[1:12] Good evening. I would like to call our

[1:13] regular council meeting on Monday,

[1:15] August 10th to order at 6:00 p.m. I'm

[1:17] Mayor Cliff McNeill Smith and colleagues

[1:19] in the chamber this evening. To my far

[1:21] left, Councillor Richard Novick,

[1:23] Councillor Terry O'Keefe,

[1:25] Councillor Chad Rintoul, to my right,

[1:27] Councillor Scott Garnett, Councillor

[1:28] Sara Duncan, and Councillor Steve Duck

[1:30] will be absent this evening.

[1:32] Good evening to staff and

[1:35] for joining the meeting this evening. We

[1:37] do introduce all staff as they're

[1:38] introducing the reporter, answering

[1:40] questions.

[1:41] And and hello to members of the public

[1:43] both here in the chamber tonight and to

[1:45] those who may be watching the live web

[1:47] stream. I want to respectfully

[1:49] acknowledge that we're holding our

[1:50] meeting and and gathered this evening

[1:52] and indeed the entire town of Sidney is

[1:54] in the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ people,

[1:56] the

[1:57] um Tsawout Nation, the Saanichton

[1:59] Nation, the Pauquachin Nation, the

[2:01] Tsartlip Nation, and the Malahat Nation.

[2:02] And we express our gratitude to the

[2:05] nations for their stewardship of these

[2:06] lands and waters from time immemorial,

[2:09] that is thousands of years, and for the

[2:11] responsibility that we have to work

[2:14] together for our current and and future

[2:16] generations.

[2:18] In turning to the approval of the agenda

[2:19] since it was published last Thursday

[2:21] afternoon, we have um

[2:23] some changes. We don't have any

[2:25] additional items this evening, um but we

[2:27] do have a couple of changes. Uh the

[2:29] first is is that this is unusual, but we

[2:32] do have four items of business that was

[2:34] on the agenda from our previous meeting,

[2:37] and we weren't able to conclude that

[2:38] business at that meeting. So, that

[2:40] business is brought forward under the

[2:42] section business not completed at a

[2:44] previous meeting, section six.

[2:46] Um which um would shortly which would on

[2:50] this this agenda would follow approval

[2:51] of the minutes. However, we normally

[2:54] have public participation at the

[2:55] beginning of our meeting, and so we will

[2:57] have that section of our meeting prior

[2:59] to commencing with that

[3:01] business not completed.

[3:04] Um so, that's moving number six to after

[3:08] public participation.

[3:10] Uh the second change is that item 7D1,

[3:14] which was

[3:15] um

[3:18] policing services update from our staff

[3:21] sergeant of the North Saanich Fire

[3:23] Department

[3:24] Police Department uh will not be

[3:26] occurring on tonight's agenda, so we'll

[3:28] remove that from the agenda. It will

[3:30] come forward to an agenda in September,

[3:33] and included on that agenda will be

[3:36] um the policing report.

[3:40] And I believe those are just the two

[3:42] changes.

[3:44] With that, I would look for a motion to

[3:45] approve the agenda as amended.

[3:47] >> So moved.

[3:47] >> Councilor Novik.

[3:49] >> Second.

[3:49] >> Councilor Garnett. Any discussion?

[3:51] Seeing none, those in favor?

[3:53] That carries unanimous. Thank you. And

[3:55] if I could perhaps have the same movers

[3:56] to approve the minutes of our July 13th

[3:58] regular council meeting.

[3:59] >> So moved.

[4:00] >> Second.

[4:01] >> Can we have the same movers? Thank you.

[4:02] Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing

[4:04] none, those in favor?

[4:06] Thank you. That motion carries.

[4:10] And so we are now first turning to our

[4:12] regular public participation period. For

[4:14] those who may not have

[4:16] come forward to address council before,

[4:17] we ask that you come forward to the to

[4:19] the podium. There is a button to

[4:21] activate the the microphone. We ask that

[4:24] you provide your name and the

[4:25] municipality that you reside in or the

[4:27] organization that you're representing.

[4:29] You do have up to 4 minutes to speak. We

[4:31] ask that you abide that to be fair to

[4:32] all all potential speakers. And with

[4:35] that, I'll call for a first time. Does

[4:36] anyone wish to come forward this

[4:37] evening?

[4:40] Good evening.

[4:43] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name

[4:44] is Barbara Falla, and I'm a resident of

[4:47] the town of Sidney.

[4:50] It's been more than 4 months since

[4:52] safety concerns were first raised

[4:53] regarding the recent changes and

[4:55] improvements made by MOTI

[4:58] at Highway 17 and Beacon Avenue.

[5:01] And today I would like to bring you up

[5:02] to date on things.

[5:04] On Tuesday, August the 4th, there was a

[5:06] site visit with Ms. Susan Randall,

[5:08] senior highway design engineer,

[5:11] and two other persons from MOTI

[5:13] engineering,

[5:14] along with Mr. Tommy Leung, BC manager

[5:17] advocacy and stakeholder operations at

[5:19] CNIB,

[5:21] and myself.

[5:22] Prior to the others joining us, Tommy

[5:25] and I took some time to walk through and

[5:27] review the intersection from his

[5:28] perspective as a person who is blind.

[5:31] That exercise was an eye-opener for me,

[5:34] and no pun intended, and I could speak

[5:37] for much longer than the 4 minutes that

[5:39] have been allowed here, so I will cut to

[5:41] the chase.

[5:43] MOTI has indicated that this was their

[5:45] first intersection to receive tactile

[5:48] mats

[5:49] and that given the feedback that they

[5:51] have now received this intersection will

[5:53] serve as a pilot project.

[5:56] They also note that the improvements

[5:58] they are contemplating are not

[6:00] conventional

[6:01] nor standard for the ministry

[6:03] infrastructure.

[6:05] They go on to say in this instance due

[6:07] to the unusual configuration of the

[6:09] skewed intersection

[6:11] the presence of a CNIB client with

[6:13] specific concerns

[6:15] and high use by pedestrians and cyclists

[6:18] due to the Lockside Trail

[6:20] we will be providing some upgraded

[6:22] features to assist wayfinding.

[6:25] It should be noted that there will be no

[6:26] further wayfinding once a person has

[6:29] left the intersection system and

[6:31] consequently MOTTI jurisdiction.

[6:35] So there is some risk in providing this

[6:37] level of guidance when none exists

[6:39] outside of the two traffic islands.

[6:43] They proposed the following

[6:44] improvements.

[6:46] The addition of a tactile mat on the

[6:48] frontage of the Lockside Trail where it

[6:50] crosses the right slip bay in the

[6:52] southeast quadrant

[6:55] wayfinding directional tactile

[6:57] indicators on the southeast island and

[7:00] where they can fit them they will

[7:01] install tactile direction indicator

[7:04] surfaces to correctly align users with

[7:07] the crossings.

[7:09] Of note here the northeast island has

[7:11] limited space and there'll be

[7:12] constraints in what can be done.

[7:15] In addition it was clear that the

[7:17] placement of the push buttons for the

[7:18] crossing along with the signage were not

[7:21] aligned with the crossing to provide

[7:23] correct orientation for a safe crossing.

[7:27] For now MOTTI is coordinating with Tommy

[7:30] at the CNIB

[7:32] to address some of the wayfinding

[7:33] improvements that were identified at the

[7:35] site.

[7:36] And while there's no immediate timeline

[7:38] on improvements they have suggested and

[7:41] depending upon staff and contracting

[7:43] scheduling,

[7:44] the additions and improvements would be

[7:46] completed sometime in the fall.

[7:49] Fingers crossed here that this is a case

[7:50] of perseverance paying off.

[7:53] Susan also reminded me that MOTTI's

[7:56] mandate is to move cars, not people.

[7:59] So, my suggestion that it may be time

[8:01] for a pedestrian cyclist overpass got

[8:03] very little

[8:05] much more than a smile.

[8:07] In conclusion, Tommy has reminded me

[8:09] that he and his office are available to

[8:11] help and consult on accessibility

[8:13] matters, including accessible voting for

[8:15] the upcoming municipal election.

[8:18] He asked that I share his contact

[8:19] information with staff and the Saanich

[8:21] Peninsula Accessibility Advisory

[8:23] Committee.

[8:24] Thank you for your time and attention.

[8:26] >> Thank you for coming forward with that

[8:28] information tonight.

[8:37] Good evening.

[8:38] >> Good evening. My name is Charlene Froome

[8:40] from North Saanich.

[8:42] Sorry, thank you. Uh my name is Charlene

[8:45] Froome from North Saanich. I didn't plan

[8:47] on speaking tonight, but I just wanted

[8:49] to follow up on

[8:51] Barb Falick's comments with the

[8:52] intersection and the crosswalks.

[8:56] At our last back meeting, we had quite a

[8:58] an extensive review done of the

[9:00] crosswalks in Sidney and and how many

[9:03] variables there are to that. So, I just

[9:06] wanted to add to it that along with

[9:08] Tommy and the committee, um going

[9:10] forward, I know Sidney is planning to

[9:13] update the crosswalks that um I'm hoping

[9:16] that there will be consistency

[9:18] in what we're doing on those crosswalks

[9:20] and crossings, so that

[9:22] people with low vision and blind have

[9:23] got some consistency in knowing how

[9:26] they are going to approach these

[9:27] sidewalks and crossings, so that there

[9:30] is a a standard um going forward and and

[9:33] allowing them safety in their crossing.

[9:36] So, I just wanted to add that to

[9:38] Barb's comments tonight. Thank you.

[9:40] >> Thank you very much for taking the time

[9:41] to come forward.

[9:45] I'll call for a second time. Does anyone

[9:46] else wish to come forward this evening?

[9:50] And calling for a third time and seeing

[9:52] none, I'll close the public

[9:53] participation period and we'll now move

[9:55] on to the first of the four items under

[9:57] business not completed at the previous

[9:58] meeting.

[9:59] Uh the first is uh item 6A, the

[10:02] financial feasibility analysis and

[10:04] stakeholder consultation

[10:06] on zoning bylaw number 2275,

[10:09] uh density bonus provisions, and I'll

[10:11] turn to uh Mr. Newcombe, our director of

[10:12] community planning, to provide an

[10:14] introduction, please.

[10:15] >> Thank you very much.

[10:16] Uh so, in the spring of 2024, the

[10:18] provincial government updated the local

[10:20] government act to require municipalities

[10:23] uh with zoning bylaws

[10:26] uh that include a density bonusing

[10:28] provision,

[10:29] um

[10:30] either a a new bylaw or an amending

[10:32] bylaw or site-specific bylaw, uh that

[10:35] these bylaws with the density bonusing

[10:37] provision undergo an analysis,

[10:39] um

[10:40] the analysis is intended to ensure that

[10:43] the the density bonusing provisions are

[10:45] economically viable for uh development

[10:47] projects.

[10:48] Um there's also a one-time requirement

[10:51] uh as part of this change that uh

[10:53] existing zoning bylaws that a

[10:54] municipality might have also be uh

[10:57] analyzed to ensure that any density

[10:59] bonusing provisions uh are also um

[11:02] economically viable.

[11:04] So, uh a couple of months ago, the uh

[11:06] staff uh contracted with a

[11:09] uh qualified consultant to undergo this

[11:12] analysis uh for the town's current

[11:14] zoning bylaw.

[11:15] Uh the results from that were that the

[11:17] current density boning

[11:19] density bonusing provisions are

[11:22] economically viable.

[11:23] Uh there's a second requirement

[11:25] associated with this, and that's to

[11:28] uh undergo a round of consultation with

[11:31] uh

[11:32] individuals,

[11:33] et cetera, that council feels

[11:36] uh should be consulted as part of this

[11:38] process.

[11:39] And staff have made some recommendations

[11:41] around that and uh happy to answer any

[11:43] questions. Thank you.

[11:45] >> Thank you, Mr. Newcombe. I'll turn to

[11:46] colleagues if there are any questions on

[11:47] this uh item. Uh Counselor O'Keefe,

[11:49] please.

[11:50] >> Uh thank you. Um

[11:53] >> [clears throat]

[11:53] >> So, I did send some questions to staff,

[11:55] so thanks for that, but I'm still uh

[11:58] needing some help with uh

[12:00] un- understanding. Um

[12:03] So, when we're talking about the

[12:05] financial viability, so I presume that

[12:08] means looking at

[12:10] the [clears throat] zoning bylaw, which

[12:12] has

[12:13] uh our base our base kind of density

[12:16] that's permitted and then the bonus

[12:18] density. So, I presume that's one

[12:20] element of it. And then is the other

[12:22] element also

[12:25] looking at our that policy DVO 113 that

[12:30] then outlines you know, if you have this

[12:33] amount of density, you're going to pay

[12:35] this amount. So, just wanting to clarify

[12:38] that when we're talking about financial

[12:40] viability, that I'm understanding

[12:42] exactly what that is and what we're

[12:44] looking at.

[12:45] >> Counselor O'Keefe, can you maybe just

[12:46] move your microphone a little closer?

[12:48] >> Oh, sorry. Okay.

[12:49] >> Thank you.

[12:50] >> Uh uh thank you. Through the mayor to uh

[12:52] Counselor O'Keefe.

[12:53] Um

[12:54] Yeah, so what the legislation says is

[12:56] that uh

[12:58] we need to do an economic analysis of

[13:00] the zoning bylaw.

[13:01] Um but of course the zoning bylaw

[13:03] doesn't exist in isolation. Uh there's

[13:06] construction costs, there's land costs,

[13:08] there's all sorts of inputs that go into

[13:11] uh a development happening. Um

[13:14] All of those things are just costs and

[13:17] uh the density bonusing provision, if

[13:19] it's uh if a developer chooses to use

[13:21] it, is just one of those costs that

[13:23] might be uh considered. And so, the

[13:26] analysis

[13:27] took into account just a a very broad

[13:30] range of inputs, density bonusing being

[13:33] one of them.

[13:34] Um our proposed DCC rates were another

[13:37] thing, land cost, construction costs,

[13:40] any inputs into a development that cost

[13:42] a development money were analyzed and that

[13:47] out of that analysis, the density

[13:49] bonusing provisions were found to be

[13:50] viable overall for the total cost of

[13:52] development. Yeah.

[13:53] >> Good. So, that I I think I'm clear on

[13:55] that. Um

[13:57] and so, the report it also mentioned,

[13:59] the staff report mentioned the Urbanics

[14:02] report, which we hadn't seen, but thank

[14:04] you for sending that this afternoon. And

[14:06] I didn't have a chance, it's 70 pages,

[14:09] so I didn't go through all of it, but I

[14:11] just looked at some of the highlights.

[14:13] And so, the questions I had were um

[14:17] when I looked at the staff report, the

[14:20] staff report seemed to suggest that

[14:24] we're okay to leave the

[14:26] bonus density amounts as they are,

[14:29] which are 50 $50 per square meter for

[14:33] the RM7WS

[14:35] and 200 for everything else. So,

[14:39] is

[14:40] am I understanding

[14:41] >> It's somewhat misstating it. So, there

[14:44] there's sort of two parts to this

[14:45] project. The first part was that the

[14:48] provincial government requires us to

[14:49] analyze the existing zoning bylaw as it

[14:52] is

[14:53] and determine its economic viability.

[14:55] So, that's essentially what this staff

[14:57] report is speaking to, that we've we've

[14:59] analyzed the current state of affairs

[15:02] as far as density bonusing is considered

[15:04] and

[15:06] yes, we believe based on this analysis

[15:08] that it's viable. So, we also had the

[15:10] consultant Urbanics do some additional

[15:12] work about

[15:14] what some other policy considerations

[15:17] from the OCP's housing section might

[15:20] look like from an economic standpoint.

