Transcript: Special Council - 29 Jun 2026

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the special council meeting for Monday, June 29th to order. Before I start, I would like to respectfully acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional lands of the Longan speaking people represented by the uh Casspen and Songis nations. We're grateful to live, work, and play on this special place. Uh item two is may have a mover and secondary to adopt today's agenda, please. Thank you, councelor Olen and councelor Joy. Any discussion? Seeing none, call question. Any any opposed? Seeing none motion carries. Item three, uh just a mayor's message and uh I thought it it's important that uh I I address the public at this point in time. Um this special count meeting of council was called to address items that were not considered at our regular June 22nd uh 2026 uh meeting. Before we proceed, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the importance of public participation. We around the table love public participation. So what happened last uh

Monday was actually a public hearing. So the process is a little bit different and I think that was new to a lot of people and people thought that we weren't having dialogue but we're not allowed to and that's by bylaw. We cannot do that. we do listen to the people and uh once the public hearing is over that's that's the last line in the sand for the public to participate and talk about the issue. So, I I know there was a lot of people that were irritated because they didn't understand this. And I'd just like to acknowledge at this point in time just uh to the uh um Cowwood Creek um taxpayers is that taxpayer rateayers association.

I just want to thank you for your letter of reconciliation. I thought that was uh very very very brave of you to do that and I'd like to thank you for that. But just to uh ensure that u um everyone understands what the process here is the um under the local government act a public hearing is the formal opportunity for the public to provide input on proposed bylaw or application. Once the hearing is closed, which we did last Monday, council must base its decision only on the information received during that process, and they cannot accept or consider additional submissions. So, that's the situation we were in. On uh June 22nd, a public hearing on the partial exclusion application of Cowwood uh Creek Park from the agricultural land reserve was held, which means that public comments pertaining to this matter are prohibited um at this meeting.

At our at our last meeting, I made the difficult decision to adjourn due to repeated interruptions from the gallery that prevented council from being able to continue its work in a fair and timely manner. I want to remind everyone that we really respect the conduct uh conduct of ourselves and of the public and it's essential and it's we want to ensure that all voices can be heard and that council can carry out its responsibilities. Our council procedure bylaw does not permit disruptive behavior, including interruptions, offensive language, or conduct that delays proceeding proceedings or targets individuals. We are committed to maintaining a respectful and orderly environment so that council business can proceed and decisions can be made in a fair and transparent manner.

And uh the only other announcement I have uh just for everyone's knowledge, I'd just like to thank uh uh councelor Jord Jordan as she's coming to her end as acting mayor at the end of June. And as of 1 July right to the election period, the acting mayor will be uh councelor um I was going to say councelor Olsson, but councelor Ward. But just for a small period of time between 3 and 7 August, councelor uh Olsen has uh is stepping up to be the acting man. I'm going to move on to item four, which is public participation. We don't uh we didn't have any new submissions that were submitted for the meeting tonight, but we did have five written submissions that were received last week, and we've just appended them to the agenda for this week. Uh as we didn't finish our meeting last week, we did receive two written submissions after the agenda publication and they will be appended to the agenda following

tonight's meeting. In addition, they will be available for viewing on the city's um meetings website tomorrow. Again, I'd like to thank uh the public for your written submissions. I think every one of us here personally [clears throat] reads every one of them. And uh I understand no members of the public have registered to speak virtually. Okay. I'm going to open this open the floor at this time right now so that members will be allowed to present concerns or ask questions to council. Alternately, you may wish to wait for the agenda item to be brought up and speak at that time. May I have a show of hands for those in the public that wish to speak now? One, maybe two. Okay.

And if you want answers to your uh to your questions that you do present, there's business cards right on the podium. Just grab one and we'll answer as you sent through the email in. Okay. Thank you very much. At this point in time, I'll call members of the public. You're a pro at this. No, I just do it just to get things going. Carol Brown with Citizens Environment Network in Cwood. And I'm going to speak very fast. Scenic would like to speak to the motion of hardcaping of selected traffic circles and culde-sacs number 6.3 on the agenda. During the past week, we have received various short e email comments from our scenic members on this topic, which I will pass along this evening. Our first respondent, quote, I feel it is important to keep some culde-sacs and traffic circles with trees and landscaping to help reduce heat islands during very hot weather.

Second respondent, the plantings I've seen on Whale Road are a good example of appropriate plantings. Plantings like this are suitable on road islands and traffic circles. Tall trees inside circles may impair vision. Third respondent, I almost I am most interested in the city planting native species in culde-sac islands and traffic circles. The proposed motion seems to take the wrong direction. I worry about hardcaping being a default. Fourth respondent, I support the idea of keeping as much vegetation as possible on the culdesac islands and traffic circles. One way to cut down on city landscaping costs is to have the city set up a plan where neighborhood residents adopt a culde-sac island to care for. I'm in. Fifth respondent, I recommend using native lowmaintenance and drought tolerant native plants that would provide biodiversity as well as aesthetic aesthetic appeal. Six responded, "The right ground cover could add to the city's biodiversity and encourage pollination as well as requiring less water and maintenance than non-natives. Using such nature-based solutions will help us better deal with heat, islands,

flooding, habitat loss due to climate change." The for Can I just finish a couple of you, Conor? Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. The forest fires we are regularly hearing of now are indicative of a change in how our future summers will be. Although we see the benefit of trying to save money. It's a good thing to save money, but we need to do what we can to avoid attracting hot spots to our city for present-day heat waves and those more severe in the future. Thank you for that little extra time. Thank you very much, Carol. Next, please. Okay. Uh, seeing none, I will close the public participation and move on to item five, which is unfinished business. And we'll go to 5.1, which is the partial exclusion application of Colin Creek Park from the ALR. And uh, CEO Johnson, I understand we have a further presentation tonight. Should council wish to receive it. This is the agricultural land commission partial exclusion application. The recommendation is that council The

recommendation is that the partial exclusion application for the Cowwood Creek Park from the ALR be forwarded to the ELC for consideration and that council direct staff to prepare a legal survey of the portion of Cowwood Creek Park held in P simple and to proceed with a formal dedication of that parcel as parkland. and further that once a decision is made on the partial exclusion application from the ELC that staff initiate a review and update of the Cwood Creek Park management plan and include the parks and environment committee and our manager of planning Miss Boswamorth is here with presentation should you wish to receive it. Yes, I do please. Thank you. Mari, over to you.

