Transcript: Special (Open) Council - 2026/05/11

Speaker A · Okay. Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call the special open council meeting to order all members of council present in the room. Councillor Thompson, Councillor Riddle, myself, Councillor Newton, Councillor Paltiel and Councillor King. We expect to see councillor Graham around 7 this evening. With that, I will begin by respectfully acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Hussainich people, which includes Sartlip and Seot First Nations. If I could have a motion to approve this evening's agenda as circulated, please. Moved. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. Any opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. A motion to convene committee of the whole.

Speaker A · Before I do that, of course I always offer the acting mayor, it's councillor Newton this evening the opportunity, if they so wish, to chair. If so wish, you can defer to myself. Okay. In that case, I shall proceed accordingly and ask that the special open council meeting be recessed and a committee of the whole be convened with a mover and a seconder, please.

Speaker B · Moved.

Speaker C · Second.

Speaker A · Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed? None. The motion carries. Item 4. 2 is 1903 Mount Newton Crossroad redevelopment procurement procedures. And we expect a presentation first from our deputy director of Finance, strategic capital planning.

Speaker B · Please.

Speaker D · Thank you, duda.

Speaker C · Mayor.

Speaker D · Okay, thank you. Staff provided a report to council at the April 27 regular council meeting that provided proposed criteria and evaluation weighing to establish the evaluation standards for the request for proposals for the disposition of 1903 Mount Newton Crossroads. that meeting, council approved a motion for staff to recommend adjustments to equalize the weighing of finance and design, raise the weight of first nations and incorporate into finance a lease component. In order to support the motion, staff prepared a survey for council on the RFP criteria and weighing. The survey was conducted to collect input from individual council members prior to the meeting. To support discussion, Council's aggregated M responses are summarized and included in the report tables as received.

Speaker D · The revised scores reflect the average of council's survey responses with a two point adjustment to balance the weighing between finances and design consistent with council's motion. Just going to ask to go on to the next slide. Thank you. The overall criterion weighing is that the offer on land, the weight of 40 points, the design and concepts that was the adjustment was at 38. We adjusted it to 40. First nations is 12 points and the project delivery and scheduling is eight points. That's a total of 100 points. I won't go through each criteria in detail as we wanted to provide the criterion waiting for council on individual slides. To facilitate the discussions and we can go back and forth.

Speaker D · So the first one is the offer on land and obviously we see the scoring there. We'll have a slide here for the design and concept. It's a little bit more lengthy. So we have two slides there

Speaker E · and

Speaker D · then we finish off with the first nations as well. So again these slides are available so that we can reference them during discussions. I would like to point out that staff's second recommendation is that the RFP require proponents to submit both an allowable density concept and below density concept based on the survey feedback. But if council wants to be more flexible, the motion can be that the RFP requests proponents to submit both an allowable density concept. Changing it from require which is strict to request allows the developer to choose if they want to submit one or two concepts. Thank you and happy to take any questions as well.

Speaker A · Thank you. I'll open it up to members of committee for questions. Councillor King, please looking at.

Speaker B · Let's just make sure I get the right one. I think it's the first memorandum in our agenda on page

Speaker F · three

Speaker B · it mentions. Towards the middle of the under sale or lease it says accordingly staff or let's see above that says upon review of the comments three out of five council members did not support prioritizing the lease arrangement. Right.

Speaker B · You see that under sale ordinates is the third paragraph down on Appendix A of this series 1 take 1 of 6 first bullet at the bottom under Cognitive 3 comments mentioned a preference for lease agreements.

Speaker B · So 3 mentioned a preference for lease agreements. And the point above says three out of five complementaries did not support prioritizing the lease arrangement.

Speaker G · Is there a discrepancy?

Speaker D · Thank you. Through the mayor I can describe the discrepancy. And so basically in the appendix A for the overall vision was asking about or providing comments was that those comments agree three members agree that a lease component should be part of the rfp. So whether it's a sale or a lease or in sale, only three council members prefer leasing. So that we as a district can offer lease as an option because you don't have to. You can just say we want to have a sale. So that's what that comments are. But there was a specific question regarding in the survey to help provide direction for financial scoring.

Speaker D · Please describe whether and how land retention through lease agreements arrangements if council chooses lease agreements and that was the first comment should be emphasized or deprioritized and that's where three of the five members did not prioritize. They deprioritized leasing in the RFP and That means that they were not, they do not want to give leasing a higher score what it was.

Speaker A · So potentially someone might still say they want to include it as an option but not necessarily have it be the priority. I think that provides some additional clarity. Councillor.

Speaker B · Thank you. And in addition, there is the portion of the proposal for. Let me just get my information correct. Okay. So first off, Recommendation is for 40 points for offer on land, 40 for design, 12 for.

Speaker B · Well with reference to First nations and 8 for project delivery scheduling. I can be clear. I was the 25. 2525. However, this is what has come out

Speaker C · of

Speaker B · also requires both an allowable density and below allowable density concept with corresponding financial offers and proposes reimbursing unsuccessful bonafide proponents the lesser of 50,000 or substantiated out of pocket design costs. I guess a red flag for me is that portion and so I'm concerned about what that means. I do not support using public money to reimburse unsuccessful private bidders for proposal design costs that would in my view transfer sort of a normal market risk to taxpayers and set a poor precedent.

Speaker B · So yeah, that's a major concern. If this site is indeed as marketable as suggested, I don't know why the district would underwrite unsuccessful bid costs at all. And how much, I would wonder how much exposure is the council actually being asked to accept?

Speaker A · That's a question perhaps to staff or is that an open ended comment?

Speaker B · No, that is a good question to. To staff.

Speaker A · Yeah, to the extent that staff have a response to that in terms of risks to the process because of that

Speaker D · student mayor, our original proposal or report did not include what we call partial compensation. And so this isn't aligned with what we saw from the survey results where there was a desire to have multiple concepts. And so if we are asking developers not just to do one concept but to do two, it's not as simple as removing an extra floor. They actually do have to do a lot more design work. It is going to be a separate concept, more likely. So in order to compensate, you know, that is why the recommendations there now the, the risk or the amount is the lesser obvious. It's up to $50,000.