[15:23] And so that was sort of a second

[15:26] part of the project, looking ahead, what

[15:28] might we want to consider in the future

[15:30] in terms of

[15:32] um additional policy options, changing

[15:34] the bonus uh density amounts that are

[15:36] currently in the policy.

[15:38] Um so that's the second part of the

[15:40] project that's in the coming months

[15:43] staff will be looking at that and

[15:45] developing a policy approach that we can

[15:47] bring back to council uh with some

[15:49] potential changes um at which time if

[15:52] council does want to move some of those

[15:54] ahead or all of them ahead, uh we do

[15:57] need to do another round of consultation

[15:58] if it changes the current economic uh

[16:02] structure in the zoning bylaw as far as

[16:04] development is concerned.

[16:06] If that makes sense. So it's a two-part

[16:08] thing.

[16:08] >> Yeah, yeah. So so I think um

[16:11] >> [clears throat]

[16:11] >> when I was uh

[16:13] what I had understood about other policy

[16:15] considerations, I'm thinking about

[16:17] there's things in there about

[16:18] inclusionary zoning and um

[16:21] you know, whether pay in lieu and a

[16:23] number of different things.

[16:25] The thing that I was wondering most

[16:27] about was

[16:29] um

[16:30] the the Urbanics came out with what they

[16:34] thought the bonus density rate structure

[16:37] should be, which is quite different. So

[16:39] those amounts of, you know, $50 and 200,

[16:43] and they came out with quite a different

[16:46] range of amounts. And so what I

[16:49] what I'm wondering is I know there's

[16:51] those other policy things, but in term

[16:54] in terms of the financial viability and

[16:57] if we're going out to the development

[16:59] community to ask about financial

[17:02] viability, why we wouldn't go with these

[17:05] amounts that have been recommended by

[17:09] the uh consultant right now rather than

[17:12] uh waiting cuz it

[17:15] if we paid them to do this and if

[17:17] they're experts on it, it looks like

[17:19] we're missing out on money

[17:21] if we don't increase our rates. So, why

[17:24] not do that now rather than later, I

[17:26] guess.

[17:27] >> Yeah, I guess it's a good question. So,

[17:28] the as I said, the the current uh

[17:32] intent is just to find out

[17:35] the

[17:37] economic viability of the current zoning

[17:39] bylaw, and then what the if council does

[17:42] choose to consult with the development

[17:44] community on this, what the development

[17:46] community's perspective on that current

[17:50] density bonusing structure is, including

[17:52] the rates.

[17:53] Um

[17:55] at the moment, Urbanics has just done an

[17:57] analysis of what might be possible,

[18:00] but there's significant implications of

[18:03] going to something to a different rate.

[18:06] And so, those implications might be

[18:08] something like if the market changes,

[18:11] there's now, you know, no longer any

[18:13] freeboard to absorb, let's say a

[18:16] 10% market drop or something like that,

[18:18] which has implications for um

[18:22] the pace of development in the

[18:23] community. So, staff haven't had a

[18:24] chance to look at those

[18:26] uh potential numbers that Urbanics

[18:28] analyzed, and think of

[18:31] deeply about, you know, what are the

[18:32] implications of implementing these

[18:34] numbers in Sydney. Um that's the work

[18:37] that we're going to be doing over the

[18:38] next few months to look at

[18:40] do we want to change? If we do want to

[18:42] change, what's a reasonable number? And

[18:44] then bringing forward uh a

[18:45] recommendation to council that we think

[18:48] makes sense in terms of um

[18:51] striking that very fine balance between

[18:54] development viability, having Sydney as

[18:56] an attractive place to do business in

[18:58] terms of development, and so on and so

[19:00] forth. So, until I think we have

[19:03] council's blessing to move forward with

[19:04] some of those potential future numbers,

[19:07] I don't think we'd want to be consulting

[19:08] with the development community on them,

[19:10] given that they're not proposed uh

[19:12] in a zoning bylaw.

[19:14] >> Okay. I I I unders- understand that. I

[19:18] I'm still kind of

[19:21] Yeah, wondering about if the experts have come forward and

[19:25] said, "This is viable." Why wouldn't we

[19:28] do that? I guess my question would be I

[19:30] understand staff would want to you know,

[19:33] we just got the report I think on

[19:34] Friday.

[19:35] Um

[19:36] and that you know, you might need some

[19:38] time to think that over. You know, is it

[19:40] an option to give staff a bit more time

[19:44] to at least not look at all of those

[19:47] other policy recommendations, but just

[19:49] look at these specific via bonus density

[19:53] rate structure that they've been

[19:56] proposed and come back to council, you

[20:00] know, in early September with that. I

[20:02] guess what I'm worried about is I

[20:03] understand that the next time we're

[20:05] going to look at this is maybe during

[20:07] strategic planning, you know, in the new

[20:10] term. And um

[20:12] it seems that the rate structure

[20:14] proposed by

[20:16] Urban Analytics is quite a bit

[20:18] different. And I guess I'm I'm worried

[20:20] about the town uh losing out on being

[20:23] able to um

[20:25] collect on some of these things. So,

[20:28] whether that might be an option.

[20:30] >> Yeah, I mean I I think we're doing both

[20:32] essentially. So, we we do need to assess

[20:35] the current zoning bylaw and consult on

[20:37] the current zoning bylaw.

[20:39] Um

[20:40] that needs to be done essentially right

[20:41] now. And so, that's why the the staff

[20:43] recommendation is there to move ahead

[20:45] with that. We are

[20:47] 100% looking at what are the options

[20:49] going forward. And we're actively

[20:51] working on that. We're just not ready to

[20:53] say, you know, this is what we'd

[20:55] recommend in terms of a a change right

[20:57] now. Um I think there's there's more

[20:59] work that needs to be done.

[21:02] And Urban Analytics report is also

[21:04] written from the perspective of

[21:07] um

[21:09] the town should be taking 100% of any

[21:13] uh

[21:14] monetary amount over and above a

[21:16] standard level of profit for

[21:18] development. Um there's merits to that

[21:21] argument. There's also negatives to that

[21:24] argument. And again, I I don't think

[21:25] we've had time to fully kind of work

[21:27] through what those might be on either

[21:29] side. And so, I I would want to be

[21:31] cautious about um you know, if we are

[21:34] going to move forward with a change to

[21:35] the bonus density amount that we have

[21:37] currently, that we fully understand the

[21:39] implications of that. And I I don't

[21:41] think we do at this point. But, we do

[21:43] need to consult on the current zoning

[21:45] bylaws,

[21:47] current density bonus rates.

[21:49] >> Okay.

[21:50] >> Thank you for that.

[21:52] >> Thank you, Councillor Keefer. Councillor

[21:53] Novick, uh I'll turn to CEO Edwards,

[21:55] please.

[21:57] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to

[21:58] add to that um

[22:00] I understand where Councillor Keefer's

[22:02] coming from and and and recognize the uh

[22:05] desire to move in that direction. It's

[22:07] important to also note that any

[22:09] in-stream applications will

[22:12] adhere to the current rates. And so, um

[22:16] you we we're not aware of any large

[22:20] projects advancing in in the immediate

[22:23] future. And so,

[22:25] you know, we there still is time to make

[22:27] some amendments in the near future on

[22:30] this that hopefully will

[22:32] capture any opportunities that we might

[22:35] feel like

[22:36] um are coming our way.

[22:38] >> Thank you. I'll turn back to you,

[22:39] Councillor.

[22:40] >> I'm sorry, just to follow up on that.

[22:41] So, is near future like

[22:45] September? Or is that like in the next

[22:47] term?

[22:48] >> No, next term. It's uh Council has

[22:50] already um

[22:52] discussed this in this current strategic

[22:54] plan that this would be next term work.

[22:57] >> Okay. Thank you.

[22:58] >> Thank you. Councillor Novick, please.

[23:00] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Through you to

[23:01] staff.

[23:02] Uh,

[23:04] I'm I'm I have a couple of questions

[23:06] about the uh, engagement with the

[23:08] development community.

[23:10] And uh, for my first question is uh, how

[23:13] wide a net uh,

[23:15] do you cast with this? Like, what is

[23:18] the development community? Is it just a

[23:20] couple of big developers? Is it people

[23:22] that build

[23:23] duplexes here and there? How do you

[23:26] decide who the development community is?

[23:29] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor, to Councillor

[23:30] Novick. Uh, good question. So, what

[23:33] we're planning to do is use largely the

[23:35] same list that we used for the DCC bylaw

[23:37] consultation, uh, which does include uh,

[23:41] the Urban Development Institute uh,

[23:43] Victoria chapter, and then a list of

[23:47] uh, developers who have essentially done

[23:48] business in Sidney over the last

[23:51] couple of years, I think was it? Uh,

[23:53] maybe with a couple of additions or

[23:54] subtractions, uh, where we have some

[23:56] specific knowledge about that that uh,

[23:58] developer, but we do have a a list of

[24:01] people who would be affected by this in

[24:02] terms of

[24:04] uh,

[24:04] potential development projects, and so

[24:06] we'd reach out to them.

[24:07] >> So, it it would be a broad net. Is Is

[24:10] that correct?

[24:10] >> Yeah.

[24:11] >> Okay, thank you. Uh, my second question

[24:13] is

[24:14] um,

[24:17] following this engagement, you're going

[24:18] to get some feedback. It's unlikely that

[24:21] the development community is going to

[24:23] ask for higher DCCs.

[24:26] What what would you expect to do with the

[24:30] results of this engagement, and how will

[24:33] that help

[24:34] to form your ultimate

[24:37] table of rates?

[24:40] >> So,

[24:41] the province doesn't actually require

[24:45] any

[24:46] action out of the engagement. They

[24:50] require that we do the analysis, and

[24:52] they require that we engage where we

[24:54] consult with whoever council thinks will

[24:57] be affected.

[24:58] Um

[25:00] based on the numbers in the report, uh

[25:02] as Councillor O'Keefe alluded to, um

[25:05] currently I would say the the density

[25:08] bonusing rates are quite affordable.

[25:10] Um and have been in place for a

[25:12] significant amount of time, and I don't

[25:14] think we've heard a lot of pushback from

[25:17] the development community about the

[25:19] current rates. And so my expectations

[25:22] would be, of course, that, you know, the

[25:24] development community would say

[25:25] something like, "Well, gee, any costs

[25:27] make it difficult to do projects," which

[25:29] is true. Um

[25:31] however, I think

[25:32] these rates, in and of themselves,

[25:35] aren't sort of a deal-killer level. And

[25:38] so I think, you know, we'll we'll hear a

[25:39] typical sort of

[25:41] "We need to be wary of costs, but given

[25:44] what the report says, and I think given

[25:45] that the development community has been

[25:47] working with these numbers over the last

[25:49] several years, um

[25:52] if the feedback from the development

[25:54] community is like, you know, "Gee, it's

[25:56] a cost, but, you know, we can make it

[25:58] work," uh no more action is necessary.

[26:00] We've fulfilled our obligations under

[26:02] the legislation, and we can move on and start working on um

[26:08] different policy choices that we can

[26:10] bring back to council around things like

[26:12] inclusionary zoning and and other uh

[26:14] considerations.

[26:15] >> So we have to reach out to the

[26:17] development community, listen to them,

[26:20] file it away in a drawer, and not

[26:21] necessarily do anything with the

[26:24] results of that engagement. Is is that

[26:27] correct? Or the gov- the government

[26:29] doesn't oblige us to, but we may

[26:31] incorporate that into our work.

[26:33] >> To to a degree it's correct. I think if

[26:35] the development community came back with

[26:37] significant and serious concerns about

[26:40] the current bylaw, uh I think staff

[26:43] would report back to council and say,

[26:44] "Look, this is what we've heard. Um some

[26:47] action might be necessary here." And

[26:48] certainly if we hear that, we'll be coming back to council with a

[26:51] staff report. Um I think again, given

[26:54] what the report says about the rates,

[26:58] if we get the uh response we're

[27:01] expecting to, I think yes, it's sort of

[27:03] followed the way we've fulfilled our

[27:04] provincial obligation, and then look

[27:06] ahead and if we do decide to make some

[27:08] changes at that point, that next stage

[27:11] of consultation on any different rates

[27:13] might be more

[27:15] uh telling in terms of, you know, how

[27:17] far

[27:18] might the town want to push in terms of

[27:21] um

[27:24] more challenging

[27:26] uh

[27:26] requests of developments like

[27:29] inclusionary zoning that might have a

[27:30] bit of a higher ask.

[27:32] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you,

[27:34] Mayor.

[27:34] >> Thank you, Counselor.

[27:36] >> Are there any other questions from

[27:37] staff? Uh seeing none, we do have staff

[27:39] recommendation if somebody would

[27:41] consider moving it.

[27:42] Like Counselor Grenier.

[27:45] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll move the

[27:46] recommendation that staff proceed with

[27:47] stakeholder engagement with the

[27:48] development community regarding the

[27:49] bonus density fee provisions in zoning

[27:52] bylaw number 2275.

[27:54] >> Second.

[27:55] >> Moved uh by Counselor Grenier, seconded

[27:56] by Counselor Novick. I'll turn to the

[27:58] movers.

[27:58] >> I have nothing to add. There's been

[27:59] fullsome discussion. Thank you, Mayor.

[28:01] >> Thank you, Counselor.

[28:02] >> Likewise, nothing to add.

[28:04] >> Uh

[28:05] any further discussion? Counselor

[28:06] O'Keefe, please.

[28:07] >> Uh thank you.

[28:08] Uh I'm not in favor of this uh for a few

[28:11] reasons. Um

[28:12] we've known for a long time that our

[28:15] current bonus density is not where it

[28:18] should be. It's been, I think, I don't

[28:20] know, maybe decades, but you know, I I

[28:24] it seems that it's been uh a long time

[28:26] since it's been um updated. Um and I

[28:30] know that,

[28:31] you know, because the province required

[28:33] us to pre-zone certain parts of the

[28:36] community, we've missed out on the

[28:39] opportunity to to

[28:41] recover the lift on that. Um and I

[28:45] recognize that the provincial government

[28:47] has since given us some tools through

[28:50] DCCs and ACCs to help get those

[28:54] amenities.

[28:55] Um

[28:56] So, what I worry about is by delaying

[28:59] the

[29:00] um I would have rather seen

[29:03] these the rates from Urbanics, if we had

[29:07] to give staff a bit of time to to look

[29:10] at those, I would prefer to be going out

[29:12] to the development community with those

[29:15] um

[29:16] the proposed rates from Urbanics. And I

[29:19] understand, you know, staff's comments

[29:20] that there's not too many

[29:23] uh developments in the in the queue that

[29:27] might uh that this might impact.

[29:29] However, this seems to me something

[29:32] that's going to take a while. If it goes

[29:34] to strategic planning, then we'll

[29:35] discuss it, then we'll have to go

[29:38] through a process and more engagement.

[29:41] Um I don't know. I'm thinking it might

[29:43] be another year before uh we get these

[29:46] higher rates. And then in in the

[29:48] meantime, there are other developments

[29:50] that come along and and we miss out on

[29:52] the opportunity to to recoup some money

[29:56] for the community. So, that's those are

[30:00] my reservations. So, um my reasons for

[30:03] uh not moving forward uh as it is. Thank

[30:06] you.

[30:07] >> Uh thank you, counselor. Uh seeing no

[30:10] Counselor Gurney, please.

[30:11] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Just just to

[30:12] address um

[30:14] my from my perspective why I do support

[30:16] it is we don't necessarily those are

[30:19] proposed rates from from a consultant.

