[1:05:46] and continue to explore a new building for the future as a regional
[1:05:50] initiative with neighboring communities, and that council direct staff to
[1:05:54] bring the recommendation back to a future committee of the whole for further
[1:05:58] discussion on next steps and possible inclusion in the 2027
[1:06:02] budget. Can I have a mover?
[1:06:04] Moved. Seconded. Discussion.
[1:06:09] Councillor Christensen.
[1:06:10] Yeah, I'd like to thank the committee. That's a lot of hard work.
[1:06:14] Thanks, Councillor Cowlies and your cohorts on that.
[1:06:17] Appreciate this, so thank you.
[1:06:25] Yeah, I'm really proud of all the work that this group did.
[1:06:28] They worked really hard to make sure that all the community voices were heard
[1:06:32] and that all the groups were able to engage with the process.
[1:06:35] So that was really awesome.
[1:06:39] And I like the idea of exploring this with other community groups, other
[1:06:43] neighboring communities. As I mentioned before, I had attended
[1:06:47] a tour in Spruce Grove when we were at FCM, and they
[1:06:50] had three different communities
[1:06:54] come together to build this amazing recreation
[1:06:57] facility. They had two sheets of ice, they had a training sheet, and
[1:07:01] they also had their main sheet for their junior team.
[1:07:05] And they had a black box theater, an art gallery, a
[1:07:09] public library,
[1:07:10] concession. They had a walking track.
[1:07:13] It was phenomenal to see what happens when communities come
[1:07:16] together. So I'm really hopeful that our neighboring communities will come
[1:07:20] together and have some discussions with us and see what we can do
[1:07:26] I'll call the question. Oh, sorry. Councillor Kallies.
[1:07:29] I changed my mind. I
[1:07:31] do want to add
[1:07:34] one thought.
[1:07:36] I would agree, I don't believe any stone was left unturned.
[1:07:41] Every user group that
[1:07:45] we could think of, along with those that put their hands up that we may have
[1:07:48] inadvertently and unintentionally overlooked, also came to the table.
[1:07:52] Every medium imaginable, accessible to
[1:07:56] us, was used to get the feedback.
[1:07:59] And for those that are
[1:08:02] quite ardent users of the facility that know the benefits that would come with
[1:08:06] a brand new build, I suspect it's a bit disappointing.
[1:08:11] But I tell you what,
[1:08:13] we heard Ms. Jensen talk about the practicality of the recommendation.
[1:08:17] The practicality is
[1:08:19] we need toilets to flush, and we need not to put raw sewage into the
[1:08:24] Elk River.
[1:08:25] And our priority being the wastewater treatment facility is where it ought to
[1:08:29] be for generations to come. That's first and foremost,
[1:08:33] not just a legal but a moral responsibility.
[1:08:37] However, I'm left hopeful that we're going to have
[1:08:41] other options. We had a wonderful presentation from a member of the
[1:08:45] public, Tiffany Root,
[1:08:47] regarding some suggestions that I think are worthwhile exploring.
[1:08:51] And then also the notion of a
[1:08:54] multi-community facility, which may be more
[1:08:58] realistic than
[1:09:00] us finding
[1:09:02] tens of millions of dollars for a recreation facility.
[1:09:05] We need to take care of infrastructure,
[1:09:08] and I think that that's been made clear here.
[1:09:10] So I'm really proud of the work done. I'm personally disappointed.
[1:09:14] I would've loved to have said, "Let's find a way to find $30 million."
[1:09:19] That tax burden would've been too much.
[1:09:20] And
[1:09:23] that was the commitment going in, is that we weren't just going to try to force
[1:09:26] anything down the proverbial throats of
[1:09:30] anyone. It was moreover, let's hear what the wants and needs are.
[1:09:33] Let's look at the financial realities.
[1:09:35] Let's look at what the projected growth is and what we can continue to manage
[1:09:38] through
[1:09:41] a whole bunch of wonderful work that went before us.
[1:09:43] The staff and previous councils on the upkeep of this facility
[1:09:47] has been
[1:09:49] tremendous. We're in a great spot. That doesn't mean things are perfect.
[1:09:53] That doesn't mean we won't have to invest.