Speaker D · So the risk is if two proponents, you know, fail to be successful, then the maximum risk to the district will be 100,000.

Speaker B · In that example, if I may, in terms of that 50,000 clause, that 50,000 compensation, was there a specific council motion that provided direction on that? And what motion?

Speaker A · I don't believe there was a motion. This is simply a recommendation. Given the fact that there was a response. They've provided an option for us to opine on and remove or not.

Speaker B · Okay, so this hasn't been something that council has initiated. It's proposed.

Speaker A · I think this is a staff response to the potential for development of scenarios where proponents might provide two, which was introduced through the survey. Is that my understanding, Susan?

Speaker H · Mayor, it was actually recommended initially by our procurement consultant as a best practice in a ProCure in an RFP with a project of this size. And initially we did not make that recommendation, but because the scope could potentially change, it was a recommendation that we thought we should make to council at this time.

Speaker A · Okay, so it's advice that's come forward. Council can accept or reject. Yeah. Yep. Okay, good. Zone tight. Other members of council. Councilor Paltillo,

Speaker G · I don't think, pardon me, just taking on that point. I don't think at the concept level necessarily, if it's just a concept coming back as a response to the rfp, I don't feel that a reimbursement of either successful or not successful applicants is really necessary. I think it can be a high level and early risk that gets taken in the process. And, and so if we're accepting motions at this time, I'd be happy to move that we ask staff to remove the reimbursement factor from the expression of interest.

Speaker A · I mean, it's present in one of the options. We could simply move that option if that's the will of committee when it comes to that, without number three, I think staff. Does that make sense? Thank you. So let's just continue with discussion and questions at this point. Councillor Thompson and then Councillor Riddle, just

Speaker F · to continue along that vein. We've talked about potentially how much reimbursement would be, where would that money come from? Would it have a tax impact pact?

Speaker D · Thank you. So we do have a budget for the municipal hall redevelopment. And so it would come out of that budget.

Speaker F · Okay. And sorry, I can't recall the detail, but what if an applicant, let's say the reimbursement is there, what if the applicant only puts in one option? Would they not be eligible for reimbursement

Speaker D · through the district? We did not specify if it was. If they're submitting for one or two option, however, the 50 is the max. We would also. There is also one sentence in there where we would have to.

Speaker F · Or.

Speaker D · And we can. Can vet against their expenses as well. So we will. We would be checking that as well. So it's going to be. It could be the lesser of, but to a maximum of 50,000.

Speaker A · Anything further, Counselor?

Speaker F · I did submit a letter for the May 4th, 4th meeting in which I talked about the process to a degree. When is the time? I know we're talking right now in terms of point systems. Is there an opportunity during this meeting to raise issues such as the timing of public input?

Speaker A · I mean, in the vein of this being a. I guess I will. Given that it's committee of the whole, I think we can have some latitude if there are questions that help councilors understand.

Speaker H · But sure, through the mayor, the period after receiving, if council chooses to make a decision on the RFP and choose a proponent staff would then have information sessions and post the proponents proposal during the land disposition period.

Speaker H · And then I am going to turn it over to Mr. Matanowich with respect to the time frame for the public engagement.

Speaker E · Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thomson. So through the rfp, one thing that we will ask for with the concept is an engagement strategy. And what we'll ask for is that engagement to be undertaken during the development permit process. So that process is a council process. So as part of that we'll have a requirement that the applicant hold, you know, will ask for an engagement strategy. But it could include open house, it could include hosting a website, just gathering feedback in a traditional way and providing that through to council, focusing on the design and site design as the purview of a development permit. And that information will be provided back to council. So it would be in likely August, September, when you would get into that more than likely September period of time.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker F · My concern as I expressed is that I'm not happy with looking at major development proposals during the summer months. In particular to me, any public input on this process should not happen during August, as suggested in the schedule and recent report, but should not occur until after the Labor Day weekend when people are home from vacations and settled in.

Speaker F · So we can deal with that later tonight or this after. Yeah, this evening. But I'll leave it at that for now.

Speaker A · Of course. The councillor. Thank you, Councillor Riddle.

Speaker C · Thank you. So one question that just came up for me while you were talking about the different options. I'm wondering how we would evaluate them. So if we have, you know, a sort of maximum density under the zoning concept and then we have a lower density one like how do we evaluate those streams?

Speaker D · Thank you. Through the chair. So the design and concept, actually there's a lot more detail in the report than we're seeing on the slides here, but it does provide what each score and each criteria is, is for. And so basically what we would do as a staff or the evaluation committee is we would apply the same evaluation criteria to the higher density worth 100 points and we would do the same thing for the lower density as well.

Speaker D · And so what we would do is present both the highest score for the allowable density and the highest score for the lower density for council to make a decision on, you know, the pros and cons. And of course looking at our weighing and scoring, financial impacts, things like that. And so. So we will apply the same methodology to both concepts, as we would call it. But the highest score will be presented to council.

Speaker D · I hope that answers your question.

Speaker C · Okay. I think so. We'd probably have one that's the highest score for a higher end density and then you would also present the highest score for the option two. Okay, that's correct. Okay. On the offer on land evaluation criteria, I'm having a hard time understanding what's going to get you points. Not necessarily on the overall financial value, but financial structure, certainty, alignment, like I guess that one's more obvious. But then market considerations, it I'm not sure from what we've been provided in the package what we're incenting with those criteria. So I'm wondering if you can shed any more light on that for me. Thank you.

Speaker D · Through the chair I'm going to try to remember what the marking considerations were. We do have some criteria on there. So market considerations are lease terms as an example. And so a 60 year lease is more desirable than a 99 year lease as one example. I'm just thinking of another one. Oh, renewal terms as well. If there is a lease, what does renewal, what those renewal terms look like? And then lease back as well. So we are going to be here for a number of years. What do those terms look like? So those are three examples of what constitute market conditions.