[30:21] Our staff has not had a chance to look

[30:23] at it yet uh through our zoning bylaw,

[30:25] through their eyes, and they have more

[30:26] familiarity being the community. They

[30:28] may come to a different conclusion. And

[30:30] maybe these rates will be very similar

[30:32] to through what the work they do with us

[30:34] with the council next council, and the

[30:37] work that our staff does, the rates may

[30:39] be similar to what's already proposed in

[30:40] our own zoning bylaw. So, do we delay

[30:42] that not knowing? It's It's I think we

[30:44] should move forward on and try to align

[30:46] with provincial legislation. Thank you.

[30:49] >> Thank you, counselor.

[30:51] I'm now not seeing any further

[30:52] discussion. I'll look to call the

[30:53] question. Those in favor?

[30:55] Opposed? Counselor O'Keefe is opposed.

[30:57] The motion carries. Thank you.

[31:00] Returning to item 6B, the housing target

[31:02] order report for second reporting period

[31:05] July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026.

[31:09] We have a report and I'll turn to our

[31:10] director of development services, Miss

[31:12] Forhagen. Good evening.

[31:14] >> Good evening. Thank you.

[31:15] As is indicated in the report, Sydney

[31:18] received a housing target order in June

[31:20] of 2024. So, this is our second

[31:22] reporting period. This report captures

[31:25] the number of occupancy permits,

[31:27] demolition permits issued, number of

[31:29] housing units created and lost through

[31:31] development and demolition for the year

[31:33] from

[31:34] July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026. So,

[31:39] the year that's just ended here.

[31:41] Um

[31:42] the housing target order gives

[31:44] cumulative totals. So, here we are at

[31:46] the end of our second year. We're

[31:48] supposed to have created 181

[31:50] new complete housing units. So, that

[31:52] means occupancy permits issued within

[31:54] that time frame for 181 units.

[31:57] In the first year, as the report says in

[31:59] the background section,

[32:01] we issued 126

[32:03] occupancy permits or occupancy permits

[32:06] for 126 dwelling units.

[32:08] We lost 36 units through demolition

[32:10] permits and that resulted in a net total

[32:12] of 90. So, we were on track for the

[32:14] first year. In the second year, the

[32:16] numbers were a little lower.

[32:18] In the last reporting period, we issued

[32:21] occupancy permits for a total of 28

[32:23] dwelling units and demolition permits

[32:25] for a total of 19 dwelling units. That

[32:27] results in a net total of nine completed

[32:29] housing units. So, we're at a total of

[32:31] 90 nine units for the two years and

[32:34] we're supposed to be at at

[32:36] So, we are a bit low.

[32:37] But, but if you read on in the report

[32:39] and look through the rest of the the

[32:41] information in the housing target order

[32:43] report, it shows there is a number of

[32:45] dwelling units in the pipeline coming.

[32:48] Um

[32:49] we've issued building permits for

[32:53] there's building permit applications

[32:54] under review for a total of 261 new

[32:57] dwelling units

[32:58] right now. That's in addition to the

[33:01] number of units that have been approved

[33:02] by development permit, which is 235

[33:04] units.

[33:05] And we also have 58 units approved by

[33:08] building permit. Out there under

[33:09] construction right now as of today's

[33:11] date, so uh past the time of this

[33:13] report, there's I think around 45 units

[33:15] under construction.

[33:17] So, things are happening. This just this

[33:19] the stats in this report represents this

[33:21] cycle in the kind of construction phase

[33:24] that Sydney was in for the past year.

[33:26] Uh we do need to send this report to the

[33:28] ministry by August 15th, which is 45

[33:31] days maximum of 45 days after the end of

[33:33] the reporting period. So, I'd be happy

[33:35] to answer any questions. Thank you.

[33:37] >> Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Frehlich. And

[33:39] I'll turn to colleagues. Are there any

[33:40] questions of the housing report?

[33:43] Not seeing any. It's we've had it

[33:45] previously for last year and

[33:48] thanks to you for bringing it forward.

[33:50] As is required, I would look for someone

[33:53] to move the recommendation, please.

[33:55] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll move that

[33:56] council receive the progress report for

[33:58] July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026 and

[34:01] direct staff to post the report on the

[34:02] town website and submit it to the

[34:04] province.

[34:05] >> Second.

[34:06] >> Moved by councilors Garnett and Novick.

[34:08] I'll turn to the movers.

[34:09] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Just just a

[34:10] brief comment.

[34:12] And I think when I look through this

[34:13] report and I think Central Saanich is

[34:16] had 24 net units in their period and

[34:18] they had to have more than us.

[34:20] It's a there's a flaw in the way they

[34:22] designed this from my perspective and

[34:24] I've always felt this way. When you're

[34:25] looking at occupancy permits,

[34:27] it should be relating it at applications

[34:29] that have been approved, development

[34:31] approve applications from from the way I

[34:33] look at it because as a council, we

[34:35] don't control market conditions,

[34:36] interest rates, construction costs,

[34:39] um supply chain issues. And uh I looked

[34:42] at numbers based on what we've approved

[34:45] in terms of uh developments, whether or

[34:47] not they go forward. And it's combined

[34:49] with what we've already had occupancy

[34:51] permits for, it's over 600 units. So, I

[34:54] think we'll make our total total in 5

[34:55] years if things shape up the way they

[34:57] should. But as I said, we don't control

[35:00] what happens outside of us. We can only

[35:01] control what we approve. And

[35:04] I'm thinking to myself, "What about

[35:06] labor shortages?" And I thought, "I

[35:07] mean, maybe maybe if all seven members

[35:09] of council go back to school and get a

[35:10] red seal and and be electricians and

[35:12] plumbers and contractors, we can go out

[35:13] there and help build." But even then,

[35:15] we're not going to help meet the target.

[35:16] So,

[35:17] I think it's it's important for the

[35:18] community to realize that we can only do

[35:21] so much as a council. And um you know,

[35:23] the government set the target, they set

[35:24] the parameters. It's just really

[35:26] difficult to work in them given economic

[35:28] conditions. Thank you, Mayor.

[35:30] >> Thank you, uh Counselor.

[35:31] I'll turn to the secondary.

[35:33] Uh Counselor Nault?

[35:34] >> Uh nothing to add, Mayor.

[35:36] >> Thank you.

[35:38] Not seeing any any other speakers. This

[35:40] is a This is a big topic. It's followed

[35:42] uh around the region or around the

[35:44] province. And and I'm in support of the

[35:45] motion and thanks staff

[35:47] uh for both the report uh and the

[35:49] housing target order progress report

[35:50] that uh we're required and will submit

[35:53] uh to the province.

[35:54] I I want to re- re- reiterate uh some of

[35:57] the points with some perspective. Um

[35:59] while Sidney's annual housing targets

[36:01] are somewhat uniform over the 5-year

[36:03] period, uh '91,

[36:06] '93, '95, uh and then '99,

[36:09] um as Counselor uh Garnett just spoke,

[36:11] the town does not build housing uh and

[36:13] does not control the changing market

[36:15] variables and conditions

[36:17] uh that the private sector property

[36:18] owners and developers uh must consider,

[36:21] you know, when they're deciding to

[36:22] submit their applications and ultimately

[36:24] build and and complete their projects.

[36:27] Uh this has and and those market

[36:29] variables and those conditions have and will cause fluctuations in building

[36:33] activity and and new home new home

[36:35] occupancy. I think fluctuations are more

[36:37] likely when there are larger projects

[36:39] proposed. And in Sydney, we see

[36:42] the larger approved projects are 180

[36:44] units, 140 units, 60 units, uh, 49 and 48. And in looking at our monthly

[36:51] uh, building report that's included on

[36:53] tonight's agenda, we see that the 140

[36:56] unit project at 2180 Beacon Avenue

[36:58] received its DP development permit from

[37:01] council in May of 2024. Uh, the 60 unit

[37:04] project at uh,

[37:06] 2060 White Birch received its DP from

[37:08] council in January of '24.

[37:10] Uh, and the 49 and 48 um, unit projects

[37:13] at 95 9522 Lockside, uh, the former

[37:17] Cedar Woods Inn site, uh, received their

[37:19] DP from council in March of 2024. So,

[37:22] market variables and conditions have

[37:23] certainly changed over the last 2 years

[37:26] um, uh, that those that those were

[37:29] approved. Interestingly, the 180 unit

[37:31] purpose-built rental at 21

[37:34] 14 um, Beacon Avenue West received its

[37:37] DP from council in September 25 uh, more

[37:40] recently uh, than the others mentioned.

[37:42] And uh, it's currently under

[37:44] construction.

[37:46] So, we've set the table for development

[37:48] in our community uh, over the long term

[37:50] with comprehensive with the

[37:51] comprehensive update of our OCP and

[37:53] zoning bylaws in recent years.

[37:56] Uh, and in addition to the some 500

[37:58] units of housing approved by council,

[37:59] the report noted as uh, Mr. Verheggen

[38:02] noted uh, that there are development

[38:04] applications under consideration for

[38:05] another 118 uh, new dwelling units. So,

[38:09] with the 99 uh, net new homes completed

[38:12] over the last 2 years, over 600 housing

[38:14] units approved under or under

[38:15] consideration,

[38:17] uh, and future applications are likely.

[38:19] Uh, I remain confident we'll achieve and

[38:21] exceed our housing targets of housing

[38:23] target of 448 homes over the 5-year

[38:26] housing target period.

[38:28] I'll leave my comments there and I've

[38:30] seen no further speakers look to call

[38:32] the question. All in favor?

[38:34] That carries unanimous. Thank you.

[38:38] So now we're turning to 6T which is that

[38:40] monthly building report that I alluded

[38:42] to. There is no recommendation. It's for

[38:45] information. I'll turn to colleagues if

[38:46] there are any questions or comments

[38:48] from staff.

[38:50] I'm not seeing any. We will move forward

[38:52] to the next item

[38:54] which was the under 6D the bioregional

[38:57] planning

[38:58] on the Saanich Peninsula. Councillor

[39:00] O'Keefe, you raised this at the last

[39:02] meeting. It was

[39:03] an email from

[39:05] Bob Pert from the Saanich Peninsula Environmental Coalition

[39:10] on their checkup final report. Did you

[39:12] wish to speak to that tonight, please?

[39:15] >> Thank you, Mayor.

[39:16] Yeah, so I just

[39:18] read through the report.

[39:19] I think

[39:21] it's important to

[39:22] acknowledge I think the significant time

[39:24] and energy that the Saanich Peninsula

[39:27] Environmental Coalition SPEC has done

[39:30] along with the support from the Action

[39:33] on Climate Team from Simon Fraser

[39:35] University that did community workshops

[39:38] which several of us attended and they

[39:41] presented to all three Peninsula

[39:43] municipalities

[39:45] in May and now this report which focuses

[39:48] on the need for bioregional planning and

[39:51] how the three Saanich municipalities

[39:54] are doing in that regard.

[39:56] Some of the highlights I found valuable

[39:59] the inventory of all the plans and

[40:01] policies from the local governments that

[40:03] relate to climate environment. They

[40:06] identified a number of instances where

[40:09] there's already some collaboration

[40:11] taking place

[40:13] um

[40:13] and it's noted that there is significant

[40:16] alignment in our the three

[40:19] municipalities intent, but uh there's

[40:22] room for improvement when it comes to

[40:25] the execution and collaboration of

[40:28] working together on these things. So, I

[40:31] think we would be missing a huge

[40:32] opportunity if we didn't focus some time

[40:35] figuring out how we can work better

[40:37] together with the three municipalities

[40:40] on this.

[40:41] Um not enough time to do that in this

[40:43] term. So, um

[40:45] I would move I guess I've motivated

[40:48] before the motion, but excuse me for

[40:51] that. Uh I would move that the report

[40:53] from SPEC titled Checkup

[40:56] be referred to the first strategic

[40:58] planning session in the next council

[41:00] term to consider establishment of a

[41:04] Saanich Peninsula Bioregional Framework.

[41:07] >> Second.

[41:10] So, we have it moved and seconded. Uh I

[41:12] all agree with you that you've done

[41:14] somewhat of Asian uh already, but I'll turn back to you uh

[41:18] to uh complete.

[41:19] >> Yeah, um I I guess I think the if if the report provided a lot of

[41:25] recommendations what we could do, set up

[41:27] a tri-municipal committee, there's a

[41:30] bunch of other things, but I think the

[41:31] first thing is

[41:33] you know, uh council agreeing that this

[41:36] is a strategic priority. This is

[41:38] something important for us. And so,

[41:40] that's what I would propose that we do

[41:42] at strategic planning and uh

[41:45] as as a first step.

[41:47] >> Thank you, counselor. Uh counselor

[41:49] Garnett, do you wish to

[41:50] >> Yeah, thank you, mayor. And and

[41:52] uh thank you, counselor O'Keefe, for

[41:53] raising this. And for the for SPEC for

[41:56] the work uh having attended the forum,

[41:57] it was really interesting to sit at at a

[41:59] table two different tables cuz there

[42:01] were two different segments with people

[42:03] from um other areas in the peninsula,

[42:05] and where areas some of them just

[42:07] regular citizens and where they felt

[42:09] councils were failing and where they

[42:10] were succeeding, and it was a it was a

[42:12] good eye-opener. Um I think one of the

[42:14] recommendations they made was to create

[42:16] a Saanich Peninsula Environmental

[42:17] Advisory Committee, and I do think

[42:19] that's a worthwhile goal.

[42:20] So, hopefully, when the strat planning

[42:22] happens on the next council, they'll

[42:24] give consideration to that.

[42:26] And in particular around the bioregional

[42:28] diversity, but you know, we we live in a

[42:31] an area that's very interconnected in

[42:32] the environment and impacts of climate

[42:33] change. They don't respect borders. So,

[42:36] I think we lose we lose focus that we

[42:37] try to fix things in our own

[42:38] municipality, and we don't realize how

[42:40] they they are so interconnected, and you

[42:42] don't have to look further than the

[42:43] connection to Reay or well, it's a creek

[42:46] from North Saanich to Sidney and all the

[42:47] years of the industrial work on the

[42:49] airport, which led to cadmium in Reay

[42:51] Creek pond and the work that had to be

[42:53] done to remediate that. So, there's the

[42:55] connection there that happened between

[42:56] two municipalities, and then, of course,

[42:58] there's the coastal shoreline that so

[42:59] much of it is shared. So, I do think

[43:02] this is a it's something that's kind of

[43:04] something that we we always have in our eye sightlines and we're focused

[43:07] on, but we do need to look at it from

[43:09] the perspective of the entire peninsula

[43:11] because we we do impact each other in

[43:13] decisions we make, and I think sometimes

[43:14] that gets a little bit lost in the

[43:15] shuffle. Thank you, Mayor.

[43:18] >> Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Duncan,

[43:19] please.

[43:20] >> Yeah, thank you.

[43:22] Counselor O'Keefe, for the

[43:23] motion.

[43:24] Um

[43:26] I was disappointed by SPECS' report. I feel this is something that they they put a lot of work in,

[43:34] but I feel the same people are sitting

[43:35] at the table still representing the

[43:37] community, and I know when they came to

[43:39] present,

[43:40] I said, you know, based on what we've

[43:42] seen, I feel the municipalities have

[43:44] kind of

[43:46] reached the low-hanging fruit, and we've

[43:49] and probably beyond that, and our

[43:50] frameworks are decent, and we should

[43:53] have been able to achieve these things

[43:54] even with just what we have in place.