[1:09:55] But the stewardship shown by our
[1:09:58] predecessors and the current staff remains in that
[1:10:02] realm of excellence. So I think we're in a great spot, and
[1:10:07] I think we continue moving with the recommendation,
[1:10:11] biased as I was part of the committee, but
[1:10:13] it's a wonderful place to be in. So I will be supporting.
[1:10:17] Any other discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor?
[1:10:21] Opposed? Motion is carried.
[1:10:27] Oh, there's a second one, sorry.
[1:10:29] The second motion before us is that council dissolve the Recreation Facility
[1:10:32] Advisory Committee, having fulfilled the mandate established by
[1:10:36] council. Can I have a mover? Moved and seconded. Discussion?
[1:10:40] All those in favor? Opposed? Motion is carried.
[1:10:46] If there are no objections, council will go into committee of the whole at
[1:10:50] 7:10 PM to discuss item eight on the agenda.
[1:10:57] Next report is from the CAO regarding a permissive tax exemption application.
[1:11:00] Michele Kamp, the floor is yours.
[1:11:03] Thank you.
[1:11:05] Tonight I'm bringing forward a permissive tax exemption application from the
[1:11:09] Nature Conservancy of Canada for their property located on
[1:11:13] 1002 Highway 3.
[1:11:15] This report is intended to seek direction from the committee before staff
[1:11:19] prepare a permissive tax exemption bylaw for council's consideration.
[1:11:24] The Nature Conservancy of Canada purchased this property that you can
[1:11:28] see up on the screen in light green,
[1:11:31] for conservation purposes within the Elk Valley.
[1:11:35] The land is being maintained primarily for habitat conservation, while
[1:11:39] also providing opportunities for public recreation and nature
[1:11:42] appreciation.
[1:11:44] The organization submitted a permissive tax exemption application
[1:11:48] on June 29, 2026, which meets the
[1:11:52] application deadline established in the district's permissive tax
[1:11:55] exemption policy. Staff have reviewed the application and
[1:11:59] confirmed that all required supporting documentation was provided.
[1:12:03] This includes proof of charitable status, organizational governance
[1:12:07] documents, confirmation that the property is in good standing with the
[1:12:10] district, and confirmation that the property is being used for eligible
[1:12:14] purposes.
[1:12:16] Under the Community Charter, council has the authority to grant permissive
[1:12:20] tax exemptions to charitable and not-for-profit
[1:12:24] organizations.
[1:12:25] The Nature Conservancy of Canada meets the eligibility requirements
[1:12:29] under both the Community Charter and the district's permissive tax
[1:12:33] exemption policy. Should council choose to grant the
[1:12:37] exemption, the current practice under the district's policy would be
[1:12:40] 100% exemption of both land and improvements.
[1:12:45] The estimated municipal tax revenue forgone in 2027
[1:12:49] would be estimated at $1,280.
[1:12:54] It's also important to note that a permissive tax exemption
[1:12:57] only applies to property taxes. They do not apply to parcel
[1:13:01] taxes and user fees.
[1:13:05] So at this point, staff are looking for direction from the
[1:13:09] committee before moving forward with the draft permissive tax exemption
[1:13:13] bylaw.
[1:13:14] So the first question to the committee is, would the committee like
[1:13:18] staff to include the Nature Conservancy of Canada property
[1:13:22] at 1002 Highway 3 in the upcoming permissive tax exemption
[1:13:26] bylaw? Depending on the discussion, the committee may wish to
[1:13:29] support the exemption, support a partial exemption, or
[1:13:33] choose not to include-
[1:13:38] So we'll just go around the horn. Councillor Christensen.
[1:13:42] Thank you.
[1:13:44] Just quick question to Michelle. Michelle, help us
[1:13:50] know exactly where this piece of parcel is along
[1:13:53] Highway 3, please.
[1:13:55] That's why I brought Mr. Sofli.
[1:13:57] Great.
[1:13:57] He can do a better job for you.
[1:14:00] Excuse me. Through the chair.
[1:14:02] So this area identified in blue, that's 1002 Highway 3.