Okay. Um, good evening, Marian Council. Um, so tonight I hope to focus on council's key decision points related to this application and providing you the information that you need to support those decisions. Oh, I guess I don't have a clicker. Thank you. So to start, what is the application? What are we applying for? So we are seeking a partial exclusion application from the ALR for Cowwood Creek Park. So the map before you um identifies areas shown as exclude from ALR. So those areas are the subject of this partial exclusion application. We are proposing to exclude those parcels from the ALR. There's a portion that is adjacent to VMP that we're suggesting to retain within the ALR and then there's a portion that's adjacent to Sunridge Valley which is already not in the ALR.

So the decision before council tonight is to forward the partial exclusion application to the ALC for decision. A requirement of an exclusion application to the ALC is a resolution from council to forward that application. And this is what staff are seeking this evening. So, council's key decision points this evening. The primary decision point is council needs to determine to forward the partial exclusion application to the ALC or not. To be very clear, the ALC is the decision maker for this application. Council's role is to forward the application to the ALC for a decision. The second key decision point for council is to dedicate the remaining fee simple parcel of Kawwa Creek Park as park. Um staff are recommending to do this regardless if you forward it or not and regardless of the outcome of the ALC. Um, and then the third council decision point this evening is once we receive a decision from the ALC to review and update the Cowwood Creek Park management plan.

So before we get started into council's decision points, I just have a bit of background and context for us. So the agricultural land commission is a provincial body and their main mandate is to protect agricultural land and encourage farming in the province of BC. Agricultural uses are permitted in lands that are within the ALR and non-aggricultural uses or non-farm uses require approval from the ALC. So there are two pathways to address non-farm uses. You can submit a non-farm use application for each non-farm use which is considered on a case-byase basis by the ALC. And then the other option is to submit for an exclusion application. So that fully removes the lands in question from the ALR and they would no longer have to abide by the ALC's regulations.

Next um is the Cowwood Creek Park Management Plan. So this plan was adopted by council and it was based on extensive engagement with the community and council. Um this list before you is a a snapshot of what's in the plan and it provides a list of the capital projects. Um, some of those include a washroom, more seating areas, on and off leash dog areas, etc. Tonight is not about approving or revisiting those projects. It is simply about whether council wishes to forward an application that would allow the city the greatest flexibility to implement those projects before you. So the key points that I really want to emphasize this evening is removing Cwood Creek Park from the ALR does not change the use of the land as a park. It will remain as a park whether it is in the ALR or not. The second point is that we are not discussing specific park amenities existing or proposed.

um that is not what we are discussing this evening. But third, this application is simply about whether a provincial legislative restriction should continue to apply to the land or whether the city should have greater flexibility to manage and improve the park through its normal processes. So the primary decision point for this evening is for council to forward the application to the ALC for a decision. So as I've mentioned, the ALC is the decision maker. They are the ones who will decide to approve or deny this application and it could take some time to hear from them from that outcome as well. Um, if the application is approved, the excluded lands would no longer be regulated by the ALC and the city would have greater flexibility to implement the park management plan. If the application were to be denied, the city can pursue a non-farmuse application for individual park improvements.

A non-farm use application was provided as an alternative at a previous council meeting, but an exclusion was the preferred approach as it seeks the desired outcome upfront and it does not limit our use of the park.

Okay. Well, that slide looks different, but that's okay. Okay. So, the second council decision this evening is dedicating the remaining fee simple parcel in Calwood Creek Park as parkland. And this should proceed, as I mentioned, regardless if you forward it or not and regardless of the outcome from the ALC. Um, dedicating this final parcel simply aligns its legal status with how the land is currently used today and how it is intended to be used in the future. Um, this really is just an administrative cleanup of the parcel. Um, there was discussion about adding further protection such as a covenant to ensure the land remains as a park. Staff do not believe that this is necessary.

Park dedication is already a very strong form of protection and would require electoral approval to remove. Covenants are typically used to place restrictions on private lands and are generally not the mechanism relied upon to protect municipally owned parkland. Between park dedication, OCP designation, and the longestablished use of the land as a park, staff consider it highly unlikely that these lands will be used for anything other than a park. And finally, the last council decision point before you is once we receive a decision from the ALC, again, regardless of at that out of the outcome, whether it's approved or denied, staff recommend to review and update the Calwood Creek Park management plan. Um, and there are two reasons for that.

Number one, the plan needs to be updated to reflect the Cow Creek parks ALR status and paths forward for park improvements. Um, and number two, this would be the opportunity for the public to provide feedback on park improvements and amenities. So, to conclude, tonight is not about whether Cowwood Creek Park remains a park. It is about whether council wishes to forward the application to the ALC for a decision. And again, the ALC is the ultimate decision maker for this application. So the staff recommendation this evening is that council forward the application to the ALC for a decision that we dedicate that remaining parcel um that remains in fe simple as parkland and that once we receive a decision by the ALC that we review and update the Creek park management plan. Thank you.