[43:56] Like more administration, more

[43:57] bureaucracy, more paper pushing is not

[44:00] what's necessary. Um where we'd run into

[44:03] limitations was actually then when we've

[44:05] tried to implement things

[44:07] um on public land where it bordered

[44:10] private land, the private land owners

[44:12] blocked us. Literally five people were

[44:14] able to block the entire town of Sydney

[44:17] from managing our own parks. So, I said

[44:21] the people who actually have the power

[44:24] remaining

[44:25] that we have seen, just like with

[44:26] housing,

[44:28] right? are private land owners. And the

[44:31] private land owners are not at the spec

[44:33] table. This is a bunch of community

[44:35] members who say, "We want other people

[44:37] to do things, and we want the

[44:39] municipalities to force people who

[44:41] aren't us to do things with their land."

[44:45] And until those private land owners are

[44:48] actually at that table, it's not going

[44:50] to happen. And so, I

[44:52] I'm okay with this I'm happy to have

[44:54] this go forward for strategic planning

[44:56] if what it means councils are going to

[44:58] say

[44:59] once this is under our priority, and

[45:01] we're going to allocate tax money to

[45:05] doing this,

[45:06] we will do the community engagement, and

[45:09] therefore we will make sure that the

[45:11] private land owners who actually control

[45:13] the shorefront property, who control the

[45:15] green space that they own,

[45:17] can actually will will be on board and

[45:19] will do what they want. Because that's

[45:21] currently not being done. And when I

[45:24] asked Spec about it, they didn't even

[45:25] seem to

[45:27] acknowledge that that was what did need

[45:29] to be done, and that those were the

[45:30] community people who needed to be

[45:32] engaged.

[45:33] This wasn't a limitation of government,

[45:35] just like with housing.

[45:38] >> Thank you, Councillor Duncan.

[45:41] See uh Councillor O'Keefe for a second

[45:42] time.

[45:43] >> Yeah, sure. I just um comment I I agree

[45:46] with uh Councillor Duncan. There's

[45:47] certainly a role for private land owners

[45:50] to to step in that step up on that. But

[45:53] what I heard through the workshops is

[45:55] like some tangible tangible

[45:58] uh examples of how we could as uh

[46:02] municipal governments, uh work better

[46:04] together. One of the examples given was

[46:07] about the tree canopy. And that we all

[46:09] do our separate analysis of our tree

[46:12] canopy, which involves sending somebody

[46:14] up in an airplane, and they they take

[46:16] pictures and that sort of thing. And um

[46:19] I

[46:19] what I found out is that all three of us

[46:22] paid to do that separately. And so, that

[46:24] was just one example of if we were all

[46:26] kind of had our

[46:28] kind of ducks lined up in a row, and we

[46:31] all knew what we were working on, we

[46:33] could that would be an area that we

[46:34] could work on together and save the

[46:36] taxpayers money. So, I think there are

[46:39] some tangible things in there just as an

[46:41] example. Thank you.

[46:43] >> Thank you. I see no further discussion a

[46:46] discussion. I'll call the question.

[46:47] Those in favor?

[46:49] Uh that carries unanimous. Thank you.

[46:53] And so, that completes the four items

[46:54] that were brought forward from our last

[46:56] agenda. We'll move to the first item on

[46:59] tonight's agenda.

[47:01] Under bylaws 8A is bylaw number 2302

[47:04] amenity cost charges, also known as

[47:06] ACCs. I'll turn to our director of

[47:08] finance, Mr. Hiscock, please. Good

[47:09] evening.

[47:11] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[47:13] The ACCs are new development financing

[47:16] tool introduced around the time that the

[47:18] town embarked on an update of our DCC

[47:21] program.

[47:22] ACCs are intended to help fund certain

[47:25] amenities that are not eligible for

[47:27] DCCs.

[47:29] An amenity is a facility or feature that

[47:31] provides social, cultural, heritage,

[47:34] recreational, or environmental benefits

[47:36] to a community.

[47:38] And they include the following common

[47:40] examples.

[47:42] Recreation centers, um

[47:45] athletic facilities, libraries, public

[47:47] squares.

[47:49] You will notice that many of these

[47:50] services that I just listed are not

[47:52] provided directly by the town.

[47:55] And um as a result, we have more work to

[47:57] do in finding a way to maximize the

[47:59] benefit of ACCs through partnerships

[48:02] with other service providers. For

[48:04] example, subregional recreation.

[48:08] For this initial ACC program, we focused

[48:11] on amenities identified through our

[48:14] um ongoing parks planning process.

[48:17] So, the rates proposed in this bylaw

[48:19] have already been approved by council.

[48:21] This bylaw, when adopted, will put them

[48:23] into effect.

[48:25] And these rates are very modest when

[48:27] compared to our DCC rates.

[48:29] Now, I'm pleased to report that we were

[48:31] informed late last week that our DCC

[48:33] bylaw received ministerial approval,

[48:36] and it will be brought forward for

[48:38] adoption in September.

[48:40] And the town will also bring forward a

[48:42] waivers and reductions bylaw in

[48:43] September to complete the package.

[48:47] And if council has any more questions

[48:49] about the report, I'd be pleased to

[48:50] address.

[48:51] >> Uh thank you, Mr. Hiscock, and thank you

[48:53] for sharing the good news. Uh

[48:55] I'll turn to Councillor Keith with

[48:56] questions.

[48:57] >> Uh thank you. So, in questions that I

[49:00] sent um this afternoon, my understanding

[49:03] is that so things like say uh new

[49:06] facilities for arts theater, the museum,

[49:09] or maybe a public square could

[49:12] potentially be uh funded through ACCs,

[49:15] but there would be some additional work

[49:18] and analysis and cost specific costing

[49:22] um

[49:23] would be required for that, and my

[49:25] understanding is the staff would

[49:28] maybe be looking at uh

[49:30] coming up with another list of potential

[49:33] things to add to the list maybe sometime

[49:36] in the in the next term, my

[49:38] understanding is correct.

[49:40] >> Um that is correct, Councillor. We focused

[49:45] in this initial iteration on on plans we

[49:48] already had

[49:50] um

[49:51] to create something brand new will take

[49:53] some time and certainly we'd be coming

[49:56] to council with some um

[49:59] initial recommendations and uh seeking

[50:01] direction in what you would like to see

[50:03] included and

[50:05] things like um

[50:07] art seer museum facilities uh council

[50:09] has to make a conscious decision for the

[50:11] town to take on funding for those

[50:13] external agencies and only with with

[50:15] that direction would be build them into

[50:17] a future ACC program.

[50:19] >> Right. Okay. Yeah, thank you. And um

[50:24] yeah, thank you for your comment about

[50:26] Panorama recreation cuz that was another

[50:28] one that I I was uh thinking about and

[50:32] um so my understanding is

[50:35] that the the uh

[50:37] Peninsula recreation Panorama recreation

[50:40] wouldn't necessarily uh initiate that on

[50:43] their own. So that would need to be

[50:46] initiated by the three local governments

[50:48] to uh I guess instruct or direct the the

[50:52] commission to come up with a uh sub

[50:56] regional

[50:57] um ACC then. That would have to come

[51:00] from us.

[51:01] Just

[51:03] confirming that's my understanding.

[51:05] >> Um

[51:07] because uh

[51:09] essentially the facilities under

[51:12] uh Panorama rec are technically owned by

[51:15] um the CRD. They would be the ones who

[51:17] would have to enact a sub regional um

[51:20] charge

[51:22] um

[51:23] similar to what is in place right now

[51:25] for sewer and and water

[51:28] and um they would be the ones collecting

[51:30] it for us and it would require buy-in

[51:32] from all three.

[51:33] >> Right. Okay.

[51:35] And I guess just one more question. So

[51:38] when I looked at what we're charging for

[51:40] ACC some of those ACC projects and

[51:44] before ACCs I looked at those and

[51:46] thought, "Oh, those are things that we

[51:48] probably in the past would have covered

[51:51] with through our community amenity

[51:53] charges, through bonus density, or

[51:55] through one of the funding uh

[51:59] mechanisms we get from the federal

[52:01] provincial government. So, as we start

[52:04] collecting on these, I presume that

[52:07] we'll see like

[52:09] separate accounts about what we can what

[52:14] we can use for certain things. I guess

[52:16] when it comes to to budget time for to

[52:19] help council clarify

[52:22] uh

[52:22] what sort of reserves or

[52:25] uh pockets of funding that we will have

[52:28] to take some of these things out out of

[52:30] cuz there seems like there could be a

[52:32] bit of crossover, perhaps.

[52:37] Did it Does that make sense?

[52:38] >> I'll take that as a question and um

[52:40] >> Yeah.

[52:42] » As we do now and we will continue to do,

[52:44] we will bring forward our

[52:45] recommendations for funding absolutely

[52:47] everything and give you a fairly

[52:50] complete picture of

[52:52] what is available beyond what we're

[52:54] recommending.

[52:56] >> Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

[52:57] >> Uh thank you, counselor.

[52:59] Um

[52:59] seeing no further discussion, we could

[53:02] we can proceed with separate motions for

[53:04] first, second, and third reading.

[53:07] Councilor Garnett, please.

[53:08] >> Sure.

[53:09] I'll move the bylaw number 2302 amenity

[53:11] cost charge uh give it being first

[53:14] reading.

[53:15] >> Second.

[53:16] >> Uh all in favor?

[53:18] Carries unanimous.

[53:19] >> Move second reading.

[53:20] >> Second.

[53:21] >> We have the same movers. Uh this is the

[53:23] time for any discussion. I'll turn to our colleagues. Any

[53:26] discussion? Seeing none, those in favor?

[53:30] Motion carries unanimous.

[53:31] >> And I'll move third reading.

[53:32] >> Second.

[53:33] >> Moved and seconded. All in favor?

[53:35] Uh that carries unanimous and as Mr.

[53:37] Hiscock indicated, that will come uh to

[53:39] a future meeting. Uh and as I understand

[53:41] it from the report, Mr. Hissink, that

[53:42] will come forward at the same time as

[53:44] the uh DCC uh final adoption?

[53:46] >> It should be on the first meeting in

[53:48] September along with um

[53:51] the waivers and reductions bylaw for

[53:52] three readings.

[53:54] >> Excellent. Thank you.

[53:58] So, we're now turning to uh section 9,

[54:00] the development permits and development

[54:02] variance permits. Under 9A, we have

[54:03] development variance permit application

[54:05] number DV100396

[54:08] at 404 9870 2nd Street to permit a heat

[54:12] pump on the balcony within the front

[54:14] yard. Uh, we have a report and I'll turn

[54:16] back to our director of community

[54:18] planning, Ms. Verhagen.

[54:20] >> Thank you.

[54:21] So, this is a variance application, as

[54:22] you indicated, to to vary the location

[54:25] of a heat pump in order to allow one on

[54:28] a balcony in what's considered the front

[54:29] yard of this property. As the report

[54:31] says, the zoning bylaw allows heat pumps

[54:34] in interior side yards and rear yards.

[54:36] This location on the residence's balcony

[54:38] is considered within the front yard. Um,

[54:40] they've submitted a letter of rationale

[54:42] explaining the reasons for their

[54:43] request.

[54:44] From staff's perspective, it would have

[54:46] minimal impact on the streetscape. It's

[54:48] proposed to be screened with a cover.

[54:50] Uh, we do have requirements in our noise

[54:52] bylaw for maximum volume from heat pumps

[54:56] in terms of decibels, so it would comply

[54:58] with that as well. So, we are

[54:59] recommending that we proceed with a

[55:01] variance with with a radius mailout.

[55:04] Happy to answer any questions.

[55:05] >> Thank you. Any uh questions from

[55:07] colleagues? Uh, Councillor Garnett,

[55:08] please.

[55:09] >> Uh, thank you, Mayor uh three to staff.

[55:11] Um, having read the letter and thank you

[55:13] to the applicants

[55:14] for their letter of rationale. Um,

[55:16] noting that and one of my first

[55:18] questions when I saw this on the agenda

[55:19] was, you know, what are the strata

[55:21] rules? And it was right there right away

[55:22] answered that it was a they were given a

[55:23] medical accommodation, so very

[55:25] appreciative of that. And having walked

[55:28] by a few times, I can see that that it's definitely not going to be

[55:31] intrusive from looking at the street or

[55:32] anywhere else for that matter. Um,

[55:35] we don't we won't meet till that's

[55:37] another four or five four weeks, I

[55:38] believe, or five weeks. This will come

[55:40] back probably the next regular

[55:42] council meeting on the 14th of

[55:43] September.

[55:44] Um six weeks left of summer.

[55:47] Um noting in their letter

[55:50] that temperatures reach more than 26° C

[55:53] and seeing this summer or earlier this

[55:55] spring that medical professionals are

[55:56] now saying that's considered unsafe to

[55:58] be in an in a in a habitable space at

[56:00] that temperature.

[56:02] Um

[56:03] Respecting the recommendation, does

[56:05] council have the purview to uh bypass

[56:08] the mail out notification and just

[56:09] approve the variance? Um I'm not sure

[56:11] where they are in the process of how

[56:12] quickly they want to install it in terms

[56:14] of when the summer is, you know, we

[56:15] still may be into some substantial heat

[56:18] uh based on what's been going on. So,

[56:19] I'm just curious what powers we have in that being.

[56:24] >> Sure.

[56:25] Um through the mayor, I will defer to

[56:26] Mr. Edwards on this one, but I do

[56:28] believe the Local Government Act does

[56:29] require the radius mail out. That is a

[56:31] legislative requirement, so I don't

[56:33] believe it's something that can be

[56:34] skipped.

[56:35] >> Sure.

[56:36] >> I'm seeing a nod from uh CEO Edwards, so

[56:39] >> Yeah, I would um concur with that

[56:42] >> Okay.

[56:42] >> uh assessment.

[56:44] >> Thank you. Just uh I think the

[56:46] applicants are in the audience, so I

[56:47] just wanted to

[56:48] let you know that this is the process we

[56:50] have to follow, and so I understand your

[56:52] the difficulties you're experiencing,

[56:53] but um the process has to play out based

[56:55] on what we're allowed to do, so. Thank

[56:57] you, Mayor.

[56:58] >> Thank you, Councillor Garnett, for the

[56:59] consideration on this. Councillor

[57:01] Duncan, please.

[57:03] >> Yeah, thank you. I I Sorry, I

[57:05] probably should have emailed staff about

[57:06] this earlier so they could have followed

[57:08] up, but I was trying to figure out

[57:09] exactly what my question was going to

[57:11] be. Um but

[57:14] the fact that this applicant required,

[57:17] you know, kind of a medical request in

[57:19] order to get around their um

[57:22] strata requirements, and I think that as

[57:24] Councillor Garnett pointed out, you

[57:25] know, that that could leave a lot of

[57:27] people like in a in a problem for a long

[57:30] time, so it no longer becomes a medical

[57:32] problem, because they've passed away

[57:33] from the heat. I also would be concerned

[57:35] about the fact that not everybody who

[57:38] could end up in a problem

[57:41] would know about it with enough notice.

[57:43] I'm thinking of people who didn't know

[57:44] they were going to get pregnant, and

[57:46] then they become pregnant, and now

[57:48] they're very susceptible to the heat.

[57:49] Probably not going to happen in this

[57:50] building, but there's many other

[57:52] buildings that that's going to be, you

[57:53] know, a problem, or people with pets,

[57:55] you know, I'd hate to think of

[57:57] some, you know, dogs in hot apartments.

[58:00] Um, and so I'm just wondering if this is

[58:03] something our staff has started speaking

[58:05] to our kind of like emergency response

[58:08] personnel, or PEMA, about our bylaw as

[58:12] it stands, that if we now have these

[58:13] heat pumps, that some of, you know, our

[58:16] concerns about the noise and being able

[58:18] to film on the balconies is kind of no

[58:21] longer as much of a problem, that

[58:23] whether we should be looking at

[58:25] making it easier for people to install

[58:27] these without requiring these variances.