Speaker C · Okay. And then the financial structure piece, financial certainty. So I just not sure how we're looking at that. Like what's going to get you points in those categories? Are you going to have a detailed set of sub criteria that you have at the steering committee level or is it just you're going to review them

Speaker H · within these buckets and there's evaluation criteria that's laid out with deliverables under each of those evaluation criteria that are scored and so we would be scoring against that. Sorry if they're not all top of mind right now with respect to what would get the score. But I am trying to pull something up. But yes, with the evaluation criteria and through the support of our procurement consultant, we're Ensuring that we are all clear on what we're scoring on and that it's not completely subjective, that there is objectivity to the way that that would be scored.

Speaker C · Okay. And then will we have an opportunity to see that or is that going to be below the line?

Speaker H · That is. That is. You would see it at the end, but it isn't something. Again, there is a separation between the procurement process and then, and ensuring that it meets all of the criteria and then council's role as the. The final decision maker. And without straying too much into legal advice. So just staff advice. But what we have been given advice on is that it's important distinction and so that level of detail, it fits into this criteria and we're going to make sure that we receive legal and procurement advice on ensuring that we're meeting all of the terms established through our obligations under.

Speaker H · Under procurement legislation.

Speaker C · Okay. I guess I think my question comes around the lease, because this is something. The lease option is something that I have been supportive of. It's a preference that I have. So I'm wondering, particularly under financial structure, there's discussion of that. And so how does that fit in at this time?

Speaker H · It would be based on the combination and it wouldn't, because staff have not been given direction to favor a lease over a sale. If staff were given direction to favor a lease over a sale, then that would be. It would warrant, say, two points under the financial structure. But if it's not, then we wouldn't be giving any additional points. What we would look at is the. We would look at it based on the overall financial value and then it wouldn't get any of any points necessarily specific to it being a lease. We would be looking at it face value. What's the financial value? Unless we get different direction tonight.

Speaker C · Okay, one more question on this, I guess. I mean, there is value with the land coming back to the district. So are you saying that that won't be considered under the financial structure unless we preference a lease? We. We as a council provide that direction at this point?

Speaker H · Yes, that's what we're saying. If we receive that direction tonight, then yes, of course we will provide preference, but at this time we haven't been told to give it preference.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you. I'll move on from that. Now, around the first nations, my question is how it's similar. I guess it's how we're going to evaluate that. Are we going to be involving the nations in that assessment? Because it seems like a tricky thing to assess and it's going to be those relationships are going to be really important. And so I'm wondering what that's going to look like.

Speaker H · So through the Mayor and without strain, again, I have to be cautious about what I say, but Council gave staff direction to advance the first nations through the RFEOI process as government organizations to respond to the rfp.

Speaker H · So at this point it wouldn't be a fair procurement process if we were to give one of the proponents an opportunity to provide insight into what criteria we should use. However, we have looked at best practices and through discussions with first nations in the past around procurement practices and expect expectations. We feel that what we have put into the criteria and the weight around it that we had, and there's a lot of alignment is what we have heard and also what our best practices.

Speaker C · Thank you,

Speaker A · Councilor Newton and then Paltiel.

Speaker I · Thank you, Chair. I guess looking at this from a big picture perspective, this isn't my area of expertise when looking at sort of application for something like this. So how do we think or how do we feel this will guide or direct what we're going to see as an application? We've got sort of points here about design elements and what we want to see and how it integrates within the community. We have an idea that this is providing sufficient direction to applicants when we're wanting to look at something like this. This is an entirely new area for me and so I'm just the process, you know, we've put numbers on a board and we're expecting an applicant or applicants to come back fitting, you know, their round holes into these square numbers through the mayor.

Speaker D · That's a good question. So these are, these are the scoring criteria. So the developers will know, you know, what they're going to be weighted on. However, in the rfp, we're also telling the developers that they have to adhere to the ocp. They have to look at the Sandersonville design guidelines, they have to look at our engagements that we've done. And so we'll provide all that as well. And so they will, if they do their research and if they look at all the documentation that we provide, they'll get a good sense of what has come and has come up through the engagement and of course through council decisions.

Speaker D · What these, this criteria does do is let them know what's more important, what's the priority. If previously we had 50 points for finance and then 35 for design, so at that point they probably go, well, money is more important right now. We've equalized that. So now they know that, okay, this concept is more important, or not more, but now it's equally important. So those are the things that they're going to get from the scoring, but they are absolutely going to get what we call our data package. They're going to get all, again, all the engagements, all the report, the Amenity Framework reports, things like that they're going to get so that they get a good sense of what Council wants and their direction.

Speaker D · And the other one was the site design principles as well. Again, another example. So they'll have all that as well.

Speaker I · Okay, thank you. That does provide a little bit of insight into how this goes out to market, on what then the district is looking for from potential successful applicants. And hopefully they'll do more than just due diligence in reviewing the material, but also have an understanding of the nuances. And I think, you know, there's a lot of that in. In the survey results. There's certainly a lot of that in the engagement side of it with the community. I think to follow up a little bit on Councillor Riddle's comment, I think even simply direction from council to have not only any successful applicant, but was there even a lease option and have that come back for.

Speaker I · So council is at least aware that that was something that we saw. Would that be something that could. Could happen as part of this process?

Speaker A · To be clear, I want staff to respond because we're not necessarily excluding lease here, we're just not giving an additional weight point.

Speaker I · No. So council may not see any lease

Speaker A · because that's something staff can respond.

Speaker H · That is correct. You would not see it if it didn't. If it wasn't the preferred proponent. That is correct, yeah.

Speaker I · Okay. So that, that helps.

Speaker A · Sure.

Speaker I · So then you could. We could provide direction to have any. If that was an option through the

Speaker H · mayor, that would mean that council would have to provide direction. That lease is prioritized. And I think that that is a difference through the procurement process. The we, the staff and the steering committee who are going to be doing the evaluation will provide counsel with the preferred concept, and it's based on the evaluation criteria, and that is how a procurement process works, is that we develop a criteria and then we base our evaluation on that criteria.