Thank you very much Mari. Uh we'll turn it over to council for questions at this point in time. Council Ward, we'll start with you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh through the chair to to Mari. Um is there any intention to connect the proposed washroom to sewer? Uh at this time there isn't. It would be pumped out, but that's something we look at in the future. We don't have sewer in that area at this time. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and I noted in the presentation and and you verbally mentioned it, Mari, that this what's before us tonight does not consider specific park amenities. And um, we've phrased that I I believe as sort of a positive, but I wonder if that is one of the cause, well, I know it's a cause for concern for residents in in the area. I had an opportunity to speak with um a gentleman who was quoted in the newspaper um as part of the rateayers group. Um I had a lengthy phone conversation with him today about it and identified maybe a piece that was missing from my view which was that two

concerns. I asked the washroom question because the the original concern was well if you pull it out of the ALR, you know, down the road it could potentially become attractive land to a developer and a future council could entertain something and if it's, you know, the intention was to run sewer into there that creates opportunities as we know for so-called missing middle housing, you know, fourplexes, six plexes, and and the consensus was the neighborhood very much objects to that. Um, so that was the the reasoning behind the washroom question. I was kind of curious. Um, the other one was that it's not so much and I think this is I'm probably not alone in this. There was a little confusion I think last meeting or at the public hearing when we had individuals from the same group providing conflicting messages about removing from the ALR. Some said, "No, take it out of the ALR. It doesn't make sense to be in the ALR." Others were saying, "No, it needs to stay there." And I think I got to the bottom of it

today in in some of these conversations in that the concern is that phrase that it doesn't consider specific park amenities as this gentleman put to me was this is a park where people enjoy the natural aspects of it, the open space, the green space. And the concern isn't necessarily that this council will will inhibit that. it's that a future council, the next council or a council down the road, um once it's defined solely as park would look at that in a different lens and they would say, "Okay, let's let's add pickle ball courts. Let's add a lacrosse box or or ball diamonds." And it's a fundamental shift from what it is now. And so that again leads me to the question around covenants. I know the city has said, "Well, covenants aren't ideal. It's protected by park." But correct me if I'm wrong, there is no protection at this point if it was removed from the ALR and moved to park status that would prevent a future council from adding other amenities. Is that correct?

So this is why we included as part of the staff recommendation to review and update the Cow Creek Park management plan. Um, future councils could certainly amend that plan and add further amenities, but that would be a part of a a public process to revise that. Yeah. And I guess if there just wonder if there's been any consideration on the covenant side to partnering with a third party group. Um, you know, part of the parks plan here identifies restoring and protecting natural areas as a key component of this. And when I walk through there, that's really what I see as as the outstanding issue. First of all, is is a fenced area for dogs to keep them within a specific area, thereby freeing up the park and and ensuring cleanliness and things and safety in the playground area. But it's also about protecting the creek and the riparian areas. Um, and I I've read that you could partner with a an environmental group. So, for example, scenic, which happens to be here today, um, you know, would be be ideal as well.

So if you you enter into a covenant with a group like that, you could restrict for future amenity additions and things to the park. So from the resident perspective, removing it from the ALR becomes less of an issue if they know that the fundamental nature of the park remains the same and that it is a natural park. So, I just wonder if there's been any consideration to that um you know in in protecting what the park is um you know in in partnership with someone else through a covenant. So, we could certainly explore that for the parcel of land that is currently held in fe simple. Um but lands that are dedicated as park have to essentially have a clean title. they don't have covenants. Um covenant like a section 219 covenant is typically against a private property owner and the city. And so when land is dedicated as park, you are unable to register 219 covenants when it has that status of legal protection.

I I'm sorry, but I think that conflicts with what I had read that that was the idea of bringing in an additional party. Like the city can't enter into a covenant with themselves, but if for example an environmental protection group was involved, you could do so once the the change has happened from ALR. Um I mean obviously not going to go back and forth on it, but it does contradict what I'd read. But those were my only questions at the moment. I'll leave it for that and leave it for the rest of the table. Thank you. Thanks very much. Uh, councelor Jordison, please. Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just have, um, one question, I guess. Um, do we have specific park designations? Like, so I know Havenwood Park is is described as a national park. Is that like a designation? Is there I guess what I'm looking for is there some sort of a park designation that says we want green space and we want um some amenity stuff but we don't want it to be like an active sports park type thing. Yeah, thank you. So the parks and wreck master plan is the document that has different park categories. So Kawwa Creek Park is identified as a community park. Um, a community park is defined as having community amenities but as well as having um protection of natural areas and restoration. Um the parks and wreck master plan is kind of the the higher level planning document for parks. And then the Cowwood Creek Park management plan is sort of the plan underneath that that provides more specific information about protecting natural areas and restoration of Calwood Creek and um that kind of thing which is included within

the park management plan. Okay. So, it's already in the park designation that would probably best suit it from my opinion. Um, I guess I'm just wondering, um, sorry, lost my train of thought. What question I was going to ask you? Um, why would we keep it in partial, um, exclusion and not just do the whole thing? Because I think it'd be easier for the city to look after the park if it was all excluded. Yeah. Thank you. So that was a strategy for us um in preparing the application to the ALC because they don't like to see a loss of agricultural land. And so we wanted to put forward basically the least amount of land to exclude that allows us to achieve our parks and wreck objectives. Um and also supports the ALC's decision. Um, it is important to note that the ALC certainly could deny the application because ultimately there is a net loss, but the partial exclusion is being um submitted so that it's the lowest amount of land to exclude as possible.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor K, please. Thank you. I believe the CEO has his hand up and he's possibly speaking to the same issue. I need to I've had experience where a park has um been delegated to the former city I used to work for, the Beacon Hill Trust. Um that put restrictions on what could happen within that property. That's not something we've investigated with this application. If that's something that council would like us to do, we can certainly do that as an amendment as an um but to provide you a definitive answer on that at this point. It's not something we've investigated, but we certainly could do so for council. That's great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. My question is for the CEO then. Has a decision been made to hold a new public hearing on this matter? No. them. Uh, unfortunately, we are in breach because councelor Ward just said he spoke to people from Coll Creek Park today regarding this matter and the public hearing has closed. That was the reason we couldn't engage with the public because according to the province we once a public hearing is closed we are not allowed to discuss the matter further. Um and and that is cause for bylaws to be struck down. It's my understanding. Councelor Ward I completely understand what councelor day is saying. I don't know if it's relevant or not, but the individual in question contacted me regarding street lighting in Cwood Creek Park. So, that was why I I took the call. We had a conversation around the fact um in his words that um the street lights in Cwood Creek in the neighborhoods there are very poorly lit in comparison. He used the example Upper Royal Bay, said they're using different light bulbs. um and that the conversation shifted um