[1:14:06] In relation to town, it
[1:14:09] runs from just north of the old highway intersection with Highway
[1:14:13] 3,
[1:14:15] around the back of Fiorentino's, all the way to roughly the
[1:14:19] backside of where Ace McKay's was.
[1:14:23] The parcel here, you'll see the district's land,
[1:14:27] our South Sparwood 88 hectares is right beside it.
[1:14:31] The computer's just slowly catching up with me.
[1:14:34] So this is the South Sparwood lands.
[1:14:37] This up here is McKay's, and then this parcel here is
[1:14:41] 1002. It has a section of the Coal
[1:14:45] Discovery Trail or the Trans Canada Trail, and the Fiorentino Hill Trail
[1:14:49] that accesses up to Taste Like Dinner and the brand new Tailgunner Trail that
[1:14:53] Sparwood Trails Alliance has just built.
[1:14:56] So in terms of location, it's a fairly long parcel going from roughly
[1:14:59] behind McKay's to
[1:15:02] just about where the highway intersection with the old highway
[1:15:06] is.
[1:15:09] Councillor Cowlies.
[1:15:11] Further, if you wouldn't mind, Chair.
[1:15:13] When you highlighted the district property, just can you refresh my memory?
[1:15:16] What is that zoned for right now, generally through the
[1:15:20] pivot there, the 1072?
[1:15:23] That is zoned M1 light industrial.
[1:15:25] All of it is light industrial?
[1:15:26] Correct. Whereas 1002 is zoned A1 agricultural.
[1:15:31] Let me turn on the zoning layers for you.
[1:15:39] Thank you. And while we're... Would that be
[1:15:42] any impacts from the area land reserve?
[1:15:46] DLR?
[1:15:47] Oh, agricultural land reserve? Let me see.
[1:15:50] What did I say? Area land reserve? Agriculture is what I meant. Thank you.
[1:16:04] So through the chair, there's a lot of
[1:16:07] busyness on the map at the moment, but you'll see crosshatching in
[1:16:11] this area. That is ALR. That's all on the opposite bank of the
[1:16:15] Elk River. So there is no ALR on the east bank.
[1:16:19] Thank you for the clarity.
[1:16:22] Councillor Christensen.
[1:16:23] Yeah, thank you. Just two more questions. When did we sell it?
[1:16:27] How much money did we sell it for? And
[1:16:31] where does Nature Conservancy of
[1:16:35] Canada get their funding from currently?
[1:16:37] Is it the government of Canada?
[1:16:41] We didn't sell them that property.
[1:16:44] That was not district property.
[1:16:46] And I don't have information on where they get their funding from.
[1:16:53] So they have been paying taxes-
[1:16:55] Yes
[1:16:55] ... is that correct?
[1:16:57] And
[1:16:59] you don't know where they get their funding from, eh?
[1:17:01] I do not, no.
[1:17:02] Anybody?
[1:17:05] I don't ever remember it coming up through a
[1:17:09] donation category one or two or a CBT type
[1:17:14] grant
[1:17:16] funding. So nothing out of our tax base, I don't think so.
[1:17:18] I don't think it's a double whammy, if that's what you're
[1:17:21] alluding to, Councillor Christensen.
[1:17:28] Councillor Barr.
[1:17:29] Thank you. Councillor Christensen, I do believe that the majority of their
[1:17:32] funding comes from legacy projects
[1:17:37] in the sense of
[1:17:39] donations,
[1:17:40] family donations, things like that.
[1:17:47] Are you okay to answer the question?
[1:17:52] One more.
[1:17:53] Sure.
[1:17:53] How many years have they been paying taxes? Do we know that?
[1:17:57] I'm not sure when they purchased this property.
[1:18:00] I don't know if we have that there. I'm not sure.
[1:18:02] I think maybe in the last-
[1:18:06] If I may,
[1:18:07] through the chair, I believe this was part of the large land transfer between, is
[1:18:11] it Canfor and the NCC? So most of their
[1:18:15] holdings were transferred. I believe that goes from
[1:18:18] Morrissey all the way up through Sparwood, around Hosmer,
[1:18:22] and then some other areas. So there was a big land transfer, I believe
[1:18:26] earlier this year, possibly last year.
[1:18:31] Appreciate the fact that they meet
[1:18:35] all the requirements.