Speaker H · So if a lease is not prioritized, we. We would not bring that back on top of the preferred concept because council has not given staff direction and therefore the proponents are not aware that that is a priority of the criteria. So Council would. Instead, if you want that to happen, it would be important for council to make that a priority as part of the Criteria and you could provide whatever weight you would like in a motion so that we are aware what weight that should be given.

Speaker I · So we don't have the option to view more than one of the applicant.

Speaker H · And I want to be very like, I'm just going to give very general about RFPs. If we are putting forward criteria for anything that we are going to be purchasing or that we want someone to provide us with a proposal on, we have to prefer and provide preference to who has met the criteria. So for us to then bring you something that doesn't meet the criteria as a priority would be against the evaluation criteria. Therefore council has to prioritize, doesn't matter what it would have to be prioritized for us to bring that forward to you because it would have to meet the criteria. It may.

Speaker H · And if you have sale and lease, it still may not be the preferred. And so it would then be. The lease is preferred and that would have to be given quite like significant weight.

Speaker I · Yeah. Not to, not to dwell on this but I, I think it would be helpful for council, a council to know whether it was, you know, significant or insignificant. If that was a decision making process for the determination of a potential disposition disposable of land versus a retention through

Speaker H · a lease process through the mayor. If that became a priority of council. It would, and we have 100 points, you would want to give it a significant amount of weight so that it would have an impact and it would, so it wouldn't be worth two points, but it would be worth more than that, like eight. You know, in order for it to actually have an impact through all of the different evaluation criteria that it could edge something else out. And so that is. And, but I'll end it.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker A · Councillor Peltier.

Speaker F · Yeah.

Speaker G · Based on the discussion here and just some ideas I had, I was going to make a like I have three motions that I'd like to make. Is that is now an appropriate time

Speaker A · or you have the floor.

Speaker G · Okay. Just leading on the initial conversation that comes up. I, I would like, and I get that this is committee, so I don't need a second or so. First one is I'd like to remove the option or avenue for any reimbursement of unsuccessful applicants or unsuccessful design from costs.

Speaker A · So just to be clear, you would move option one minus number three.

Speaker G · Correct.

Speaker A · Okay, by all means, the floor is yours.

Speaker G · No, I hearing the discussion here. I don't, you know, the concept submission is going to be well in advance of detailed design plans. I don't see the cost as being that Prohibitive if you're coming to the table for a proposal of this size. Therefore, I'm comfortable not providing the. Any. Any reimbursements as a project cost at this time.

Speaker A · Are you able to put the motion on the screen? Okay. Councillor king.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mr.

Speaker D · Chair.

Speaker B · And I guess I'm happy that we've got a motion on the table. I would propose an amendment that council direct staff to favor a lease over sale.

Speaker A · Just trying to figure out where that would slot in offer on land and be relevant. An offer on land with preference for lease over sale. Okay. And for a total of 40 points. Okay, so we would.

Speaker B · Yes, this is a.

Speaker A · It's an amendment to the main motion. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker H · That's why it's useful through the mayor.

Speaker A · Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Councillor Thompson.

Speaker B · Yes.

Speaker F · Or are we looking at just

Speaker B · removing them?

Speaker A · So I had understood from the motion that option one, item one and two were being put, but three was not. Okay. And then an amendment was proposed to one, a offer on land favoring lease for a total of 40 points is what has been proposed.

Speaker B · Yes.

Speaker A · On the amendment. Counselor Paltio, I should turn that off.

Speaker G · Would it be. I hate. I appreciate staff that we were wordsmithing here, but my preference would be, if this is to be supported, that there be some sort of language or caveat following following this that suggest that this is the preference so long as the cost differential does not negatively impact overall project viability or something to that end.

Speaker G · Maybe that's implied and that's addressed elsewhere. But I would hate to prioritize this as a preference and then burden our taxpayers with other decisions because we're nowhere near the financial mark. Because it would be my estimation that a lease would come in like a lease deal would come in much further undervalued compared to a land sale.

Speaker A · An amendment that you could propose favoring lease without compromising the financial metrics.

Speaker F · Sure.

Speaker G · Or amendment to the overall taxpayer impact or something like that.

Speaker A · Okay. Okay. On the amendment to the amendment, are there any speakers. Councilor King,

Speaker B · I think I need more clarity on what the. That means in terms of the. Apples to apples. The amount that is expected. The suggestion that the lease would come under significantly. I don't know. I don't know much about that. So all I'm saying is I would need to know more. And if in fact it is implied that it would come in. In under. Would it be significantly under. In which case one would say it's a nice exercise to say if. As long as magic can be performed, essentially. But if it's highly unlikely then, in

Speaker A · fact, I'm happy to go to staff here. I mean, I understood that if a piece of land is for sale for, say, $10 million and a lease would pay you two, there is a significant gap that any person could reasonably observe and determine that. So, staff, do you have a response?

Speaker D · Thank you. One suggestion, because, you know, we do want to compare apples to apples, is that the lease gets a higher score score based on a percentage. So hear me out. If a lease comes in at $20 million and a sale comes in at $22 million, we could do it so that the lease gets 10% more only for scoring purposes. So in that case, the lease would be worth an extra $2 million. So it'll be worth 22 million. So in that case there's. Even. So they both get the same points in that case. So we can play with that percentage. Based on what?

Speaker B · If I may, just to make sure that my intent is on track here. I appreciate that there was an amendment to the amendment and I just want to make sure that we understand what that means in terms of as long as it has no effect on or. Or on the taxpayers, et cetera, and we aren't simply building in language that would be as long as, again, miracles can happen. In other words, what I mean by that is we need to hear more clarity about what it precisely would mean.

Speaker A · Yeah, I'm happy to go to staff. Again, the rationale here is if one has an expectation of a certain value and the impact to the taxpayer is known based on that.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · If a lease occurs and therefore the impact on the taxpayer is greater because the lease fails to meet the value,

Speaker B · then there is realistically unreal to expect that the lease would be the same

Speaker H · through the mayor.

Speaker A · That's less of a question and more opining.