[58:34] » Uh, CEO Wiquist. Okay, uh, thank you,

[58:36] Mayor. Um,

[58:38] through you to Councillor Duncan,

[58:40] staff have not, uh, been having

[58:42] discussions about this. Um, it has not

[58:44] been raised as a

[58:46] concern. Um,

[58:49] and for the most part, it is a

[58:51] restriction in in most municipalities

[58:54] in terms of placing heat pumps in what's

[58:57] determined front yards.

[58:59] So, um,

[59:02] yeah, I don't foresee it as being a crucial

[59:06] issue for the town of Sidney, um, at the

[59:09] moment, um,

[59:10] but it is something that could be looked

[59:12] into. But,

[59:14] at this time I don't feel that it is

[59:15] something that, uh,

[59:17] would warrant amending our our bylaw, or

[59:23] So, I'm not sure if that answers your

[59:24] question, but

[59:25] >> It does that that it hasn't been raised

[59:27] by, you know, first responders and we

[59:29] can see the reason

[59:30] >> raised in terms of bylaws being barriers

[59:33] to installing

[59:36] heat pumps or other cooling mechanisms.

[59:39] >> Okay.

[59:40] >> Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Ms. Reagan, did

[59:41] you wish to add

[59:43] >> Um just to add a comment there that the

[59:45] applicant may There may be other cooling

[59:48] options available to them like a

[59:49] portable air conditioner unit that

[59:51] wouldn't necessa- that wouldn't kind of

[59:55] be in violation of the zoning bylaw. So,

[59:57] they may have another option. I'm not

[59:58] sure.

[59:59] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:00:05] I'm sorry. We just We just don't allow

[1:00:07] members of the public to speak while

[1:00:08] we're in in deliberations, so.

[1:00:11] Um Councillor Minto.

[1:00:12] >> I'm happy to move the recommendation if

[1:00:13] you're ready.

[1:00:14] >> Please.

[1:00:15] >> I'll move the recommendation that owners

[1:00:16] and tenants in occupation of property

[1:00:18] within 75 m 246 ft of 9870 2nd St. be

[1:00:22] notified regarding development variance

[1:00:23] application number DV100396

[1:00:26] to permit a heat pump on the balcony

[1:00:28] within the front yard of the subject

[1:00:29] property and that any written

[1:00:31] correspondence received before date of

[1:00:32] council at time of consideration

[1:00:34] approval of variance.

[1:00:36] >> Second.

[1:00:36] >> We have it moved and seconded. Anything

[1:00:38] from the movers?

[1:00:39] >> Just briefly, like my colleagues, I

[1:00:41] would have been happy to approve the

[1:00:42] variance this evening if we had the

[1:00:44] capacity to do so. I think I noted in

[1:00:46] the letter I didn't pull it back up, but

[1:00:48] you've got portable air conditioners two

[1:00:51] of them, that's right, that are

[1:00:54] helping out by using a lot of

[1:00:55] electricity and no doubt much noisier

[1:00:57] than the new heat pumps. So, I

[1:00:58] sympathize

[1:00:59] with your position and thank you for

[1:01:01] your patience with the process that

[1:01:03] we're going through. I support the

[1:01:04] motion. Thank you.

[1:01:05] >> Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Novik.

[1:01:07] >> Uh and likewise, I feel that a portable air conditioner

[1:01:11] is a lot more

[1:01:12] as Councillor Minto said, noisier and a

[1:01:14] lot more unsightly in a window than a

[1:01:17] screened heat pump sitting on the floor

[1:01:19] of a balcony. But, that's the way the the rules work. So, uh yeah, I'm

[1:01:24] happy to move this along and hopefully

[1:01:27] uh

[1:01:28] hopefully the proponents can get their

[1:01:31] heat pump installed before the last uh

[1:01:34] heatwave of summer.

[1:01:36] >> Thank you. Counselor O'Keefe.

[1:01:38] >> Uh thank you. Uh I'll support this for

[1:01:40] sure, but going back to Counselor

[1:01:42] Duncan's

[1:01:44] um

[1:01:44] comments, I I'm be interested

[1:01:49] maybe next term, if we're still here, to

[1:01:52] investigate that further. I know that

[1:01:54] some municipalities are making it a

[1:01:56] requirement in their

[1:01:58] development proposals that there has to

[1:02:01] be at least one room that stays below a

[1:02:04] certain temperature, so they have people

[1:02:06] have some sort of reprieve uh from when

[1:02:09] there's a

[1:02:10] uh

[1:02:11] heatwave. Um I think in some

[1:02:13] municipalities, it's just a standard

[1:02:16] rule, I believe, but I'm not sure about uh

[1:02:20] that stratus can't prevent people from

[1:02:23] um having Anyways, I think there's a a

[1:02:27] bunch of things there that I'd be

[1:02:28] interested in in looking at. To to

[1:02:31] Counselor Duncan's point, making it

[1:02:33] easier for people to install heat pumps,

[1:02:37] rather than having to come to us to ask

[1:02:40] for a variance. So,

[1:02:41] something for another day.

[1:02:43] Thank you.

[1:02:44] >> I'll turn to Ms. Breagan, please.

[1:02:46] >> Sure, thank you. Through the merit of

[1:02:47] Counselor O'Keefe, uh what you're

[1:02:49] speaking about there in terms of the

[1:02:51] requirement to have a a cooler room in

[1:02:53] the dwelling unit, that is a building

[1:02:54] code requirement for new construction.

[1:02:57] So, all new developments would have that

[1:02:58] built into the building. It's harder to

[1:03:00] retrofit an older building. Yeah.

[1:03:04] >> Thank you.

[1:03:05] And so, we have it moved, and we've had

[1:03:07] discussion. I'll call the question. All

[1:03:08] in favor?

[1:03:09] I can hear it's unanimous. Thank you.

[1:03:13] And we're turning to uh 9B, development

[1:03:14] variance permit application number

[1:03:16] DV100397

[1:03:19] at 10249 Forsythia Place to

[1:03:21] retroactively relax the minimum

[1:03:24] interior side setback along the west lot

[1:03:27] line to allow the deck addition.

[1:03:29] Uh we have a report and I'll turn to uh

[1:03:31] Mr. Hagan again, please.

[1:03:33] >> Thank you.

[1:03:34] Um all right, so this is another

[1:03:36] variance application. They're looking to

[1:03:38] retroactively allow a reduction to the

[1:03:41] interior side lot line setback, which is

[1:03:43] the west lot line of this property.

[1:03:46] Uh from a

[1:03:47] required 2-m setback to a 1.48-m

[1:03:50] setback, which is just over half a

[1:03:52] meter.

[1:03:53] Um there was construction found to be

[1:03:55] happening there without a permit and

[1:03:57] once the information started to come in

[1:03:59] as they worked to apply for the permit

[1:04:01] that was required.

[1:04:03] Uh small corner of the addition that

[1:04:05] would had been built was found to be

[1:04:07] within the setback area. So, the

[1:04:08] applicant has provided a letter here

[1:04:10] with the application. Uh there was a

[1:04:12] deck in this location previously. So,

[1:04:15] adding a structure there may have

[1:04:17] minimal impact on the neighborhood. Uh

[1:04:19] staff's recommendation is again to

[1:04:21] proceed with the radius mailout. I'd be happy to

[1:04:25] answer any questions. Thank you.

[1:04:26] >> Thank you. I'll turn to colleagues, is

[1:04:28] there any questions?

[1:04:30] Uh seeing none, we can proceed with uh

[1:04:32] staff recommendation.

[1:04:36] Councillor Granath.

[1:04:37] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll move that uh

[1:04:38] owners and tenants in occupation of

[1:04:40] property within 75 m, that's 246 ft of

[1:04:43] 10 10249 Forsythia Place be notified

[1:04:46] regarding development variance

[1:04:48] application number DV100397

[1:04:51] to retroactively reduce the minimum

[1:04:53] interior side yard setback from 2 m to

[1:04:55] 1.48 m along the west lot line of the

[1:04:58] subject property and that any written

[1:04:59] correspondence received before the

[1:05:01] council at the time of consideration of

[1:05:03] approval of the variance.

[1:05:04] >> Second.

[1:05:05] >> And second, I'll turn to the movers.

[1:05:07] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh yeah, I mean I I

[1:05:09] appreciate the fact that the applicant

[1:05:11] has reached out especially specifically

[1:05:12] to um neighbors, but specifically to the

[1:05:14] one that's most impacted, which is at

[1:05:16] 10251

[1:05:18] uh 1st Ave right to the right next door

[1:05:19] to them and that would be the people

[1:05:21] that would be most negatively impacted

[1:05:23] by this.

[1:05:25] And I I do appreciate looking at the

[1:05:26] letter of rationale that mentioned the

[1:05:28] previous zoning bylaw and it is important to note that, you know,

[1:05:32] the the zoning bylaw was adopted in

[1:05:33] 2024. So, this process started much

[1:05:36] after that. So,

[1:05:38] that particular point is not that

[1:05:39] relevant. Um

[1:05:41] as far as the the

[1:05:43] having the the rest of the neighborhood

[1:05:46] and whoever wants to comment on it, I'm

[1:05:48] fully supportive of it.

[1:05:50] I do I do again have concerns based on

[1:05:53] past applications where

[1:05:55] permits have not been obtained when they

[1:05:57] should have been. And in this case, it

[1:05:58] seems like there was an engineer or

[1:05:59] somebody involved in the development.

[1:06:01] And so, I don't know how they didn't

[1:06:03] manage to measure to what the zoning

[1:06:05] bylaw allows. But again, this is

[1:06:07] you hire somebody and you expect they're

[1:06:09] going to do the work that you that you

[1:06:10] hire them for. So, you know, and it's

[1:06:12] one of those things where it's really

[1:06:13] difficult to hold the owner to account

[1:06:15] for something. But um

[1:06:17] hopefully this will be a lesson for

[1:06:18] other people out that are watching that,

[1:06:19] you know, please get your permits.

[1:06:21] They're It's not government overreach.

[1:06:23] It's there for a reason. It's there to

[1:06:24] protect your neighbors and the rest of

[1:06:25] the community. So, thank you, Mayor.

[1:06:27] >> Thank you, Councillor. Councillor

[1:06:28] Duncan.

[1:06:30] >> Yeah, thanks. Uh I'll just say we we get

[1:06:33] these sort of applications, you know,

[1:06:35] fairly regular regularly for variances.

[1:06:37] They're kind of typically what a

[1:06:38] variance is for that your lot is a an

[1:06:40] odd shape or or something. But um

[1:06:43] I think also the fact that uh

[1:06:46] we get a lot of people who were just

[1:06:48] building on a footprint that was already

[1:06:50] built on. And so, they assume that it's

[1:06:51] fine because it wouldn't have been built

[1:06:53] that way before. Um but uh

[1:06:56] in in Sydney, a lot of buildings,

[1:06:58] particularly in the older neighborhoods,

[1:06:59] were built even before there was many

[1:07:01] even Sydney specific building rules, you

[1:07:04] know, in the 1980s.

[1:07:06] I I think my old house was measured with

[1:07:07] an elbow. Like it was not

[1:07:09] it was definitely definitely too close

[1:07:11] to the rear lot line.

[1:07:14] And so I think a lot of contractors and homeowners think if it was built

[1:07:18] this way before it's it's legal. So just

[1:07:20] we're hoping that contractors in

[1:07:22] particular will start rechecking to make

[1:07:24] sure that the the new bylaws that there

[1:07:27] are bylaws

[1:07:29] are are in place and

[1:07:31] maybe save people some grief even though

[1:07:34] it doesn't really cause a problem to the

[1:07:36] surrounding neighbors. You're used to

[1:07:37] what you're used to, but it would

[1:07:38] certainly probably save homeowner grief

[1:07:40] and developer grief.

[1:07:43] >> Thank you, counselor.

[1:07:44] Seeing no further discussion, I'll look

[1:07:46] to call the question. Those in favor?

[1:07:48] That carries unanimous. Thank you.

[1:07:53] And so we have no mayor's report or

[1:07:55] counselor's reports this evening. We're

[1:07:56] turning to the one committee report that

[1:07:58] we have. It's come from we're receiving

[1:08:00] the minutes from the Saugeen Peninsula

[1:08:01] Accessibility Advisory Committee on

[1:08:04] at their June 23rd meeting.

[1:08:06] Uh Counselor O'Keefe, you are our

[1:08:08] representative on that committee and

[1:08:10] there is a recommendation if you'd like

[1:08:11] to move that forward, please.

[1:08:13] >> Sure. I'll just start if I may with just

[1:08:16] a couple highlights from the meeting.

[1:08:18] Um in regards to um

[1:08:21] there's several members of the committee

[1:08:23] that wanted to pass along their

[1:08:25] appreciation for the additional

[1:08:28] accessible viewing and accessible

[1:08:30] parking areas that uh the town provided

[1:08:35] along with uh Peninsula Celebrations for

[1:08:38] the um the fireworks evening and then

[1:08:41] the parade, additional viewing areas,

[1:08:44] additional parking, also additional

[1:08:46] parking at Iroquois Park. So all of

[1:08:48] those things were really well received

[1:08:51] and they wanted me to make sure that uh

[1:08:54] council knew about that and staff knew

[1:08:57] about that and they were grateful and

[1:08:59] kudos to all uh for supporting that.

[1:09:03] Um the other thing that came up

[1:09:04] regarding Sydney was the wayfinding

[1:09:07] markings

[1:09:08] um and uh

[1:09:10] during public participation um that was

[1:09:13] mentioned. And this is the um

[1:09:16] they're talking about the way the the

[1:09:17] lines are scored at the intersections

[1:09:19] for visually impaired people. So, one of

[1:09:22] the individuals on the committee, his

[1:09:24] wife is blind, and they actually did a

[1:09:27] whole tour around Sydney and came up

[1:09:30] with a whole pile of a long list of

[1:09:33] places where these are still not aligned

[1:09:35] correctly. And the committee uh thought

[1:09:38] about making a recommendation, but at

[1:09:40] staff's uh suggestion, instead um

[1:09:43] they're inviting engineering staff to

[1:09:45] come to the next meeting and have kind

[1:09:48] of a discussion about that. So, we

[1:09:49] thought that that was a good a good

[1:09:51] first step.

[1:09:53] Um in terms of the recommendation, I'll

[1:09:56] uh

[1:09:57] I'll go along with that is uh regarding

[1:09:59] the Right Fit program. And the

[1:10:01] recommendation,

[1:10:03] it's uh a little bit different than

[1:10:04] what's in the agenda based on some input

[1:10:07] from staff. Um so, the motion is that

[1:10:10] council direct staff to collaborate with

[1:10:13] North Saanich and Central Saanich on the

[1:10:15] development of a process to identify

[1:10:18] adaptable and accessible units for

[1:10:20] sharing with the Right Fit program.

[1:10:25] » We have it moved.

[1:10:27] >> Second.

[1:10:27] >> And seconded by Councillor Nault. Uh

[1:10:29] Councillor Lee?

[1:10:30] >> Yeah, so the Right Fit program has been

[1:10:32] operating in the Vancouver area since

[1:10:35] about 2017.

[1:10:36] And what they do is they create and

[1:10:39] maintain an inventory of housing that's

[1:10:42] available and accessible for wheelchair

[1:10:45] users. Um housing is hard to find uh for

[1:10:49] a lot of people, but it's especially

[1:10:51] really, really difficult for people who

[1:10:54] have wheelchairs or mobility uh

[1:10:57] devices. So, what Next Fit or Right Fit

[1:11:00] does is they go out to the community,

[1:11:03] they ask people to let them know if they

[1:11:05] have have spaces or not. They have an

[1:11:08] inventory of those of those spaces, and

[1:11:10] then they have an inventory of

[1:11:12] individuals who need those. And then so

[1:11:14] they do a sort of a matching program. Um

[1:11:18] they also go out to the actual suite

[1:11:21] themselves and conduct uh an analysis

[1:11:24] based on a certain number of parameters

[1:11:26] that they have to ensure that is it it's

[1:11:28] accessible.