[1:18:39] Yeah.
[1:18:41] I'd be saying no at this moment just because I'm
[1:18:46] not sure exactly. I'd like to know more about where their funding
[1:18:50] comes from.
[1:18:51] And
[1:18:53] I probably believe you're right, but it'd be
[1:18:57] nice to know before we just say
[1:19:00] yes to another exemption here.
[1:19:03] Councillor Kotwal.
[1:19:06] Yeah, so I remember this from
[1:19:09] late 2025, so almost a year ago.
[1:19:12] I'm pretty sure EVR committed $20 million to that
[1:19:16] land transfer and the Kootenay Forest Lodge project, which I feel
[1:19:20] like this is actually part of as well.
[1:19:23] So we're looking at where that funding had come from.
[1:19:25] A large portion of this specific purchase was,
[1:19:29] I believe, also funded through EVR with
[1:19:32] Ktunaxa,
[1:19:35] which is
[1:19:37] I think they all worked together on that one.
[1:19:40] With all the new Sukuns actually
[1:19:43] being parks as well. So if we're looking at funding for the
[1:19:46] conservancy, I'm 90% sure that it came
[1:19:50] from that specific one for the Kootenay Forest Lands
[1:19:54] project that the new Sukuns for the five nations in
[1:19:58] Ktunaxa were pushing for.
[1:20:00] Just for clarity.
[1:20:02] And then on top of that, I think that
[1:20:04] knowing that is one of those things that
[1:20:07] is in partnership with the Ktunaxa First Nations
[1:20:11] and the conservancy, I'm hoping that we will continue to see
[1:20:17] strong land management stewardship that we have seen before and
[1:20:22] having at least some hopefully prescribed burns on that side and stuff as well, and
[1:20:25] some clearing potentially for fire mitigation.
[1:20:29] So my hope is that that exists. I'm fairly certain this is along
[1:20:33] the same path as that. So if that is the case, I'm
[1:20:37] fairly happy to support this.
[1:20:41] Councillor Parr.
[1:20:43] Thank you. At this point in time, I have no issues with
[1:20:46] giving them 100% exemption.
[1:20:49] Councillor Callies.
[1:20:51] Just further to Councillor Christensen's question here, I was able to get onto
[1:20:54] their annual report. It is going on two
[1:20:57] years old, 44% government,
[1:21:01] 22% individual donation.
[1:21:04] Looks about 15% foundation and organizations, things like Ducks
[1:21:08] Unlimited,
[1:21:10] 10% undisclosed other, and then 9% corporations.
[1:21:13] So
[1:21:14] the
[1:21:17] largest portion being government,
[1:21:19] this would likely include that.
[1:21:23] $1,200 and change does not seem
[1:21:27] to be
[1:21:28] a hardship to me.
[1:21:31] It's well-funded. I don't know that I would agree.
[1:21:33] I am more curious about the nature of the relationship with them and our
[1:21:37] expanding
[1:21:39] trail network and
[1:21:41] how
[1:21:42] agreeable they would be if the Sparwood Trails Alliance wanted to develop more
[1:21:46] trails in the area. We give them
[1:21:49] a tax exemption. I
[1:21:51] think that it's worth checking in on what the
[1:21:55] thought would be there. And I don't know that that would be a make or break, but
[1:21:58] I'm also curious about that, is that I know that that's important to us and the
[1:22:01] Coal Discovery Trail does ride through there, but we continue to see growth there,
[1:22:05] and
[1:22:06] I would sure hope that they'd be interested in
[1:22:09] continuing in that thread. So
[1:22:13] I guess I'm really not saying much there.
[1:22:16] It's 1,200. I probably wouldn't be in
[1:22:20] favor. It's not a hardship, so not in favor of the tax exemption is what I
[1:22:24] would say.
[1:22:26] Councillor Nand.
[1:22:28] I have a quick question, Patrick. Have they had any public engagement
[1:22:33] prior to this?
[1:22:37] Through the chair. I do not know. There was a press release when the land
[1:22:41] transfers went through. Other than that, I'm unaware.
[1:22:44] So they may have, but not something I'm aware of.
[1:22:49] Thank you.
[1:22:52] Are you in favor of supporting this?