when he indicated that that was one of his concerns around this park plan was that the the area was poorly lit. So that was uh how the conversation evolved. It wasn't an intentional discussion around Calwood Creek Park if that's relevant. I'll leave that to the chair and CEO to determine what comes next. So I guess my my question remains, will we be scheduling a new public hearing? Mr. Johnson. Well, this is new information for me. Um, I've heard it tonight. So, uh, to get that information, have to have a conversation with councelor Ward and that's indeterminate at this point. Okay. Um, so I'll just speak then to my understanding because uh my first term on council back long time ago, my one of my first jobs was creating the um both the park management plan, the first one in in Cwood uh for Havenwood Park, but also partnering with Habitat acquisition trust and the land conservancy to establish a covenant on the park uh because it was our very first natural

park under that natural park designation and residents in Cwood were very concerned that exactly the same issue um that a natural park could later be converted to a baseball diamond or soccer pitch or any number of other good uses of land. um uh that um uh we have to balance within our community. So it is really important to have an agency that has a good uh financial standing that will exist for uh a very long time and that is why we have a triparty agreement with habitat acquisition trust and the land conservancy. It is not easily accomplished. We followed a model uh that had been used before in Sanage uh to create that. Um and there were considerations at the time that it would be more expedient to not have it. And it does come with costs uh which include monitoring the park so that the reasons for the covenant are measured each year whether there's a net habitat loss to to gauge the impact of human human activity on the park as well. So, um it's not a

small matter. Um uh and I I think that uh Cobalt Creek Park has a long history of um in involving citizens in um understanding and learning about the environment that the creek provided was where I guess it really started was in the creek looking at the uh biology and aquatic life forms within it, teaching kids, getting them interested and there's been a lot of work ever since. Um so, uh I think that there's a very wellestablished history for Cowwood Creek Park to serve families. Uh it's very accessible. It's one of the most accessible parks in Cwood and um I would I would really hate to see that change uh because of u plans that we make. Uh but inevitably um park structures change and uh the way we use parks may change over time. Uh but I hope that we will retain all of our good values. I'm not sure that um a covenant is um a good or a bad thing but the history should be somewhere in our records in terms of how we accomplished it the first time.

Thank you very much. I [clears throat] I just have three questions here. Uh first question is I understand that we have some kind of covenants with you know with Havenwood Park right we it's a park and we have these covenants right that we need some other group to okay anything that we do with it correct is is my understanding correct there's there's a couple players in this is any can anyone answer that question thank you worship our parks manager Gourd, never say his word. Gourd is uh on the line and he can answer that question for you. Hey Gourd, do can you ask my question please?

Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Uh can you uh sorry uh your um your worship can you um repeat the question please? Yes. what I understood like as an extra protection with Havenwood Park because as you know it's a it's a it's a natural park. It's a nature park in in in fact but I know that if we want to do anything is there not co isn't another the society have a covenant on that to protect that to make sure that the city doesn't overstep its bounds. Yes. Habitat acquisition trust uh is the covenant uh holder for Havenwood Park. Okay. Great. So, and and so from what I heard you say, uh, Mr. Johnson, we could do something similar here. That's that extra layer of protection.

Correct. And we just haven't spent the staff time to understand that that give council that information. We can certainly take that away and bring that in a future report for council's consideration. Yes. Okay. That's great. That that makes me happier. That's for sure. Uh the second question I have is just on um I know I was a counselor at the time 2021 we started um we started doing um um public forums you know um we set up I know we had a bunch of uh city of Cwood tents set up and we were getting people to come in and give us their input. I think that was for the overall parks plan. And then when when we came in as a council, we started having specific public participation gatherings all over the place. I know I attended one in Cley Creek Park for for sure. I think that was maybe a couple years ago. Uh I'm not too, but I think there's some more. So, how many how many sessions have we actually had? How many of these public engagement sessions have we had? Well, as you say, uh, your

worship in 2020 and 2021, there were parks and recreation master plan pop-up events. We also had parks walks with, um, our parks manager. So, people were coming and and engaging in the parks quite frequently at that time between 2020 and 2022. So as you say first on the parks and park management plan and then on specific parks management plans for each of the parks right um and then also in between just for other engagement as we went through a CP process. Uh so there were postcards mailed to all residents information was in the city newsletter mailed to all residents. Uh we had social media campaigns and advertising in the local paper. There was quite extensive communication and engagement about these parks plans.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to satisfy myself on that. And my third and last question is uh [clears throat] has to do with how much how much you know we've we've got stuff already in that park and it's hard to tell from that map how much of that is that we're using right now that well we already have playgrounds is are we infringing already? Are we in ALR? I think that I think I know what the answer is but can you just confirm that with me please? So, um, the playground is within the ALR and so those existing facilities could potentially be at risk.

Okay. I just wanted to confirm that's all I have for questions and I'll go second round. Council Ward, please. Mr. Mayor, in in response to what councelor Day raised, um, I've been looking into it in the background here and, uh, no new information was raised. It was simply a um a repeat of items that were raised during the public hearing and other discussions. However, um because of that, the vote can still stand, but I can no longer participate. Um under the community charter, I need to recuse myself from this item due to the inadvertent post-hering interaction with a resident, intentional or otherwise. And while no new material information was introduced, the appropriate thing to do is to step away to ensure absolute procedural fairness and avoid any perception of bias. So therefore I will be leaving the room and uh I will tomorrow provide a uh a detailed record of the conversation to uh to the CEO but I I cannot be here less there be any undue influence on decisions. Thank you very much.

Second time councelor Dave please. Thank you. Uh, I just would like to move the recommendation that the application be forwarded to the ALC for consideration that council direct staff to prepare the legal survey of the portion of Cold Creek Park held in V simple and that once a decision is made on the partial exclusion application that staff initiate a review and update of the Cwood Creek Park management plan and include the parks and environment committee. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do do I have a second? Okay. Thank you, Councelor Jison. I would like to add a fourth item just to amend it and that is to add in the investigate the inrust um the inrust function here. So it's just that extra safeguard I [snorts] think and that's going to that will satisfy me a lot better because I know how how difficult it is not only just to get out of parks but when you have this inrust uh function here I I I know problems that we ran in table the park.