[1:11:30] So, in Sydney, as you know, we have been

[1:11:33] asking developers to uh have 20% of

[1:11:37] their suites to be adaptable and uh

[1:11:40] which is great, but there's never been a

[1:11:43] way to match those up to the people who

[1:11:46] could actually do that. And so, the

[1:11:49] Right Fit is proposing that they could

[1:11:51] take that on. Uh when we discussed this

[1:11:54] at SPARC, um staff felt that it wouldn't

[1:11:58] be uh terribly onerous, um that it could

[1:12:01] be something as simple as when

[1:12:04] developers come forward and they're

[1:12:06] doing their 20% uh adaptable units, that

[1:12:10] they be asked to contact the Right Fit

[1:12:12] people to let them know about it. And

[1:12:14] the thing that's in it for the

[1:12:15] developers is you've got another

[1:12:18] organization out there marketing those

[1:12:20] suites for you. So, they've got a whole

[1:12:22] list of people who are looking looking

[1:12:25] for that type of accommodation. So,

[1:12:27] that's an advantage to them. There's no

[1:12:29] cost. Um

[1:12:31] so, the idea is that uh

[1:12:34] the three municipalities work to kind of

[1:12:36] fine-tune some sort of process.

[1:12:39] >> Thank you. I'll turn to the second

[1:12:40] group.

[1:12:42] Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Uh

[1:12:44] the specific motion before us is just uh

[1:12:46] you know, asking staff to collaborate

[1:12:48] with uh the three municipalities in the

[1:12:50] peninsula uh

[1:12:52] you know, to look to to further this and

[1:12:54] uh come up with maybe a manner in which

[1:12:57] this uh can work uh efficiently for for

[1:13:00] staff and for the community at large.

[1:13:02] So, um

[1:13:04] I support it and I do think our

[1:13:05] community likes to see initiatives where

[1:13:07] the three peninsula municipalities are

[1:13:10] working together. Councillor Keith, we

[1:13:12] referred to that earlier with the tree

[1:13:13] canopy.

[1:13:14] And that may be some foreshadowing for

[1:13:16] future agenda items with 3R 2

[1:13:18] cooperation on the peninsula.

[1:13:20] >> Thank you, Mayor.

[1:13:21] >> Thank you, Councillor.

[1:13:23] Seeing no further discussion, I'll look

[1:13:24] to call a quick Oh, Councillor Duncan,

[1:13:25] please.

[1:13:27] >> Yeah, thank you. I'd had a note to to

[1:13:29] ask about the intersection. So, thank

[1:13:30] you to former Councillor Falat for

[1:13:32] bringing that forward, but I guess my

[1:13:34] question a question I guess to

[1:13:37] either SPAC if they had were going to

[1:13:38] move this or or maybe our staff um that

[1:13:42] where MOT's jurisdiction ends and they

[1:13:45] had recommendations kind of saying

[1:13:46] wayfinding ends here and it could, you

[1:13:48] know, once it moves off, it would it's

[1:13:50] going to be a different standard. Part

[1:13:51] of that is the Lochside Trail, which is

[1:13:53] CRD's jurisdiction.

[1:13:55] Part of it is is Sidney's and so our

[1:13:57] staff are aware. We're sitting on the

[1:14:00] council or, you know, what they've heard

[1:14:01] this and they they sit on the committee.

[1:14:03] Is there a mechanism for us to make sure

[1:14:05] that the CRD hears about these

[1:14:08] wayfinding requirements? If this is I

[1:14:09] I'm actually floored this was MOT's

[1:14:11] first time ever making this kind of

[1:14:13] stuff and it sounds to me like therefore

[1:14:15] we should really let the CRD know about

[1:14:18] this cuz this is going to be happening

[1:14:20] throughout all the other jurisdictions.

[1:14:21] Do we have a way to amplify that to

[1:14:23] them?

[1:14:26] » Not seeing Councillor Keith with any

[1:14:28] comments.

[1:14:28] >> Oh, one of them I'm just kind of looking

[1:14:30] at it.

[1:14:30] >> [laughter]

[1:14:30] >> Well, I

[1:14:31] >> So, what I would say is so, um the the

[1:14:35] update that we got from uh Ms. Falat

[1:14:38] this evening, that hasn't gone So, SPAC

[1:14:41] isn't

[1:14:42] necessarily aware of what's going to be

[1:14:44] happening next. So, they hadn't had a

[1:14:46] chance to review it. I guess what I'm

[1:14:49] hoping is that the staff on behalf of

[1:14:53] council did send a letter to MOTTI. So,

[1:14:57] I'm what I'm hoping is that they now

[1:15:00] that they've gone and assessed it and

[1:15:02] that we sent a letter to them that they

[1:15:04] will respond.

[1:15:06] >> You know

[1:15:07] Sorry, counselor Kiefer, we're not

[1:15:09] directly speaking to the motion.

[1:15:11] >> Oh, I was just responding to your

[1:15:13] question.

[1:15:14] >> Okay, but your question was with with

[1:15:16] regards to CRD.

[1:15:18] >> Okay, and I guess

[1:15:20] the answer is no, SPAC isn't

[1:15:23] doing anything at this time. And I was

[1:15:25] elaborating as to why.

[1:15:26] >> Does staff have any comment with regards

[1:15:28] to what's being undertaken and and CRD

[1:15:32] becoming aware or being made aware?

[1:15:35] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Um I believe yeah,

[1:15:37] we are off topic cuz this is not

[1:15:40] relevant to the motion that's being

[1:15:42] considered right now, but um

[1:15:45] uh we can ensure that

[1:15:48] we connect with the CRD staff about the

[1:15:51] uh intersection issue and and and

[1:15:54] make them aware of what what's happening

[1:15:56] there.

[1:15:57] >> Thank you.

[1:15:59] And CRD does have a accessibility

[1:16:02] advisory committee as well.

[1:16:05] With some local representation.

[1:16:07] Um thank you, Counselor Duncan, for

[1:16:09] >> I thought if I just didn't ask it now,

[1:16:10] we'd go past this report, so.

[1:16:13] >> We appreciate the question.

[1:16:15] Uh seeing no further discussion, uh

[1:16:17] those in favor?

[1:16:18] That carries unanimous. Thank you so

[1:16:20] much.

[1:16:23] And uh next we're turning to uh the

[1:16:25] first of our four staff reports. And and

[1:16:26] the first under 13A is Radio Sidney's

[1:16:29] application for an FM broadcasting

[1:16:31] license.

[1:16:32] Uh we have a report from our manager of

[1:16:34] communications and our fire chief. I'll

[1:16:35] turn to our manager of communications,

[1:16:37] Ms. Judson, for an introduction, please.

[1:16:39] >> Thank you very much. Uh so, this report

[1:16:41] seeks council's consideration

[1:16:43] uh of a letter of support for Radio

[1:16:45] Sydney's application to the CRTC for an

[1:16:48] FM broadcasting license. And as part of

[1:16:51] that, a radio transmitter would be

[1:16:52] installed on the top of the community

[1:16:55] safety building.

[1:16:56] Uh Radio Sydney already shares local

[1:16:58] information and connects residents with

[1:17:00] community news and events. Expanding to

[1:17:03] the FM broadcast would further expand

[1:17:05] that reach. Um but for us, what's

[1:17:07] especially important is that during an

[1:17:09] emergency, it would be a way of getting

[1:17:11] information out, especially if hydro or

[1:17:13] cellular service, internet connection

[1:17:15] was disrupted. And it's for these

[1:17:17] reasons that staff recommends that

[1:17:19] council provide that letter of support.

[1:17:21] And you'll find in the staff report,

[1:17:22] there are two maps because this

[1:17:24] transmitter that Radio Sydney would

[1:17:26] provide would have a reach between two

[1:17:28] and five kilometers. Uh although in

[1:17:30] areas where there's um

[1:17:32] uh

[1:17:33] more mountainous, it wouldn't reach the

[1:17:35] full 5K. It can give you a sense of how

[1:17:37] far that transmitter could reach. And if

[1:17:40] in future the town of Sydney wanted to

[1:17:41] invest in a stronger radio transmitter,

[1:17:43] then that could be greatly expanded. But

[1:17:46] at this time, this proposal is looking

[1:17:48] at the transmitter that Radio Sydney

[1:17:50] currently has.

[1:17:51] Thank you.

[1:17:52] >> Thank you for the introduction. Are

[1:17:53] there any questions?

[1:17:56] If not, we have a recommendation.

[1:17:57] Councillor Novik.

[1:17:59] >> I'm happy to make the recommendation

[1:18:01] that the mayor provide a letter of

[1:18:02] support for Radio Sydney's application

[1:18:05] to the Canadian Radio Television

[1:18:07] Telecommunications Commission for an FM

[1:18:10] broadcasting license. Bracket CFVI

[1:18:14] 92.7 FM.

[1:18:16] >> Second.

[1:18:17] >> Moved and seconded. All in favor?

[1:18:19] >> Yeah. Uh I

[1:18:20] don't really have much to add to what

[1:18:22] Ms. Judson uh reported, but I think that

[1:18:25] would be a great asset for the town.

[1:18:27] Thank you.

[1:18:29] >> Councillor Garnet.

[1:18:29] >> Thank you, Mayor. And I just because I

[1:18:32] see Mr. Collins in the audience, uh want

[1:18:34] to signal him out and want to you for

[1:18:35] the uh presentation that we had

[1:18:37] previously and thank you for your

[1:18:39] continued work locally in the community.

[1:18:41] In a day and age when

[1:18:43] local media in general is disappearing

[1:18:46] across the country, I think I mentioned

[1:18:47] this before,

[1:18:48] opening the door to misinformation and

[1:18:50] disinformation and I think it's

[1:18:52] you've you've gone above and beyond with

[1:18:54] the emergency, but I think you are

[1:18:55] already provide such great

[1:18:57] community asset and um

[1:19:01] it's been very much appreciated. Thank

[1:19:03] you. Thank you, Mayor.

[1:19:04] >> Thank you,

[1:19:05] uh Counselor Gnannt and I was going to

[1:19:07] express some of that myself. So, thank

[1:19:09] you and and let's stay tuned for uh

[1:19:13] CFVI 92.7 sometime in sometime in the

[1:19:17] not too distant future. We'll have that

[1:19:18] letter pronto subject to this

[1:19:20] recommendation. I'll call the question.

[1:19:22] All in favor?

[1:19:24] Motion carries unanimous. Thank you.

[1:19:28] Returning to now 13B, which is a

[1:19:30] contract award for RFP 2026-008,

[1:19:34] sidewalks/road

[1:19:36] improvements

[1:19:37] capital projects for 2026.

[1:19:40] Uh and engineering design report, I'll

[1:19:43] turn to our director of engineering, Mr.

[1:19:44] Murphy, who's joining us online this

[1:19:46] evening. Good evening, Mr. Murphy.

[1:19:48] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can you

[1:19:51] hear me all right?

[1:19:52] >> Absolutely.

[1:19:53] >> Great.

[1:19:54] Uh so, yes, this is to request Council

[1:19:57] approval for an RFP award.

[1:20:00] Uh RFP 2026-008

[1:20:03] for sidewalks and road improvements

[1:20:07] engineering design. And so, this was

[1:20:10] posted publicly. We had 10 submissions,

[1:20:14] uh which we evaluated and ended up with

[1:20:18] two very highly ranked submissions.

[1:20:23] Fortunate to have high quality

[1:20:25] submissions on this project.

[1:20:27] And

[1:20:29] uh the The of work is for the design

[1:20:32] phase for three sidewalks and road

[1:20:36] improvement projects.

[1:20:37] Uh those being Canora Road,

[1:20:40] two segments on Ocean Avenue West and

[1:20:43] 5th Street, Malabu to Amelia.

[1:20:46] And so the proposal is to award the

[1:20:51] design of all three projects to one

[1:20:53] engineering consulting firm. Uh however,

[1:20:56] each project would progress

[1:20:58] independently.

[1:21:00] And so the the analysis, uh which is

[1:21:04] outlined, recommends award to RF Binnie

[1:21:07] and Associates.

[1:21:09] And

[1:21:10] the an important point is that

[1:21:14] committing to the designs for which we do have capital budget funds already

[1:21:19] allocated for each of these projects, uh

[1:21:23] committing to the design work is not a

[1:21:25] commitment to construct.

[1:21:27] So we know in particular for Canora

[1:21:30] Road, uh that we expect that to be a uh

[1:21:35] fullsome process starting with the

[1:21:39] concepts for the road layout. And what

[1:21:43] features from uh rain gardens and street

[1:21:47] parking

[1:21:49] uh

[1:21:49] to a more minimal approach. Uh so we we

[1:21:53] hope to to generate likely three

[1:21:55] concepts and then have a neighborhood

[1:21:58] engagement phase.

[1:22:00] And collect feedback and then decide

[1:22:03] which concept and it may

[1:22:05] uh likely come back to council for input

[1:22:07] on which concept to move forward with

[1:22:09] based on the neighborhood engagement. Uh

[1:22:12] and then proceed through through

[1:22:14] detailed design.

[1:22:15] Uh Ocean Avenue West similarly, uh we

[1:22:18] expect to have some concepts uh and we

[1:22:21] know that

[1:22:22] uh

[1:22:23] that we're not committed to constructing

[1:22:28] one or either or neither of the two

[1:22:31] segments east and west that are proposed

[1:22:34] at this time, but there is value in

[1:22:38] there's a lot of value in proceeding

[1:22:40] with the detailed design so that we have

[1:22:43] designs ready

[1:22:45] for when

[1:22:47] through budget deliberations that

[1:22:49] council decides it is time to build

[1:22:51] those sidewalk segments

[1:22:53] or

[1:22:54] many grant programs, particularly

[1:22:57] federal and provincial,

[1:23:00] look for shovel ready projects. And so

[1:23:03] having some uh

[1:23:06] you know, high profile sidewalk projects

[1:23:08] ready

[1:23:09] even if we don't proceed to construction

[1:23:12] does create opportunities for a grant in

[1:23:15] the future. The 5th Street project is

[1:23:18] probably the most likely to proceed

[1:23:21] straight to construction being more more

[1:23:23] relatively straightforward and

[1:23:26] a neighborhood focused project. Um but

[1:23:29] yes, so we'd like to award the

[1:23:31] engineering design and then

[1:23:34] construction decisions would come later.

[1:23:38] >> Thank you very much for the

[1:23:39] introduction, Mr. Murphy. Are there any

[1:23:41] questions from colleagues?

[1:23:44] I'm not seeing any. Are there any? We do

[1:23:46] have a recommendation?

[1:23:50] » Thank you, Mayor. I'll move. Sorry, you

[1:23:52] didn't call on me. I should wait, I

[1:23:53] guess.

[1:23:55] I'll move that RFP 2026-008

[1:23:58] Sidewalks Road Improvements Capital

[1:24:00] Projects 2026 Engineering Design be

[1:24:03] awarded to R.F. Binnie and Associates

[1:24:05] Limited for the contract amount of

[1:24:07] $157,068

[1:24:09] plus applicable taxes plus allowance for

[1:24:11] scope changes and addition additional

[1:24:14] sub consultant fees as approved by

[1:24:16] staff.

[1:24:16] >> Second.

[1:24:18] >> I'll take Counselor Duncan as the

[1:24:20] seconder. Are there any other movers?