[1:22:53] Yeah, I'm good with it.
[1:22:55] Yeah, I had similar questions as Councillor Callies.
[1:22:58] I wonder what the relationship is between them and the Sparwood Trails Alliance.
[1:23:01] I think they did mention in their letter about recreation, but I'd like to see
[1:23:05] some clarity on that
[1:23:08] to see what that would look like before I can make a decision.
[1:23:12] Okay. So I excuse me,
[1:23:14] have two questions of council.
[1:23:17] First,
[1:23:19] I would like to suggest, and I'd like council's feedback that for the
[1:23:22] policy that we bring the deadline forward
[1:23:26] maybe to
[1:23:29] May 31st of the year,
[1:23:31] and then at this meeting that the group comes and
[1:23:35] presents to council because the policy does not require me
[1:23:39] to collect any of this information and I'm in no
[1:23:42] position to do this.
[1:23:45] And secondly, if council does not give direction
[1:23:49] for this tonight,
[1:23:50] there will not be sufficient time to have a bylaw
[1:23:54] enacted before the statutory deadline of October
[1:23:58] 31st because
[1:24:01] for this,
[1:24:02] we would have to bring forward a
[1:24:06] bylaw for first three readings, and then we have to
[1:24:09] advertise in two consecutive editions of the
[1:24:13] newspaper and then only it can come back for adoption.
[1:24:17] So the timeline that we've currently set of applications of June 30
[1:24:21] and then giving us a month of back and forth to get the
[1:24:25] missing or incomplete information and to finalize it,
[1:24:29] there is not much time. So
[1:24:33] could I maybe
[1:24:35] get council's direction
[1:24:39] that the exemption
[1:24:42] be considered for 2028 taxation
[1:24:46] year and that we arrange for a committee
[1:24:50] of the whole maybe in May
[1:24:54] 2028 for where the group can come and present to
[1:24:58] council for this?
[1:25:01] Because when council developed that policy, council wanted as
[1:25:04] little as possible information from all these groups, if you
[1:25:08] remember correctly. So
[1:25:12] we're in a little bit of a bind here.
[1:25:14] So the first question is, is it council's direction
[1:25:18] that we put this application denied for
[1:25:21] 2027 and then have them
[1:25:25] present it for the 2028 budget year?
[1:25:31] Councillor Christensen, your thoughts?
[1:25:33] Yeah, I'm good with that.
[1:25:34] Councillor Atwal.
[1:25:38] Yeah. About that.
[1:25:39] Councillor Nand.
[1:25:40] Thanks, Michelle. That makes sense.
[1:25:43] Councillor Kalys
[1:25:44] Yes, and I think the feedback we give is that we'd be interested in knowing about
[1:25:48] any future plans for wildfire resiliency,
[1:25:53] support with local trails alliance,
[1:25:56] and/or
[1:25:58] long-term stewardship plans. If it's just going to sit or if there's going to be
[1:26:02] any future plans would be interesting to know as well.
[1:26:06] Councillor Barr.
[1:26:08] I've got no issues with your plan there, Michelle.
[1:26:12] I'm also good with your plan.
[1:26:13] Okay. And then the next question, does
[1:26:17] council
[1:26:18] support bringing the permissive tax exemption policy back?
[1:26:24] We'll have to bring the deadline forward.
[1:26:28] There's just not enough time. And then, as well as
[1:26:32] when a new application comes forward,
[1:26:36] that they present to council at the committee of the
[1:26:39] whole
[1:26:41] for deliberation. Is council in support of that policy change
[1:26:45] coming forward?
[1:26:46] Councillor Atwal.
[1:26:49] Yeah.
[1:26:50] Councillor Barr.
[1:26:52] Yeah, then they could be on the hot seat.
[1:26:54] Councillor Christensen.
[1:26:56] Yes.
[1:26:56] Councillor Nan.
[1:26:57] Yes, I'm good with it.
[1:26:58] Councillor Kalys.
[1:26:59] Yes, please.
[1:27:00] I'm also good with it.
[1:27:07] If there are no objections, I'll close committee of the whole portion of the
[1:27:09] meeting at 7:27 PM.
