[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.