[1:24:22] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and thank you,

[1:24:24] Mr. Murphy, for the report and thank you

[1:24:26] for the extra questions you answered for

[1:24:28] me today. Um I think the the rationale

[1:24:31] for staff's choice is quite strong. Um

[1:24:33] you went way more in depth than I ever

[1:24:35] expected, so I appreciate that very

[1:24:37] much. Um you know, the

[1:24:40] this is an important step towards

[1:24:41] getting these really important

[1:24:42] infrastructure projects off the ground

[1:24:44] and and and headed in the right

[1:24:45] direction. Um

[1:24:47] particularly Kenora, which will be very

[1:24:48] challenging, so it's good that we're

[1:24:50] getting ahead of this. Um that's a long

[1:24:53] overdue project as someone who's lived

[1:24:54] in that neighborhood for close to 30

[1:24:56] years. So, I'm I'm I'm hopeful that um

[1:24:59] the public feedback will provide what we

[1:25:01] need to know or what the council of the

[1:25:03] day will need to know uh in terms of

[1:25:05] which path to take forward, so thank you

[1:25:06] for your work. Thank you, Mayor.

[1:25:08] >> Thank you, Counselor uh Counselor

[1:25:09] Duncan.

[1:25:10] >> Nothing to add, thank you.

[1:25:12] >> Any other speakers?

[1:25:14] Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[1:25:15] Those in favor?

[1:25:17] It carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank

[1:25:18] you, Mr. Murphy.

[1:25:20] Uh we are turning to item 13C, which is

[1:25:23] the budget variance report for the first

[1:25:24] half of 2026. I'll turn to our manager

[1:25:27] of finance, Ms. Chen.

[1:25:29] Good evening.

[1:25:30] >> Good evening. Thank you very much.

[1:25:32] Uh this variance report covers

[1:25:34] approximately the first half of 2026.

[1:25:37] The numbers in the reports reflect

[1:25:38] information available up to the date of

[1:25:40] the report, not just the 6-month mark.

[1:25:43] So, as a result, year-to-date actuals

[1:25:45] for some subfunctions will be over um

[1:25:48] 50%, but that doesn't necessarily

[1:25:51] indicate a problem that it's over

[1:25:52] budget. Uh for example, personnel costs

[1:25:55] should be around the 56% mark in the

[1:25:58] report. Um additionally, a lot of costs

[1:26:01] and activities aren't incurred or

[1:26:03] completed evenly throughout the year.

[1:26:05] And where things are not quite incurred

[1:26:08] or completed evenly, that's described in

[1:26:10] some of the notes in the report as well.

[1:26:13] So, on the operating side, the

[1:26:14] year-to-date actuals are mostly in line

[1:26:16] with expectations. Right now, we're

[1:26:18] expecting some savings on the RCMP

[1:26:21] contract this year due to a credit we

[1:26:23] received from a final reconciliation of

[1:26:26] prior year costs.

[1:26:27] Actual year-end results um will largely

[1:26:30] depend on the level of officer vacancies

[1:26:32] we see for the remainder of the year.

[1:26:34] Right now, we've been seeing a

[1:26:35] decreasing trend in vacancies. That's

[1:26:38] great news for the level of service that

[1:26:40] the community receives, but it does also

[1:26:43] just come at a higher cost. So, it's

[1:26:44] something we monitor closely to ensure

[1:26:47] our future budgets align with the trends

[1:26:49] that we're seeing.

[1:26:51] Um one other thing worth noting on the

[1:26:53] operating side is that we're now uh have

[1:26:56] two quarters now with utility billing

[1:26:59] using the new sewer rates and rate

[1:27:01] structure that council approved earlier

[1:27:03] in the year. So, sewer revenue to date

[1:27:06] is definitely on track with the budget

[1:27:08] expectations.

[1:27:09] Um and you know, these things these kind

[1:27:11] of changes we need more time and more

[1:27:13] experience in working with it to know

[1:27:15] its long-term effect in this, but so far

[1:27:18] the uh indications are very positive

[1:27:20] that the new structure is doing what

[1:27:22] it's intended.

[1:27:24] On the capital side, uh 45 of the 99

[1:27:26] capital projects in this year's budget

[1:27:28] are either complete or in progress, and

[1:27:31] many more um have planning underway just

[1:27:33] haven't incurred any direct costs just

[1:27:35] yet. Summer and fall are always our uh

[1:27:38] busiest construction season for our

[1:27:40] capital projects, and by the time of the

[1:27:43] next variance report in about 3 months,

[1:27:45] we'll have more information on which

[1:27:47] projects will be completed this year and

[1:27:48] which ones will need to be carried

[1:27:50] forward for completion next year.

[1:27:53] So, in total the report contains 51

[1:27:55] notes providing details on various

[1:27:57] operating and capital items. Um some of

[1:28:00] those notes cover more than one line

[1:28:02] item, and we'd be happy to answer any

[1:28:04] remaining questions.

[1:28:06] >> Uh thank you, Ms. Chen, for the

[1:28:07] introduction. I'll turn to colleagues if

[1:28:09] uh there are questions on the report.

[1:28:11] Uh Councillor Kiefer, please.

[1:28:12] >> Uh thanks. Just a couple little things.

[1:28:15] Um so, in the the on the last page you

[1:28:17] mentioned um there have been some areas

[1:28:20] that have faced challenges in the first

[1:28:23] year and you'll be closely monitoring

[1:28:24] those. I wonder are we experiencing any

[1:28:27] challenges with

[1:28:29] the uh the tariff environment, you know,

[1:28:31] in terms of increased costs for

[1:28:34] computers or equipment that or parts

[1:28:38] that engineering uses for waters or

[1:28:41] sewer or vehicles? Have we seen any uh

[1:28:44] kind of implications of impacts of that?

[1:28:49] >> Uh Mr. Hiscock, would you like to take

[1:28:51] that one?

[1:28:52] >> Sure, thank you, Mr. Mayor. There have

[1:28:53] been some impacts on vehicle purchases,

[1:28:55] which I believe we we've identified

[1:28:58] for council um

[1:29:00] on a couple of occasions.

[1:29:03] Beyond that, nothing specifically tied

[1:29:05] to tariffs, just um

[1:29:08] general inflation that's

[1:29:10] been accumulating over the last

[1:29:13] 5 years or so has not really abated to

[1:29:15] the level we had hoped.

[1:29:18] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:29:19] >> Thank you for the question.

[1:29:22] Seeing no uh Councillor Gignac, please.

[1:29:24] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh through to staff

[1:29:25] and just looking at B13 Harbor Road pump

[1:29:28] station and B14 trenchless sewer

[1:29:30] replacement for the three streets

[1:29:32] mentioned

[1:29:33] and the grant funding that was not

[1:29:35] successful.

[1:29:36] Um

[1:29:37] given we're

[1:29:39] budgets are provincially and federally,

[1:29:42] do we have concerns? I mean, this is

[1:29:44] kind of a large question, I guess, but

[1:29:46] um

[1:29:48] until financial situation's better

[1:29:50] geopolitically speaking, which trickle

[1:29:52] down to every other level of government,

[1:29:54] do we have concerns about

[1:29:56] um

[1:29:57] our ability to finance things

[1:29:59] with with the potential for lack of

[1:30:01] grant funding for some of our larger

[1:30:03] projects going forward?

[1:30:07] » Mr. Hiscock?

[1:30:09] >> Uh

[1:30:10] >> Um not I would say not really because

[1:30:12] grant programs are always out there and

[1:30:15] there was more being announced and

[1:30:17] discussed

[1:30:19] constantly especially in relation to

[1:30:21] housing and the infrastructure to

[1:30:22] support it.

[1:30:24] It's just a matter of um

[1:30:26] every grant program is over subscribed

[1:30:28] and we're

[1:30:30] hoping to get lucky on one out of every

[1:30:32] X number of applications we

[1:30:35] did get a $5 million grant a few years

[1:30:38] ago so I'm sure

[1:30:40] well I'm guessing that factors somewhat

[1:30:42] into the way they tend to dole it out

[1:30:44] somewhat equally but even today we met

[1:30:47] about

[1:30:48] potential grant applications that we

[1:30:50] might put in for the next intake on

[1:30:52] different programs.

[1:30:54] >> Okay. Thank you. I think I think it's

[1:30:55] just important for the community to

[1:30:56] realize that

[1:30:57] if somebody if somebody takes the time

[1:30:59] to read this report and I'm not sure how

[1:31:00] many people will but if they do that

[1:31:02] it's important to note that you know we

[1:31:04] our our staff are well aware and plan

[1:31:06] accordingly so you know we don't we

[1:31:08] aren't relying on the grant funding and

[1:31:10] then I think it's important for the

[1:31:11] residents of the community to be aware

[1:31:13] of that. Thank you mayor.

[1:31:14] >> Thank you counselor.

[1:31:17] I'm seeing no further questions. I want

[1:31:19] to thank Ms. Shannon and the finance

[1:31:21] department for putting this report that

[1:31:22] comes to us regularly

[1:31:25] through the year. We very much

[1:31:26] appreciate the detail that's provided in

[1:31:29] both the operating and the and the

[1:31:30] capital budget.

[1:31:33] We're next turning to also an item for information the monthly building

[1:31:38] report for the month of July. I did make

[1:31:39] reference to the monthly building report

[1:31:41] from June but that was carried forward

[1:31:43] from the last meeting.

[1:31:44] So we are seeing an updated report in

[1:31:47] July. Are there any questions or

[1:31:48] comments from colleagues on that report?

[1:31:52] Counselor Granath.

[1:31:53] >> Thank you mayor. Through you to staff

[1:31:55] just noting on on the back of the first

[1:31:57] page um

[1:31:58] 2060 White Birch and 2180 Beacon that

[1:32:01] have September dates.

[1:32:03] Do we have any updates on where those

[1:32:05] are in the process?

[1:32:08] » Uh yes, thank you. Through the mayor, uh

[1:32:10] both of those have active building

[1:32:12] permit applications under review and

[1:32:14] both are aware that the development

[1:32:15] permits will be expiring soon.

[1:32:17] >> Great. Thank you very much. Thank you,

[1:32:19] mayor.

[1:32:19] >> Thank you for the question.

[1:32:21] Um seeing no others, we'll turn to the

[1:32:23] next item and that does take us up to

[1:32:25] correspondence.

[1:32:27] And under 14A, we have uh CRD bylaw

[1:32:30] number 4782,

[1:32:32] Saanich Peninsula Recreation Service

[1:32:34] uh for the District of Central Saanich

[1:32:36] Recreation Facility and the Loan

[1:32:38] Authorization Bylaw number 2 2026.

[1:32:42] We've received and the letter is from

[1:32:44] the CRD dated July 10th is on our

[1:32:46] agenda.

[1:32:47] Uh and as well on the agenda, we have a

[1:32:49] copy of the letter from District of

[1:32:51] Central Saanich's a consideration and

[1:32:54] some links to additional information uh

[1:32:57] provided by uh CRD at the on the panel

[1:33:00] or on the recreation uh website.

[1:33:02] Uh council, we have considered a

[1:33:04] proposal previously. Uh so, this is

[1:33:06] coming back and with a different scope

[1:33:09] as we're aware.

[1:33:11] Um as CRD has asked that we make a

[1:33:13] recommendation to either consent or not

[1:33:15] consent to adopting uh bylaw number

[1:33:18] 4782.

[1:33:20] Uh when the first proposal came forward,

[1:33:22] uh council uh chose to um

[1:33:26] to allow a period of time for public

[1:33:28] input uh before making a decision. So,

[1:33:31] while uh there is the request uh for a

[1:33:34] consideration of consent or not consent

[1:33:36] this evening, uh council is open to

[1:33:39] consider uh options for uh further uh

[1:33:42] community consultation. I will leave it

[1:33:44] to colleagues' uh wishes as to how they

[1:33:46] uh wish to move forward.

[1:33:48] Uh Councillor Garnett?

[1:33:50] >> Uh I'm willing to move motion if that's

[1:33:51] all right, mayor.

[1:33:52] >> Uh please go ahead.

[1:33:53] >> I'll move that we uh

[1:33:54] defer or postpone the decision on this

[1:33:56] item.

[1:33:57] Uh CRD Bylaw 4782 until the regular

[1:34:00] council meeting on September 14th.

[1:34:03] >> Second.

[1:34:04] >> We have it set moved and seconded. I'll

[1:34:05] turn to you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:34:07] >> Uh thank you, Mayor. I You know, we we

[1:34:08] get a lot of the public to provide input

[1:34:11] based on the first um

[1:34:13] option of this that was brought forward,

[1:34:15] and I think we should do the same again.

[1:34:18] Um there has been a change, and I think

[1:34:20] there are based on some of the feedback

[1:34:21] I've I've received, many of the members

[1:34:23] of the community don't realize that this

[1:34:25] is the second option coming back. So, I

[1:34:26] think it's just gives an extra time for

[1:34:28] people to be associated with the item,

[1:34:30] and I do think it would the decision

[1:34:31] should be made with the full council on

[1:34:33] uh when Councillor Duck is back.

[1:34:35] Thank you.

[1:34:35] >> Uh thank you. I'll turn to the second.

[1:34:38] >> Uh

[1:34:39] I'm thinking pretty much along the same

[1:34:41] lines. Uh I have received some

[1:34:43] additional information

[1:34:45] from the um building proponents. I'm not

[1:34:49] sure that it's sufficient to sway me,

[1:34:51] but I would like to see this come before

[1:34:53] a full council. Thank you.

[1:34:55] >> Uh thank you.

[1:34:57] Um I'll turn to Councillor Wintour then

[1:34:58] Councillor Keith.

[1:34:59] >> [clears throat]

[1:35:00] >> Uh thank you, Mayor.

[1:35:01] Um

[1:35:02] Uh you know, on on the point with

[1:35:04] respect to uh

[1:35:07] tabling this, uh giving the community

[1:35:09] time to provide uh feedback on it. Um

[1:35:13] I don't think the feedback's going to

[1:35:15] change. We we've had uh feedback on this

[1:35:18] matter. So, the amount is uh $3 million

[1:35:21] less. Uh not to be exactly precise, but

[1:35:23] it's $3 million less than it was last

[1:35:25] time.

[1:35:25] I don't think the the feedback

[1:35:28] I don't expect it to to change.

[1:35:31] And I expect [clears throat] that during

[1:35:32] this time of year uh as we're getting to

[1:35:33] August, um

[1:35:35] you know, that people are going to have

[1:35:37] this on their radar while they're in

[1:35:39] holiday mode. Maybe I'm uh

[1:35:42] um

[1:35:44] maybe I'm wrong about that.

[1:35:45] But, I think we're going to hear the

[1:35:46] same thing. And um I would have been

[1:35:48] happy tonight to move forward with this.

[1:35:51] However, you know, I

[1:35:53] the point regarding having a complete

[1:35:54] council here

[1:35:55] and being able to address it and not

[1:35:58] get, you know, maybe in a position where

[1:35:59] we've got a 3-3 tie vote and then this fails to move forward is is a

[1:36:03] concern to me. Um I supported it last

[1:36:05] time.

[1:36:07] But you know, I supported it again. Um I can't speak to

[1:36:11] uh my support at this time simply

[1:36:13] because the motion before it is is to

[1:36:15] table it. So I I I won't reiterate

[1:36:18] my thoughts [clears throat] on the

[1:36:18] tri-municipal cooperation or project of

[1:36:20] this nature, but I I uh in the interest of I think keeping

[1:36:25] this

[1:36:26] uh alive and um a topic of discussion to

[1:36:29] come before council again, I'll support

[1:36:30] tabling. Thank you.