[1:27:15] We have one piece of correspondence for council's
[1:27:18] information, the Cowley Community Hall Cowley Dino Day Parade
[1:27:22] invitation for September 12th, 2026.
[1:27:25] Does anybody have any questions or wish to discuss the item?
[1:27:33] We have four internal reports for council's information, the draft recreation
[1:27:36] facility advisory committee minutes from July 16th,
[1:27:40] 2026. The category one funding request, funding
[1:27:44] deadline reminder, ice cancellation policy, user group
[1:27:47] engagement process, and payments expended for June 2026.
[1:27:51] Any questions? Anyone wish to discuss these?
[1:27:55] No, but going back to the parade, the 12th I do have
[1:27:59] open and I haven't made a lot of them this year, so if there's a few others,
[1:28:04] I don't know that we can commit tonight unless a few others have put their hand up.
[1:28:08] Yeah, we can do an email poll-
[1:28:10] Thank you
[1:28:10] ... and see where everybody's at.
[1:28:15] Next are the announcements from councilors.
[1:28:19] Councillor Atwal.
[1:28:21] Oh, first to go. Here I go.
[1:28:24] No, the only thing for me is just an open
[1:28:28] invitation to anybody who is
[1:28:31] potentially wanting to run for Sparrow City Council,
[1:28:35] and knowing that I'm obviously not going to be running.
[1:28:38] If anybody wants to reach out and have a chat,
[1:28:42] I am more than happy to give my two cents and to have a conversation.
[1:28:46] Just reach out, I'm happy to discuss.
[1:28:50] Councillor Christensen.
[1:28:52] No, I have no announcements. Thank you.
[1:28:54] Councillor Nan.
[1:28:55] No, I have nothing.
[1:28:56] Councillor Kalys.
[1:28:58] No, just building on our
[1:29:01] dissolving of the artifact
[1:29:04] group. Thank you for the privilege of working with that
[1:29:08] team. I think a lot of great work was done and
[1:29:11] set us up for success
[1:29:13] down the road.
[1:29:14] Nothing else to add. Thank you.
[1:29:16] Councillor Barr.
[1:29:18] Nothing to add. Thank you.
[1:29:21] I've just been enjoying summer for the most part, and I'm headed off to RDK
[1:29:25] meetings next week, and that's about it from me.
[1:29:30] That concludes our business for this evening and brings us to our public question
[1:29:33] period. For those on Zoom, click on the Q&A button, where you can enter your full
[1:29:37] name and question, and staff will read your question.
[1:29:39] If there is anyone from the public or the media who would like to ask questions
[1:29:43] on the items we have discussed this evening.
[1:29:46] Is anybody online, Megan?
[1:29:48] We have one question online.
[1:29:50] Sure.
[1:29:50] Laura Cunliffe is wondering when the speed signs will be installed
[1:29:54] on Michelle Creek Road.
[1:29:58] Mr. Kaiser.
[1:30:00] Thank you. Yeah, they've been put on back order, so we're still waiting for the
[1:30:04] product to arrive.
[1:30:07] Thank you. Any other questions?
[1:30:13] Is there any
[1:30:14] semblance of timeline for back order arrivals?
[1:30:18] That's fairly ambiguous. It could be weeks, could be months.
[1:30:22] The last we heard was
[1:30:24] it was actually an online order, and
[1:30:28] we went through the proper channels to find out what was going on, and the last we
[1:30:31] heard
[1:30:32] was that they're going to send it out right away.
[1:30:36] I hope that's the case.
[1:30:37] Thank you.
[1:30:40] This brings us to the close of the public portion of the meeting.
[1:30:42] Can I get a motion that the remainder of the meeting be closed to the public in
[1:30:45] order that items, the subject of which fall under section
[1:30:48] 91 of the community charter, be discussed by council, which pertain to,
[1:30:52] A, personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is
[1:30:56] being considered for a position as an officer, employee, or agent of the
[1:31:00] municipality, or another position appointed by the municipality,
[1:31:04] and C, labor relations or other employee relations.
[1:31:07] Can I have a mover? Moved and seconded. Discussion?
[1:31:11] All those in favor? Opposed? Motion is carried.
[1:31:14] We will take a five-minute recess.