So I'm just going to suggest that as an amendment just add it to add to add add it to your um recommendation. Can I get a second here? Councelor Grove and to to the amendment. Councelor Grove. Councelor. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was u flashing before the motions got started. I would just ask one question if I slip it in. Sure. Who issues the covenant? Johnson, we'll bring back the options for council given that it's held in our title. Uh, having that third party is the important piece. But I need to do a little bit of research or not I staff needs to do some research and bring those options back to council. This allows it uh to move forward and bring that information because that can be uh done separately. Rounds it up. Great. Thank you. Super. Thanks, Councelor G.

Thank you. I was going to um suggest the same afterwards, but I was keeping it clean. Uh I think that the interest option uh my recollection from our previous experience it's a legal document that uh binds the city to certain uses and uh is kept with the third party um as a monitor for the performance uh to hold us to account. So, um I have not been in touch with HAT in recent years. Um it is a good environmental agency uh who does a good job of assisting with those types of things. So, it it may be something that they they would consider doing with us and would be in any case a good resource for talking about how it worked for the for them. Sure. Uh any more discussion on the amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call the question on the amendment. All those in favor? Okay, that's unanimous. Um and uh we'll go back to the original uh recommendation as amended. Um any further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the question. Are any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Unanimous. Thank you very much. Unfinished business is completed. We'll move on to new business. Okay.

Okay. We will move on to uh 6.1 which is website considerations. Councelor D over sorry we have one member of the public that wishes to speak. Oh at this point in time thank you. Sure. Mr. Mayor Council, uh, I want to let you know that we support and applaud the motion you're going to hear in a moment. This has been a long longgoing saga in this city and that is the state of the website. It started for me about six years ago through in 2022 during the election. I think every one of you, including um including Dean, were concerned about the state of this website, the ability to get information, the ability to use it as a research tool. [snorts] It came to a head again in December of last year, so we're now coming up for seven months.

um that this particular discussion has been going on. So I would urge you, you now will have a motion in front of you that clearly states the kinds of things that have to happen to get this website sorted out. I would urge you to please support councelor Day's motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, councelor Day. Sorry, we'll get back to you. just motivate please. No problem. Um so tonight on our agenda we have bylaw 2117 which establishes our website as key governance for posting of meetings. Uh it is a really an important interface. Um and in my history here on Cowwood [laughter] uh I think when I started there was no website and uh then we got the website but it was largely ignored because it was very difficult to get it right. All of us were let's face it it was dialup modems and it was a different time. Uh and it was really difficult. We didn't have a communications person. We didn't have an IT department.

uh we we ran our computers with finance knowledge because that's mostly what we used them for. So it it's taken us a long time, maybe too long to get um to the understanding of the importance of the website. Uh, previously our front door is what we would list as the source for any information bulletins because we just couldn't trust that the website would necessarily be reliable. And we and so we said, "Yes, we're going to use the website to try to make life more convenient, but if for some reason our website crashes or doesn't work or we get hacked, the front door is where you go." And we kept that for a very long time because we've had lots of crazy problems happen. Um, and I'd like to just confirm with staff, if I may, that we still have a contract with Up and Up, who did our last website revision.

That's correct. They did our 2013 website and then they did a redesign in 2023 2024. Okay, perfect. So, um, I just want to assure council then that we have a a contract in existence to work on our website and and we should not be overt taxing any department of our administration in order to do the work that I'm suggesting we need to do. [snorts] Uh, summer is here. work is hard to achieve in the public during the summertime and therefore I'm trying to give the best direction possible to achieve some benefit prior to the upcoming elections. And so I'm asking that rather than waiting for a report back on this wonderful idea that I've brought forward that um we simply set a direction and allow staff to come back to us if a problem arises that they cannot overcome or there's new information that we need to be aware of in order to make this decision. Um, I I'm hoping that we can give very specific direction to use our

website as a bridge to bring the public in. We've had some good success with bridges this term, probably our biggest success and I think our website could be our next bridge. Um and uh therefore I am making the motion uh that we restore a staff directory including names, titles and direct line contacts and emails in a manner consistently consistent with privacy and security best practices. that we establish governance ownership by assigning the website responsibility to a named position with defined maintenance standards, content review obligations, and accountability to council. Improve the information architecture by directing the position responsible to implement the following within 90 days. Consolidate the bylaws into a current, searchable, and prominently accessible location.

Relocate the org chart to the governance section of the site. Enhance the development tracker to include application status, site details, proponents, and timelines. Implement a taskbased navigation improvement to increase discoverability of governance content. um correction of broken or outdated links with remediation of the search function deficiencies as identified to council by members of the public, including on the March 12th submission from the Royal Bay Homeowners Association and establish a council decisions tracker, including which department is responding, the status, and the antic anticipated dates for reporting back to council on this initiative on design and timeline for the work within 60 days. Report back uh to council within 30 days with an implementation plan including some timelines for the full set of website improvements.

So I'm not asking for everything at once even though I kind of am by giving a whole long list. I'm just trying to identify all the things that we know have had concerns and make a plan, adding a few deadlines so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle and come back and just say, "Yeah, we're here on this, we're here on that. We're here on the next thing. This one's going to take a little longer because he's fine." Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I get a second there, please? Get the motion for. Thank you, Councelor Jordison. And councelor Jordison, you're up. Thank you, Mayor. Um, councelor Day, I just wanted to make an amendment um or propose an amendment. Um, what's the best way just to read that first year or so? Um, just where it says it and it's just to beef it up maybe, I guess. Um uh the recommendation that council direct the chief administrative officer uh to ensure governance information.

Sorry to yeah to right there to ensure governance information is maintained with the same standard of accuracy comma timelines comma and accountability expected of other crit medical uh municipal infrastructure supporting transparency, public participation and informed decision making. and then buy and then the other would come off. And then the other thing I just wanted to add it, it doesn't have to go in there, but I just wanted to reference an accessibility um it would just be a whole new point to ensure that the website complies with accessibility standards. And that was it. Yeah, thank you.