[1:36:31] >> Thank you. Just a point of uh

[1:36:33] clarification

[1:36:34] on one point uh counselor, you you made

[1:36:36] reference to I think a $3 million

[1:36:39] difference. It is the loan authorization

[1:36:41] was previously 14.2 and the loan

[1:36:44] authorization on this is 9.1. So that is

[1:36:47] a difference of just just over 5

[1:36:49] million.

[1:36:49] >> That's why math was not my strong point.

[1:36:52] I understand. Thank you.

[1:36:53] >> Just uh just for the public. Uh council,

[1:36:55] we have um uh the CRD PRC senior manager

[1:37:00] uh Steve uh Mickle uh in attendance. Uh

[1:37:03] I would ask for a motion to invite Mr.

[1:37:05] Mickle

[1:37:06] uh into the meeting to answer any

[1:37:07] questions that we might have and I do

[1:37:09] have a question uh if we could um

[1:37:12] have that motion.

[1:37:12] >> So moved.

[1:37:14] >> Second.

[1:37:14] >> Moved and seconded. Uh all in favor?

[1:37:17] That carries unanimous. Sorry, I did

[1:37:19] have uh Counselor Keith next on the

[1:37:21] speaking list, I believe.

[1:37:23] >> Sure. I I just to say um I'm I'm in

[1:37:26] favor of the motion. Um as Counselor

[1:37:29] Wrentool said, it's summer time and

[1:37:31] maybe people aren't tuned in, but uh

[1:37:33] September maybe

[1:37:35] people will at least at least we're

[1:37:38] giving them the opportunity to weigh in.

[1:37:41] Uh they may not, but I I think at least

[1:37:43] giving the the opportunity is uh is

[1:37:46] reasonable.

[1:37:49] >> Thank you. Councillor Duncan, please.

[1:37:52] >> Thank you. I'm I'm going to vote against

[1:37:54] this motion.

[1:37:55] While I recognize having Councillor

[1:37:57] Duncan here would make the decision

[1:37:59] whatever it is end up being stronger and

[1:38:01] more final and not not run the risk of

[1:38:04] it coming back.

[1:38:05] I just think it's important to make the

[1:38:07] point that if we're delaying this for I

[1:38:09] think as Councillor Entwistle said more

[1:38:10] public feedback, I don't know why. Um

[1:38:14] I feel our society has moved into this

[1:38:16] idea that if the more people are being

[1:38:18] asked what their opinion is, that

[1:38:20] somehow is making a decision stronger.

[1:38:22] And we're not thinking about but whose

[1:38:24] opinion is being asked and what

[1:38:25] information are they using to

[1:38:28] provide their opinion.

[1:38:31] Um

[1:38:32] because what what we see is that

[1:38:35] the people of Sidney are saying and

[1:38:38] usually they're very wealthy people. We

[1:38:40] know that who pays attention and who

[1:38:42] usually packs

[1:38:44] uh the seats when when an issue comes up

[1:38:46] are people who have They are people who

[1:38:49] already have.

[1:38:51] Um and have to spare. And they don't

[1:38:53] want to pay more because

[1:38:55] they already have. Um North Saanich and

[1:38:58] Sidney already have have have

[1:39:02] community facilities that are being paid

[1:39:04] for by all three municipalities. Central

[1:39:07] Saanich is paying and they do not have

[1:39:09] something in their in their

[1:39:10] municipality.

[1:39:12] And now since our municipality feels

[1:39:13] they have and they got theirs, they

[1:39:15] don't want to have to pay for equity.

[1:39:18] And that was a big criteria here was

[1:39:20] that

[1:39:21] we're trying to increase equity. No, you

[1:39:24] can't just say the poor people will have

[1:39:26] to buy cars so they can access their

[1:39:28] community facilities. You are supposed

[1:39:30] to be able to walk and bus.

[1:39:32] Um these are facilities that are being

[1:39:34] built where we know First Nations who've

[1:39:36] written in

[1:39:37] needed facilities. They are already

[1:39:39] underserved. We already know this

[1:39:41] municipality is underserved relative to

[1:39:43] the other two, regardless of income

[1:39:45] level. And we know that people who tend

[1:39:48] to use these facilities who cannot

[1:39:49] travel are lower income, seniors with

[1:39:52] disabilities, um and lower income people

[1:39:54] of all ages. This

[1:39:57] is what we are going to get

[1:39:59] is more feedback from more people who

[1:40:02] are not looking at it through the lens

[1:40:04] that the CRD or the that Panorama is

[1:40:07] having to evaluate it, that governments

[1:40:09] have to evaluate it at a higher level.

[1:40:11] They're only looking at it from the

[1:40:12] perspective of do I want to pay more for

[1:40:15] somebody else to get something? And

[1:40:16] people are always going to say don't

[1:40:18] know to that, and they've proven that

[1:40:19] time and again.

[1:40:21] And I don't like the appearance that

[1:40:24] simply having a lot of people come and

[1:40:26] say

[1:40:27] no

[1:40:28] should be weighted very highly when the

[1:40:30] reason they are saying no is not decent.

[1:40:34] Thank you.

[1:40:36] >> Uh thank you, Councillor Duncan.

[1:40:39] Uh seeing no other speakers, I would

[1:40:40] invite uh Mr. Meikle to if you could

[1:40:42] come forward. We just have a a mic that

[1:40:44] you can activate there, and and I have a

[1:40:46] question.

[1:40:50] Um my my question, and sorry, I I I know

[1:40:52] you just joined the meeting, and thank

[1:40:54] you. Um timing is we've we've had a

[1:40:56] longer evening. Uh but there is a motion

[1:40:58] on the floor to refer

[1:40:59] uh refer this to a September meeting to

[1:41:02] allow public input. But my question is uh thank you for the CRD uh project

[1:41:07] page,

[1:41:08] uh the links to the uh to the various

[1:41:10] documents and an FAQ uh page, and um

[1:41:15] uh that FAQ uh was provided printed in

[1:41:18] provided in our agenda package.

[1:41:20] Um one of the one of the topics that's

[1:41:23] uh that came up when we discussed the

[1:41:24] pro uh proposal

[1:41:26] at a previous Sidney meeting at the

[1:41:28] previous proposal at a previous Sidney

[1:41:30] meeting, and also raised at the

[1:41:31] commission was

[1:41:33] um some of the history

[1:41:35] and information related to the Green

[1:41:37] Glade um

[1:41:39] uh facility but

[1:41:40] uh PRC's Green Glade facility and its

[1:41:42] operation.

[1:41:44] And I'm wondering if there is is still

[1:41:46] an opportunity that while there is a lot

[1:41:48] of information and and uh the FAQ page

[1:41:51] wasn't up when the proposal came forward

[1:41:53] last time, whether it would be uh

[1:41:55] possible to put up information about

[1:41:57] Green Glade such as

[1:41:59] its history in in establishing in Sydney

[1:42:00] in 2006, it's some 20,000 square feet

[1:42:03] and its high usage uh with perhaps those numbers up until

[1:42:08] June. Would that be possible to add to

[1:42:10] the FAQ?

[1:42:11] >> Uh sure. Thank you uh your worship and

[1:42:14] uh thank you for having me. My apologies

[1:42:16] for kind of rushing in here at the last

[1:42:18] moment. Uh yes, uh that would be

[1:42:20] possible. We did include in uh the FAQ

[1:42:25] just going to try to find it here on

[1:42:28] um

[1:42:29] the second to last page, just some

[1:42:31] attendance numbers from Green Glade. So,

[1:42:33] as you mentioned, opened in uh 2006.

[1:42:37] Uh we've had uh seen in 2024 an 18%

[1:42:40] increase in

[1:42:41] uh attendance at Green Glade and then in

[1:42:43] 2025 another is 9.9% increase in

[1:42:46] attendance.

[1:42:48] Um

[1:42:49] pleased to say we've early we had uh

[1:42:51] first quarter quarter one uh 2026

[1:42:54] participation statistics.

[1:42:56] Uh we had over 1,500 registrations in a wide range of of programs

[1:43:01] uh from children's to adult programs at

[1:43:03] Green Glade. And we're averaging over uh

[1:43:06] 3,700 visits per month uh to that

[1:43:09] facility, which is fantastic.

[1:43:11] >> Thank you very much and and you're

[1:43:13] referring to the FAQs uh for that

[1:43:15] information?

[1:43:15] >> Yeah, it's uh be the second to last page

[1:43:18] about 2/3 of the way down.

[1:43:21] Couple seconds at in uh

[1:43:24] bulleted numbers there.

[1:43:27] Third bullet down I've got.

[1:43:30] I apologize though I don't think the

[1:43:31] pages are numbered properly there.

[1:43:34] >> No, that's okay. I'm just not seeing

[1:43:36] that in the printed pages, that

[1:43:38] information in the printed pages, and I

[1:43:40] didn't access the the FAQ. I will follow

[1:43:43] up with staff after the meeting. I just may have missed it inadvertently

[1:43:46] missed that, but thank you for There

[1:43:48] what I'm looking at on in those three

[1:43:50] bullets

[1:43:52] um was that um

[1:43:54] document significant and growing program

[1:43:57] capacity challenges nearly including

[1:43:59] nearly 200,000 visits.

[1:44:01] Um

[1:44:03] Sorry, there was a reference somewhere

[1:44:04] to both

[1:44:06] the visits at combined the fitness at

[1:44:08] combined PRC and and Green Blade, but

[1:44:12] thank you for clarifying that.

[1:44:13] >> Yep.

[1:44:13] >> Um

[1:44:15] And in speaking to the motion, um

[1:44:18] thank you again.

[1:44:19] >> Thank you.

[1:44:20] >> In speaking to the motion, um

[1:44:22] I I spoke in favor of this quite quite

[1:44:26] strongly, and but but I think there is

[1:44:28] value to to public input, and I think um

[1:44:33] the commission

[1:44:35] and and PRC has uh

[1:44:37] in this revised proposal providing more

[1:44:40] information, helpful information in

[1:44:42] terms of the project page, in terms of

[1:44:44] the FAQs. FAQs are always very helpful

[1:44:47] for the public for information. Um and

[1:44:52] um

[1:44:52] I think it's it's just not a case of

[1:44:55] whether someone says a member of the

[1:44:57] public says that yes, they support it or

[1:45:00] no, they don't support it. It is the

[1:45:01] rationale that they provide for their

[1:45:04] support or for having concerns or not

[1:45:07] supporting. And I think we're as a

[1:45:09] council we're always open to considering

[1:45:12] the rationale that uh

[1:45:14] that members of the public provide. So,

[1:45:15] I I will support this recommendation. Um

[1:45:18] the consideration of whether we have our

[1:45:20] seventh member of council, that's always

[1:45:22] nice, but we cannot guarantee a full

[1:45:24] council at any given meeting.

[1:45:26] So, I wouldn't I wouldn't make the

[1:45:28] recommendations or or

[1:45:30] support the recommendation on solely

[1:45:32] that rationale, but but do see the value

[1:45:34] of input and the project has changed

[1:45:37] significantly. It is a $5 million $5.1

[1:45:40] million is less being borrowed under

[1:45:43] this loan authorization and there's

[1:45:45] other good information. So, I'll leave

[1:45:47] my comments there.

[1:45:48] I'll turn to any uh

[1:45:50] other first or second time speakers.

[1:45:52] Councillor Novik.

[1:45:53] >> Second time. Uh thank you, Mayor. I have

[1:45:55] a question and I'm not really sure who I

[1:45:57] can address it to. Perhaps Mr. Michael

[1:46:00] or

[1:46:00] >> Michael, yeah.

[1:46:01] >> Michael or perhaps yourself. Um

[1:46:03] and that is if we're going to delay this

[1:46:06] or or refer it

[1:46:08] so that we can get a little bit more

[1:46:09] public input, which I think is a great

[1:46:11] idea.

[1:46:13] Do we have a mechanism for ensuring that

[1:46:15] this information and this need for

[1:46:18] public

[1:46:19] input and engagement gets out to the

[1:46:21] public?

[1:46:22] Or is this

[1:46:24] or how how will the public find out

[1:46:26] about this?

[1:46:27] >> No, thanks for the question. I I might

[1:46:29] turn to Mr. Michael in that this is a

[1:46:31] CRD project and and in terms of them

[1:46:33] putting information out or Mr. Michael,

[1:46:36] could you speak to what uh

[1:46:39] what PRCS might do?

[1:46:42] >> Uh sure, thank you. Through the chair.

[1:46:44] Uh

[1:46:45] similar channels to what the the town of

[1:46:47] Sidney would have in terms of

[1:46:49] using our own website, our own social

[1:46:51] media channels to just to share

[1:46:53] information and ensure people are aware

[1:46:55] of where to find information.

[1:46:57] Um

[1:46:58] other than that, we certainly could you

[1:47:01] know, we'd be happy to host a forum or a

[1:47:03] town hall meeting if that made sense at the Panorama Rec Centre and uh or at Greenglade might be a better

[1:47:09] location, actually. So, uh there are

[1:47:11] some opportunities to to do that, to

[1:47:14] have staff address people directly if

[1:47:16] they have questions. It's always hard in

[1:47:18] presenting information through social

[1:47:20] media or other uh you don't always pick

[1:47:22] up on all the questions people may have.

[1:47:24] So,

[1:47:25] uh happy to speak to that directly if

[1:47:26] that makes some more sense, but uh yeah,

[1:47:28] we're certainly prepared to uh present

[1:47:31] information

[1:47:32] uh to the public and and push it out

[1:47:34] through our social media channels

[1:47:36] to make sure people are aware of where

[1:47:37] to find information.

[1:47:39] >> Uh

[1:47:40] May I continue? And And is there a

[1:47:42] mechanism for

[1:47:44] gathering this feedback and then

[1:47:46] presenting it

[1:47:47] back to us in some way?

[1:47:50] >> Uh thank you through the chair. There are some mechanisms. I would need

[1:47:54] to probably uh either bring some further

[1:47:56] information back just to ensure what

[1:47:58] that looks like.

[1:48:00] Um I know in the past in these kind of

[1:48:02] processes,

[1:48:04] um the collection of of information of

[1:48:05] that nature has been up to the

[1:48:07] municipalities uh given that it is each

[1:48:09] of the municipal councils that are

[1:48:10] voting uh on it.

[1:48:13] Uh so, I I just want to be cautious that

[1:48:15] there's no appearance of of bias in any

[1:48:17] of that collection of information or

[1:48:19] those kinds of things. So,

[1:48:21] I would want to work with our

[1:48:22] legislative services to make sure we we

[1:48:24] handle that properly.

[1:48:26] >> Fair enough. Thank you, Mayor.

[1:48:27] >> Uh thank you for the question.

[1:48:30] Uh seeing no other discussion, I'll look

[1:48:32] to call the question. All those in

[1:48:33] favor.

[1:48:35] Opposed.

[1:48:36] Uh Councillor Duncan is opposed. The

[1:48:37] motion carries. Thank you. And thank you

[1:48:39] for attending, Mr. Mickle.

[1:48:42] Um lastly on our agenda, we have uh

[1:48:44] correspondence for information. We've

[1:48:46] received eight letters of uh

[1:48:47] correspondence. Uh with some of them, we

[1:48:49] have a draft reply.

[1:48:51] Um uh so, Council has received those uh

[1:48:54] and they're being received uh by virtue

[1:48:55] of being on our agenda

[1:48:57] uh this evening. We have no notices of

[1:48:59] motion or motion to go in camera. I

[1:49:01] would look for a motion to adjourn.

[1:49:02] >> So moved.

[1:49:04] >> Second. And second it. All in favor.

[1:49:06] Uh that's carries unanimous. Thank you,

[1:49:08] everyone. Have a good evening.

Regular Council - 10 Aug 2026

Transcript