Speaker H · But I'll look to the mayor. No, there is a difference. The district and any local government has an obligation to dispose of land at market value. And so we did get market value assessments that we provided to council in closed meetings in that we did include information also about lease. So there is a difference. It's not. It's nominal. It's not as big as. From a market value perspective. And so that would be the baseline that would be judged against. So it would be based on. Because as a local government, we have an obligation. And the market, of course, depends on what the market is. But we are trying to achieve market value and that's done through assessment. So there's a tool that we use and that is a Best practice practice.

Speaker H · And we would judge it against that tool.

Speaker A · So perhaps the more appropriate amendment for clarity is achieving market value out of the lease, because that is the requirement.

Speaker H · Correct.

Speaker B · That would get to the specificity.

Speaker A · Okay, so that is a better language if the original mover is agreeable. That was the intent. But yeah. Okay, thank you. Okay, so on the amendment to the amendment, I'm going to look for any opposed.

Speaker A · Councillor King in opposition. The motion carries on the amendment now as amended. Further discussion. Councillor Newton.

Speaker I · Thank you. So just for clarity, we're now back to the recommendations as amended, but without three.

Speaker A · Correct. Three is not part of this motion.

Speaker B · Okay,

Speaker I · yeah, that I understand. So to Councillor Thompson's point then, around the timing for the engagement,

Speaker F · is there

Speaker I · a desire now or a can we.

Speaker A · I'm not sure what that has to do with this particular amendment under 1A, which is because we had an amendment and then an amended amendment.

Speaker H · Right.

Speaker I · So the amended amendment, the timing around that is that with respect to land disposition, the proposed public information meetings during August 10th to 21st be conducted by the district. And so it's relevant to a about when that engagement would happen because I agree with Councillor Thompson that having that engagement after Labor Day would be important. And so I'm not sure, I guess through you to staff point of order,

Speaker A · I don't think this is relevant to the text in red that's before us on the screen.

Speaker I · Okay.

Speaker A · Which is favoring lease while still achieving market value. No, as I explained, there was an amendment then an amendment to the amendment that has been voted on. We are now back to just the amendment which has been amended. And if I have to say that word one more time.

Speaker I · Thank you for sharing.

Speaker A · Yeah. Okay, so the text in red under 1A is what is before us. If you have an item that pertains to the entire motion, hold that until after we have voted on the amended amendment. Councillor Riddle.

Speaker C · Thank you. So I just want to make sure with staff that this direction is clear because there's potentially a little bit of tension between these two. Because we're saying favor lease, but we're also saying you still need to achieve market value. So I'm wondering if you need points or anything further to provide clear.

Speaker A · We can opine on points within the constraints of that particular category afterward. What I would offer is that in any event, that the amended amendment simply provides clarity that something is required of the district anyway.

Speaker A · You cannot dispose of land at a significant discount was what we heard. So. Okay, so we are on the amended amendment, going to vote. And I'm Going to look for any opposed. I do not see any in opposition.

Speaker A · You are in opposition. Okay, well, so am I, but I think it still carries. In fact, it does.

Speaker B · So,

Speaker A · Councillor Peltiel. I was just gonna go back to the main motion, by the way.

Speaker G · Yeah, so I just. I've got two further amendments, both pertaining to engagement, would now be inappropriate because it first has to do with waiting and then two has to deal with the outcome of the engagement plan. Would now be the time to make those motions as amendments?

Speaker A · I'm going to look to staff. Apologies.

Speaker H · The first one was related to waiting.

Speaker G · Like a waiting suggestion, A replacement of metric.

Speaker A · Did staff imagine waiting occurring elsewhere or within the construct of the motion?

Speaker H · I don't think I understand math enough to know that, but the engagement one is good.

Speaker F · Now.

Speaker A · I'll look to Mr. Pimentel. Did you imagine any weighting criteria occurring within this option if council wanted to tweak it, if I understood the question correctly, Or would there be a separate opportunity?

Speaker D · No, not a separate opportunity.

Speaker A · So this is.

Speaker D · I would envision that this is the opportunity for council to make the decisions on the weighing criterias.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Peltiel. If you have an amendment to the waiting criteria and perhaps others do as well, I'm all ears.

Speaker G · I'm gonna. Okay, this should be two motions because I don't want to confuse it too much. I was gonna move that we eliminate the two points allocated for sustainable design and place those two points with engagement. Moving the criteria or the weighted criteria of engagement from 4 to 6.

Speaker A · Okay, I think that is clear and let's anyone not understand the motion. I'm not seeing any hands, so go ahead.

Speaker G · These are intended to be Part 3 buildings under the B. C. building Code within the district of Central Saanich. Our building design from both an energy output and a building envelope standpoint is the highest or is at the top of the region for sustainable requirements. That means that our minimum already takes us to a high standard. Secondly, based on good general smart growth principles, the fact that we're proposing multifamily mixed use housing in an area that brings employment, housing and amenities close together in a walkable, cyclable, transit oriented area has more inherent sustainable design than you could actually place on a project.

Speaker G · From a building code standpoint and reducing. And so the footprint of this is going to be extremely minimal. So my preference would be to have that go without saying and then move the weight heavier to engagement so that our expectations as a council, when the plan is reported back on by an applicant and when that plan is executed prior to development permit issuance, our standards as a community for engagement and neighborhood buy in can be higher.

Speaker A · Okay, so the net effect of this is transferring the two points from sustainable to engagement. Councillor King, thank you.

Speaker B · I appreciate the moving of that and the argument that's been made. I guess what I would like to know from staff is what, what's the, what is meant in this category? Is this meant step code, because that's as mentioned, already built in, or is this meant to capture walkability? What is it meant to capture?

Speaker E · Thank you. So those would be the minimum standards. Walkability, by virtue of the location we're in, is pretty enhanced, but it would include internal connections, pedestrian connections, perhaps improvements to any of our active transportation infrastructure that we have in and around the area. So those things that could be scored, but even a higher level of energy efficiency, whether somebody wanted to propose the lead, for example.