Can I get a second draw on the big concert day And you just want to motivate uh council jordis before I open it up. [clears throat] Go ahead, please. Sure. I just wanted to I just wanted to put more um I guess emphasis behind it that it's it's not a core infrastructure like it's it is it should be treated like every other uh critical municipal infrastructure that we have. So that's was just the point of that just beefing it up. And then the accessibility point is standard I think. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Olsson please on the amendment. Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. I just I just wanted I had a question really for staff. Okay. Go ahead please.

Um it's my understanding that much of this work is already underway. Um, so I was just wondering if there was anything in outlined in this in councelor Day's motion that is not currently being explored. Um, and I just wanted to ask if the 30-day timeline that is being recommended in this motion is realistic one. Um, because it is quite an extensive motion. So, I just wanted to get your feedback on that if I could. Thank you, Sandra. Please. Thanks for asking. Yes, much of it is underway. We've been looking at the bylaws section in particular to begin with. Uh we have received a broken links report from up and up as as you mentioned counselor day and um uh a broken page report which we're working through as we speak. Um accessibility was one of the main upgrades of the um 20 2024 um redesign. Uh so up and up assures us that it's fully um up to speed on accessibility.

Some of the other things, the contact page as you know has become an IT uh risk assessment issue. So I I believe that's still being worked on. Um one of the big challenges I think of municipal websites is the fact that most of the meeting and governance information is stored in a completely different you know um body than the municipal program information. And I think that we will be able to work with up and up to um reconcile that websites are moving at such an incredible pace right now with with AI assistance that I think we'll be able to bridge that gap as you say councelor day. So I'm hopeful that within 30 days we can report back with some real progress.

Thank you very much councelor Groo. Oh sorry Mr. Johnson I think 30 days is aspirational given our meeting calendar. Uh we have one more meeting in July and another one in August. Be more appropriate for it to come forward in August. We won't meet the 30-day timeline given that those reports already need to be in place uh by Wednesday of this week in order for them to be published uh to for the next agendas that are going out. So that 30 days, I think it's more appropriate to say the August 24th uh meeting for council with that update. Senator, you could change uh make a friendly amendment on that.

Marcy instead of 30 days just make it 24 August. So I guess my question is if we're already working on this, why are we doing the nonvalue added of writing an implementation plan? Not unless there's an implementation plan that's required here. If council wants a report to come forward, we can certainly do that within the timelines that we've outdated outlined with the 24th to make sure that it's meeting council's expectations. So So my point is you can get all this done before by the time you sit there and write an implementation plan. Correct. But if we have the 30 days in there, we're not going to meet the 30-day timeline, right? That's why I think it's appropriate to put the Just ask a question. Okay. Uh, council grow, sorry, please. Uh, thank you, mayor. I think my questions are largely answered that are parallel to councelor Olsson's questions. I guess the uh the question of cost always comes up. I was sort of saving you your breath, Mr.

Mayor, because you'd like to know what this is all uh representing. So, I'm assuming that the work's already being done in house. It's budgeted. We're all good that way. This uh rework sounds by some perspective to me like we should be throwing everything in the garbage and starting from scratch, which sounds very expensive. That's the implication I take from this rather substantial motion. So, I'm looking forward to this report that here and um I think maybe if I have more questions, they'll come then. So, um, good luck because I'm looking forward to it. So, okay. There's no question there. Thanks, Council Ward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just wondering if you could scroll back up to the amended component at the beginning. Um, I'm just looking to better understand the change from what was originally there. I felt that councelor Day's wording to treat the website as core governance infrastructure, it's implied as core, that that's critical. Um, so I I just the wording councelor Jordison kind of threw me that maintained with the same standard of accuracy, timelines, and

accountability expected of other critical municipal infrastructure. But I wonder like other critical municipal infrastructure includes things like water manes and things and I just just feel that this is maybe taking it to a place that gets a little too granular. I understand the you know where you're going with it, but I I just felt it was covered by the initial wording. That's that's my take because I think that if you're to go on the literal side of it, you're saying that that anything critical in in municipal infrastructure, those timelines would be relevant to to website updates and I just don't think that's realistic to be honest. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councelor Jordison.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to um with regard to um councelor Grove's um discussion about the cost um will there be more cost to this? We will have to speak to our web development team about some of the aspects in particular if we're going to bridge what is currently in the meeting manager component with the searchability of our website itself. There may be uh costs there that we haven't yet identified. So, we'll have to report back on that piece. I I just want to caution. Well, I just want to say maybe that we should look back at the $60,000 that was budgeted previously for this and there maybe should have been a postmortem after that to see if the work had been done or if it had been done properly because I almost feel like that's when things got worse. So, I don't know. Um, we could spend money, but we should really make sure it was spent well. So just a caution. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Um or counc Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I was trying to put it all in the motion and do less talking, but uh I I did clarify and confirm that we do have a contract already still in place with Up and Up. So, a lot of the issues that we've identified with the website are being worked on, I would assume, through our contractor. I understand there may be some limitations uh between the portal and the main uh space, but currently it is nearly impossible to find a bylaw, for example, um on our website. uh because I've been trying to find one for a few days and uh and not not having much luck. Um and then when I think about that, I think that I've been here for a long time. I should know how to find a bylaw on our website by now. I did used to know. I just can't find it anymore. So, um, when I see that, it makes me think that if I'm having difficulties, and I've heard others

report that they've also had difficulties and members of the public are also having difficulties, and some of them are very experienced searchers of websites. Uh, so I think it's important um that we address the fact uh it should be easy to use our website. We're we're trying to make it easy to use. I know that staff are trying. I do not want my motion to appear critical of staff. I'm not. It's a hard thing to do. I'm just trying to fix it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh seeing no other discussion, I will call the question on the amendment. Uh all those in favor of the amendment.

All those opposed them. everybody. Okay. Okay. Back to the uh to the uh original motion, not un amended. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Council Ward. To be clear, the original motion though does have the date amended to the August date, not the 30 days. Is that correct? Yes, you're right. I just want to make sure that that's in the original motion. Yeah. Okay. We'll we'll change that. Well, well, just to be safe, how about I propose we change that date as a motion? Second. Okay. [laughter] Amendment to the motion. Okay. So, see no other question uh to the original motion. Uh any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll move on.