Speaker A · But it's not step code, which is already a requirement.

Speaker E · Yeah, it's already a requirement. So it's beyond that built green, something that a developer would put forward as part of the proposal.

Speaker B · So in other words, if it's not step code and it's not walkability, the sustainability consideration and it is other things built green or, I don't know, innovations that the proponent has got that are.

Speaker A · Sorry, can I just get Clarity? I thought, Mr. Matano, which you indicated walkability is a score that would have

Speaker B · been included in there. It's already expected. Yeah, right. So in other words, it's not part of the category. So what I'm trying to understand is what does the sustainability category contain and so that we understand what we might value in it.

Speaker A · I think we've, we've had the answer. It's above and beyond.

Speaker E · Above and beyond. It could be things above and beyond our current restore water management requirements, for example. So any enhanced features that are above what we, we would have as a standard that the district would expect with all development applications.

Speaker B · Right. And certainly I value the public engagement, but I don't think we need to. What is it, Rob Peter. To pay Paul, in other words, I think that it's better to have high sustainability standards and not draw away from there. In fact, there probably are points elsewhere that we could pull for public engagement. So that's my position.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker F · Thank you. With regards to public feedback prior to contract finalization, which is suggested August 26, is this the time that if. And I don't want to. I'll ask a question in terms of. Is this the time that if I wanted to make them it isn't the time, but after this to bring forward an idea in terms of when that public engagement should occur.

Speaker A · I think we heard that. That's during the council meeting, but I'll just check in again with staff.

Speaker E · Thank you. The intention. Thanks Councillor Thompson. Would be in September is when that engagement occurred.

Speaker F · I wanted to clarify that. I guess my question in terms of public engagement is in terms of the timing and all that stuff is that if council's gone so far down the road you have a public engagement and the public is really unhappy with what you've sort of approved already,

Speaker G · are we

Speaker F · really going to be listening to what the public has to say? So I'm happy to see it go from four to six, but at the same time I want to raise that issue in terms of the timing.

Speaker A · I think that they are tied together in one way and that is signaling to a proponent expectations around that. But more importantly is the actual weight, which is also increasing by this motion. So if there's no further discussion on the waiting aspect of it, I'll put the question. Any opposed? Councillor King in opposition. The motion carries. You had one more amendment, Councillor?

Speaker G · Yeah, there's been a lot of engagement over the zoning and uses, et cetera, in this project. I was just gonna move the clarification that. And perhaps this is already included in there. So staff, stop me if I'm reiterating, but I was going to say just to. In listening to Councillor Thompson's point so far and Councillor Newton, regarding engagement, just that we move that a fulsome engagement plan be required as part of the submission with execution to satisfy council ahead of development permit issuance and as a condition of development permit issuance. And the engagement prior to development permit issuance must not happen in July and August. That was a little long, but you get my gist.

Speaker A · Yeah, I don't have any issue with the motion. I'm just wondering if this is the appropriate place. Steph, you have no concerns?

Speaker H · No concerns. And it's a. Staff believe it's a good strategy because we can't change the. Once it's approved, approved or conditionally approved, we wouldn't be able to change it. So council should be satisfied with it.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker G · Just to speak to it really clear, I think it more or less goes without saying, but, you know, we've just agreed to weight engagement heavier and now I think it's important to satisfy the fact that the engagement's going to occur once a full designed and detailed development permit set is ready to be seen and reviewed and received by the public.

Speaker G · That should be a more fulsome engagement than what we're even talking about in the summer. Because those details are going to be critical in weighting other objectives as well. And public interface and acceptance of that needs to be critical ahead of a future council approving a development permit. So I see the timing of this as really critical in ensuring we're taking doing it at the right time and holding the applicant to that and giving a future council the tools to steadily evaluate and withhold the approval conditional of that as one of the conditions is I think it's important to me and from what I know, it's important to the community in the neighborhood as well.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Riddle, thank you.

Speaker C · I appreciate this motion and the intention of it. I wonder if I could propose just a slight amendment with engagement not to substantially occur in July or August. And the reason that I'm proposing this is I know a lot of people take holidays in the summer, so that's not a great time for a lot of folks. But September is actually not a great time for a lot of families. And so I just want to make sure that we cover, you know, we offer enough time and options so that people can participate. Because I know if you appreciate it,

Speaker A · the understanding of this, it wouldn't preclude it, but it doesn't encourage the primary to happen. Okay. I think the motion is clearly put. You need to speak to it further. Probably not to the amendment. Amendment to the amendment. We're back to the amendment on amendment.

Speaker I · I think I got this to the right time, I guess through you to staff or through you to the mover of the motion. What is it that the engagement is pertaining to? Is it pertaining to the design or pertaining to like the final approved design or is it pertaining to the engagement from a proponent to come forward to see what else the community wants? So is it once council has seen and approved NRFP or is it a

Speaker A · presentation of the concept with public feedback going through the proponent or what else?

Speaker H · So the first engagement that was proposed that isn't part of the tenant Engage. Sorry tenant. The public engagement strategy is around the land disposition. So it would be just a posting that the district is looking to to potentially enter into a conditional agreement. This is what it is. And we would be doing a Landis position. The public engagement would be done by the proponent and it would be. And I'm going to let Mr. Matano speak to that, but it would go back to the proponent. Thank you.

Speaker E · Very briefly, the. So the proponents engagement will be focused on the building site Building and site design. So landscaping, building form, character and how it aligns with design guidelines. So that's what we focused on. And the overall design and receiving input back on that design provides enough clarity

Speaker A · to the question, so.

Speaker I · Well, it doesn't to me. So it would be on an approved RFP by an applicant, correct?

Speaker A · Well, it would be a selected.

Speaker H · It would be selected conditionally approved based on conditions that would be laid out and that then changes the process into. And again there are two simultaneous processes. But we have rules that Mr. Matanoch is presenting under also our development process and that's what it would look like. Thank you.

Speaker I · Understood.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Riddle, did I miss you?

Speaker F · No.