Thank you very much, Councelor Dave, for bringing this up and thanks to the uh Ro Homeowners Association. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we shall move on to 6.2. Uh, Council Ward, would you like to motivate, please? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'm not going to read the the whole motion. I mean, certainly we could put it up on screen for the benefit of the public, but it's it's very lengthy and that was deliberate. It was intended to provide a wide variety of options and not limit staff in in reviewing it. Although um I'll give the basic overview of it. Um what I'm looking to propose are investigation of speed control measures for Kelly Road. Uh specifically what is today a playground zone. Um this really just stems from uh a lot of community concern about speeding through that area or perceived speeding through that area and lack of enforcement and other perceptions. Um so currently Kelly Road contains a designated playground zone.

There's a lot of pedestrian activity because of the park there. Um, and a lot of concerns have been raised. People brought that to me and I said, "Okay, let's let's bring it forward to to staff." I know it exists already on the transportation and infrastructure committee agenda. Um, but I wanted to provide some specific options. I think we see a lot of reactionary approach in callwood has been speed humps. Wherever we we run into this, we eventually start doing that on streets. And I specifically referenced in here the active bump or active dynamic speed control system. And it's, you know, potentially something that may not make sense, but I think unless we explore it, we don't know. Um, and this is a concave roadway depression that uh that is activated when when people are speeding. So those that are following the law are not impacted. They drive over it without impact. It doesn't impact emergency vehicles, but if you are speeding, this will activate and your car will take a little hit as you go through it. So that's something specifically I wanted to take a look at.

In addition to that, the potential for raised crosswalks, enhanced signage, any of these other items. Um, and again, really the the motion itself was in response to to community safety concerns there. Um, in terms of the ultimate outcome, I wanted to leave that to staff. I will also be proposing an amendment to my own motion. Um, you can wait till initial questions happen or I'll do that now. Either way, I've forwarded it over to the corporate officer, but um I will want to introduce that. It's a missing piece that was not in my first draft. We could just Well, I'll propose it now. Then yeah, I consider me your your your motion. So, let's just send it over to Yeah, it's it's just to further that and I'll explain it while we're seeing it.

I'm asking to also add in there the feasibility of just looking at Kelly Road in general to say is a playground zone appropriate? And this is a broader question that's going to come up in transportation planning in Cwood is that this whole community has evolved as kind of a bedroom community uh with schools built along roads that at one point were quiet, sleepy little streets like Mosen Road and Sangster is a great example. Kelly Road and Herm Williams Park is another where, you know, by default some of our our main areas for the community to gather or where children gather and things are now on roads that we clearly define as arterials and are used as such. Um, Kelly Road is probably one of, if not the main connector between Cwood and Langford and shopping areas over there, even to BMP, probably more so than BMP when you think how Cwood residents connect back and forth. So, I I just came back from a road trip with

my day job, we'll call it, in Ontario and going through many communities there from Toronto all the way down to Windsor and Sarnia. Anyone's ever done that trip? It's a lot of driving. But I went through a lot of towns where they have schools, they have playgrounds, they have other community areas that are adjacent to large highways, busy roads, busy connectors, arterials, and they've recognized that that you you cannot simply lower to to 30 or 40 everywhere. they have found ways to to simply change the access points or you know install fencing and do things. And so Herm Williams Park is an area where perhaps you look at and say what if the primary access point was off the side street and you know we installed you know safer fencing and gates along Kelly Road and then allowed that to just function as an arterial. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. This is not something I'm pushing for, but I wanted to put that in there as well, just so that staff could uh could also provide their feedback and and you know, potentially take it out to

the community and look at it. So, I guess what I'm looking for here is um is staff to to find a solution that will will help address something that we all know is is a community issue and that is raised time and time again. So, whatever that looks like, you know, that's that's for staff and and council to ultimately decide. I do not have a particular thing in here beyond the active bump system which I really would like to explore. The rest of it to me is is kind of open. That's my motivation. Thank you very much. Who send it? Did we have a No, we didn't get a second. Can I get a second here so we can get it on the floor? Thank you very much. Councelor Olson and we'll go over to councelor Jordison, please.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I have a question uh through the mayor to staff. Um, I guess I should say I don't think anyone around this table would disagree that safety around playgrounds and schools is important. I mean, if there's a speeding issue on Kelly Road, then we absolutely have the responsibility to address it. But I I I'm concerned about um process and timing. So, uh, before council directs, um, staff to undertake this study, can staff advise whether increased RCMP traffic enforcement has already been requested at this location, what speed or collision data is available, and whether these concerns are already intended to be addressed through the transportation master plan.

Um, speed, I'm not sure about. Um, I don't believe we've got a traffic counter on there, but one of the things we can do to kind of start this process and get some data is to get the traffic counter out there to get some speeds and volume there. Um, certainly the RCMP u most recently, probably over the last year or so have been really good about when we highlight an area that we have concerns, they're happy to go out and take a look at it. Obviously, every time we add another one to the list, it means other ones don't get to it, but certainly for sure, that's always an option with regards to RCMP enforcement. They've been a a great and willing partner uh ever since council's kind of made that a mandate uh for them and they've done a great job. So, they've been really helpful that way. Um sorry and the last question was was um if these um these concerns are already intended to be addressed through the TMP.

Um certainly Kelly road all the arterials and collectors will come up during that conversation piece um and as council board has said it it has been highlighted um on the infrastructure and traffic committee so in the ATMP committee. So um we are looking at the solution with regards to the crosswalk in particular um there but certainly with regards to the area we can do that as part of that as well. Okay. Yeah. My concern is just that um this is definitely going to have budget implications and I don't want to slow down the getting the work done on the TMP. So thank you. Thank you through the chair. Um, I think you just answered one of my questions, but uh I just wanted to know if there had been any safety upgrades already considered for this area in front of the park. So, you did reference uh improved sidewalk there. Um, and if there were any other considerations being made currently and if we had any safety data um on this specific stretch of Kelly Road.