Speaker A · Okay, I'm ready for the amendment to the amendment question. Any opposed? Councillor Thompson? The motion carries on the amended amendment which will now all be in red in a moment. There we are, it's all in red.

Speaker A · Any further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Any opposed? Councillor King in opposition. The motion carries on the main motion now as it will fully appear in black text. Councillor king.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I just want to make it clear that what we're voting on right now is it correct and if not, maybe help me understand the. The survey came out with suggestions from every member of council or some members of council. Not every member of council. The average points for sustainable design was 2. 2. The median was 2. Those been removed or moved to proponents engagement plan. So therefore the sustainable design, if this is voted through would be essentially zero. Zero.

Speaker A · Correct my understanding. And I'll go to staff. Yes, that's correct.

Speaker B · Yeah.

Speaker A · The waiting for it would be zero.

Speaker B · Right. So I just want to make it clear that that's what we're voting for if we vote in favor. And I also wanted to ask because Steph had pointed out, I think our CAO had suggested that as an example, if council wanted to direct staff to prioritize lease over sale, Council could put nine points on there as an example which would, you know, somewhat dramatically do that.

Speaker B · Where would that be done?

Speaker A · Waiting can certainly be done as it has been once already by an amendment to increase the actual waiting points. As I recall, there's is it 10 points in this category staff? Can I just get clarity? I can jump into the report myself, but I just am trying to pull that item out.

Speaker B · Can you take us to the page where that is?

Speaker A · It's in appendix A.

Speaker B · Right, appendix A page.

Speaker A · Page two,

Speaker B · Page two.

Speaker H · Through the mayor. I would recommend that it have its own category just for certainty around so

Speaker A · within financial structure they could be divided and you could say put three points or four points towards lease and three points just towards general financial structure.

Speaker H · Yeah. Right now we have 16 for over overall financial value.

Speaker A · Yes.

Speaker H · However, in if, because council has given preference to lease, the overall financial value would be a market value for lease and a market value for the land. So say someone offered 60% of the lease value that we have as a market value and someone offered. Well, let's just stop there. That would get a score based on 60% of the value. So that's how it would be scored. It would get the same points as what a market, sorry, a sale would get based on market value. But if you had like alignment with district objectives, if you put that and you gave that a higher score and the district objective is to maintain a lease, you would have additional points in that category specifically around lease agreement.

Speaker H · That's how you would favor it because the overall financial value would be based on the agreement. Council's already told us to look at leases and so that it would be evaluated in the same way based on the market value.

Speaker A · And then if, however no proponent offers a lease, it's moot, it's moved.

Speaker B · Yes, so, and that's a good point. If no proponent offered at least it is moot. But so do I understand correctly that points could be taken from overall financial value, placed on alignment, district of objectives and with the understanding that that means prioritizing lease. That's what I heard.

Speaker H · You could take it from any category.

Speaker B · Yes, but there's the most on overall

Speaker H · and then alignment with district objectives. And then we would, we could put a category specifically around lease.

Speaker B · Right. So do we want to have a certain number that we pull or is that helpful or do we want to just provide direction? Is it sufficient to say provide direction?

Speaker H · Council should provide points, then staff know exactly what value should be placed on that. Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay, so I would then propose that, I think nine points was suggested be pulled from overall financial value, put on alignment with the district. That's 9, 10, 11. That would be placed there under alignment with district objectives.

Speaker B · Is that clear?

Speaker A · I think, I think a separate line rather than trying to categorize it into a line with district objective.

Speaker B · That become 11.

Speaker H · Maybe if you could just add another line underneath.

Speaker A · You want the specific motion to be 11 in that category. Is that what you're saying, councillor?

Speaker B · I, I'm just saying that's what it would add up to.

Speaker H · Because if that's what, if that's what council wishes.

Speaker A · Yeah, I'm just, I'm getting clarity. You want it as a Separate item that specifically says lease or you want it as an item that says alignment

Speaker B · with district objective and 11 and brackets lease or highlight.

Speaker A · Lease is already implied.

Speaker B · Yes, implied. Or whatever it requires to highlight that as being prioritizing lease and taking it

Speaker H · out of overall financial value. So that means that. That would go down to seven.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker H · If council agreed.

Speaker B · Exactly. That's what the number I had heard was nine. And so we can see if that works.

Speaker H · Sorry, Sean, can you please provide additional direction for what you want that line to say? That line is a alignment with lease and it should have nine. And then we should move, from what I'm hearing from Councillor King, that 16 at the top should be now seven. That's the proposal.

Speaker A · That's the amended.

Speaker H · Could you put those in red? That one and then the alignment with lease, just for clarity. Thanks, Sean.

Speaker B · Okay, that's a little different. I was thinking it would be added to alignment with district objectives.

Speaker A · This provides additional clarity.

Speaker B · Okay, it does. So, but then. So are they separate, though? They are still separate.

Speaker H · They would be separate. There would be other district objectives.

Speaker B · But anyway, I, I don't mind this. I just think that what I was suggesting was that it was contained within alignment with district objectives and it would then be. Not nine, it would be 11. But that's entirely fine if people want to have more diversified consideration as perhaps we can.

Speaker H · If it's your. If you want to recommend it, we could take the two out and put the it at 11. We could put zero at.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker A · In order to meet count the mover's objective. Yeah, put 11 under alignment with lease and wipe out the previous.

Speaker H · Yes,

Speaker A · That is the intention. Just do a strikeout or whatever. Yeah, done. That is the amendment motion, councilor.

Speaker B · Right, and so in this case then alignment with lease includes what alignment with district objectives means. It's contained in that line. That's my understanding. So it's not exclusive to lease it at this point?

Speaker H · It is, but we could move it.

Speaker B · Oh, no. Yeah. No, my intention is that with the. Like we, you know. So my motion, the motion I'm intending is that alignment with the district objectives includes alignment with lease.

Speaker B · And so that's what's contained under the 11 there. That is a combination of the two. Is that clear? Because that's. That's the intention that the. Therefore the alignment with the district's objectives is the Elise preference.

Speaker B · So that's the motion. Okay.

Speaker A · Councillor Thompson.

Speaker F · Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I have some concern. I mean, we're not wordsmithing here. We're number smithing. Of course, and we're doing it on the fly and I'm not convinced that that's the best way to go. One of the values of a committee meeting is sober second thought in terms of the decision that we're making. If council's happy with this, that's fine.

Speaker A · Just to be clear, we are in committee of the whole.

Speaker F · Yeah, I know.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker F · And then that's fine. It's just that what I'm saying is that council makes a decision on some of these changes without taking the time to really think about what the impact is.

Speaker B · We've already been doing.

Speaker F · I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Speaker B · We've already been doing that with sustainability

Speaker F · and it's not that I.

Speaker A · The motion's in order. I'm happy to call the question if there's no further discussion. But there is. So I'll go to Councilor Riddle and Councillor Newton.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you. So I'm in agreement with awarding additional points for a lease to give it that edge as we've established this as a preference of council. But I'm a little bit concerned about where we're reallocating the points from and potentially how many. So if we're reducing the overall financial value, we're really deprioritizing the revenue that we would get. And so my preference would be to move points from a different category. I think we still want to have that as a significant points category. I'd like to see the 16 stay there and then potentially move five from financial structure. So I'm not going to support this motion. But if it doesn't go ahead, then I may propose a different option.

Speaker A · Councillor Newton.

Speaker I · Thank you, Chair. Given the reorganization of this and what the implications would be, and maybe I'm presupposing, but one of the cornerstones around this whole project and design was the overall net impact to the taxpayer and to the residents of Central Saanich in their entirety. And so I have concerns about what that could be to that. When we look at having a discounting of the financial and they've been taken away so I can't remember the exact overall financial value, I think that that still has to be paramount. If this is something that we're considering moving ahead. For me that, that it's critical that we have that.

Speaker I · And so at this point, given what we've seen here, and I had other component around what the district objectives or other value or ideas of what that would be and it's captured here, but I think first and foremost is the, the overall financial value for what this Means in the project.

Speaker I · So I can't support it this time.

Speaker A · I'm almost ready to put the question. Councillor King, you'll have the final word.

Speaker B · Final word. I fully appreciate if the number is not perfect. It's suggested something to work with and I would welcome alternate numbers as we strive towards perfection.

Speaker A · I will put the question. Those opposed? Opposed. The motion is defeated. With Councilor Thompson, Councillor Riddle, Councillor Palto, Councelor Newton and myself in opposition. Councilor Riddle, you have a follow up motion?

Speaker C · Yeah, I think maybe I'll start with a question to staff. Is there a way to use that financial structure category to express that preference for lease? So maybe allocating five of those points. Do you have a recommendation? I guess how we operationalize this preference.

Speaker D · Through the mayor. Right now the criteria is a proposed transaction model. It includes a sale, long term lease or hybrid. You know, really simply we could just remove purchase so that the financial structure, if long term lease or hybrid is preferred, we can leave those two words in there and it'll be worth seven points over a sale.

Speaker H · I think that the issue would be not over weighting, like overvaluing it so that if the financial value did not meet the criteria that like from a lease perspective even that you don't want to overvalue that piece so that you're not getting both. And so it's about favoring it with some points like two or three and then but recognizing that you know the value because of our obligation around market value, whether at lease or sale, that that's an important value for the district to uphold. And we've already so that additional points would be the favoring of it and prioritizing of it. But that if it was a lease and it was at market value, it's going to get the same score as a sale at market value.

Speaker C · Yes.

Speaker A · Apologies for interrupting. Are you waiting for me to change something? Just making sure. I think it's been rationally explained that the points would go to a lease that met the market value objective. Failing that, if there is no lease offer, it reverts to a purchase offer. Getting the points. I don't think we need to over engineer this. We've tested one motion, we're not having another one. I'm prepared to call the question.

Speaker B · I'm not sure we have exhausted the other motion, have we?

Speaker A · What other motion?

Speaker B · Councillor Riddle, I think was considering a motion and I'm wondering.

Speaker A · I just said I haven't heard a proposal.

Speaker B · Yeah, I think she still had the floor.

Speaker C · Processing. Okay, well, processing. I needed a moment so I Just want to confirm my understanding. The overall financial value is going to be apples to apples, market value. So if it's a competitive lease, that's going to be scored just like a competitive land sale. So we're really allocating points to encourage competitive lease proposals.

Speaker H · Correct.

Speaker C · Okay, so I'll move that four points from the financial structure category be allocated to lease.

Speaker H · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Any further discussion? Well, the four is within the seven, is it not? Four of the seven would go to.

Speaker F · Yeah, Yeah.

Speaker A · It's now in red. Okay, any speakers? I would briefly opine that I think I'm okay with the idea, but four is too high from my perspective. But I'm not going to go crazy on this one.

Speaker A · So I'll call the question and seek any in opposition on the amendment. Sorry. Yes, Councillor Thompson, I might clarify it

Speaker F · simply because I don't think we should be doing this on the fly, that's all.

Speaker A · Are you opposed? Okay, so the motion carries. With yourself and myself in opposition. Now, do we. I usually have good track of this, but we have not yet considered the main motion. So if there are no further amendments, and I am not seeing any, I am now going to put the question and look for those in opposition to the main motion as it now appears on the screen as amended multiple times.

Speaker A · Councillor King in opposition. The motion. Do you wish to vote in opposition?

Speaker F · Normally I would, but I think some changes.

Speaker A · Okay, so we will not count your vote as an opposition for committee of the whole as a recommendation to council. Councillor King is opposed. The motion has carried. Now I believe that brings us to adjournment of committee of the whole. Thank you. Any opposed? None carried.

Speaker H · Just seeking clarification. The agenda did have the ratification of

Speaker A · the motion from committee of the whole,

Speaker H · which council can add on the regular agenda at approval of the agenda.

Speaker A · Yeah, we could just add it there. Okay, that's fine. Okay. We shall need a few minutes. We did just a minute to change the live stream to the council meeting. So everyone, if you need to take a break, do so.