We have had an ICBC collision um done in 2025 as part of our uh vision zero program that council had already got staff to do. I'm not familiar with the stats on Kelly Road particularly tonight, but I can certainly look at that. Um the sidewalk area that was done recently, we did kind of narrow up the road with some of the buffer bike lanes and so on. So, that's helped a little bit. Um what we're looking at specifically now is the pedestrian crossing. um as part of the uh committee work um but we are actively looking at solutions. We've brought a consultant on to take a look at many of the projects to just to kind of give us a first idea with regards to solutions for the various projects that we have. So we haven't had that meeting yet because the meeting committee meeting was just a few weeks ago. So that's coming up to give us our initial blanch. But I mean obviously with the work that's suggested here, we go a lot deeper and in more detail and we'd probably wait on the

pedestrian crossing solution uh as it either may not be needed depending on the solution we come up with or it may be the preferred solution when we're done. But either way, the solutions will come back to council for consideration. Thank you. I have a follow-up question. Um I would be interested in seeing any RCMP data for that specific area. I'm sure we've probably seen it in the reports that we receive, but I can't recall off the top of my head. But I'm just wondering in areas like that on Kelly where it is a busy uh arterial road, collector road going through a you know a park. Um, do we [clears throat] receive like calls from I would imagine the community calls when there's incidents, you know, if somebody gets near struck by a vehicle or, you know, those types of safety um, issues do come up. And I'm just wondering if we keep track of that internally at the city for complaints such as that because I don't think I've

ever um, been privy to any of that specific information um, outside of what we get from RCMP reports. I wonder if we get if we could see reports of calls coming in uh complaints for you know things such as that if you follow me John. Yeah we do get calls. I'm not familiar with Kelly specifically with regards to a problematic area. So I would say that it's probably not high in the list because generally speaking staff will come to me when we get to an area where it's constantly being hit with regards when we have a monthly meeting. We talk about areas of concern. I mean, we're currently running about a thousand calls a year with regards to concerns, whether it's traffic or sewers or trees or whatever it is through. Um, so I haven't seen it as anything high. Most of our data actually comes from ICBC.

[clears throat] Um, and that's a collision piece. RCMP might give us some data with regards to near misses and so on. Again, we reach out to them and ask for that, but there's not a formal place to actually do near misses. It's unfortunate that most of it is actually due to an actual accident that we get the data. Um and and I I think to my knowledge we haven't heard an overabundance of it. We have had several calls that's how it got to the committee in the first place that we have had concerns for Kelly over the years for sure. Yeah, I would be interested in seeing categorized complaints that come through the city specifically as they relate to public safety things like like that. So maybe that's something for another day.

Thank you. Okay. Nice. Thank you. Uh so I am very familiar with issues having been raised with the uh the slidewalk, but um there were a number of issues uh related. There's a bit of a conflict zone between the bus stop that's right in front of uh the playground and the accessible parking um uh which um sometimes wasn't as visible as maybe was necessary for people to realize it was supposed to be for people who have the accessibility placard. Uh however um it's more the winter months uh in that area where there have been more concerns raised and it was specifically with regard to lighting of the crosswalk area. Um, and there hasn't been a big change to the lighting. Uh, because I believe the only lighting along Kelly Road is actually um the gooseeneck things that are attached to the hydro poles. And it used to be turned so that it was lighting up the park to prevent vandalism late at night.

and then we turned it back so that it is now over top of the street to help to illum illuminate the crosswalk. Um it is a speeding zone. I have uh seen um many people pulled over by the RCMP at different times over the years. Uh it's one of those areas that can sneak up on people and they're, you know, trying to hurry up and get to wherever they're going and they forget uh or disregard because of the fencing, etc. that is in place around Her Williams Park. They're not anticipating that it's too likely that they'll run into a pedestrian or a kid running out with a ball or the kinds of things you associate with a playground. But Koba Creek Park is very highly utilized by daycarees and child care providers who especially value that park in the hot summer months because they don't have to worry as much about um heat excess heat or uh sun protection for their little charges. Um, and I do

think that uh some consideration um should especially be given to uh enhancing the signage. Um, I've lately seen quite a few fastm moving minivans that I imagine are moms hurrying here or there or or dads hurrying here or there. um and uh it concerns me uh with some of the speeds that I have witnessed myself uh through the area. So enhanced signage especially is important to me. I worry about um it's very intriguing and I'm very much appreciating council ward bringing forward the active bump idea. uh never heard of one or seen one. Uh but uh new um ideas are always uh I think welcome especially when it comes to trying to deal with speeding issues because uh even an expensive fancy something or other uh is going to be cheaper than having the RCMP car parked there all the time. Uh so uh I'm I'm supportive of staff looking at what they might be able to bring forward for that area.

Uh council roof please. Uh thank you mayor. Um there were two locations. One in front of the bakery over here Royal Bay when I owned it and spent my days looking out those windows and the other was on Kelly Road where the Kowanas speedwatch program was set up. Are they still active in Cowwood? Do you know? I have not dealt with Kana speedwatch in my time here. Um, they were uh a van would show up and a couple of individuals get out, set up a speed sign under like an A-frame type affair and they had a speed uh gun and they would detect uh that you would see how fast you were traveling. There was a then um I got caught once in 96 when I first moved here.

Okay. And I was greatly relieved to find out it wasn't an official [clears throat] ticket and they recommended a $20 donation which I promptly sent off uh which went to their program. I don't know if it's still operating and working in conjunction with the RCMP and I believe they reported the re speed results to municipal but maybe they're not operating anymore. Uh my best knowledge is they are but I haven't seen them for a while anyway. Might be something they were there a lot like frequently I would say. Yeah, there was a program with the RCMP, the citizens on patrol. Yeah. And it was um at times what they did was it's pretty effective is that they they put them up in a speed zone. People would slow down for that and then they would speed up thinking they were clear and the RCMP would be 100 meters down the road and get them.

They did that sort of sinster a few times. So there has been a programs but there was some kind of I'm not sure what what concluded or delayed the the program because I haven't seen it for quite some time. Um, but I can reach out to the RCMP and see if that's available. Yeah, the Quantis Speedwatch was the name of that program. Thank you. I just have a quick question here. Um, and maybe councelor Day, you can straighten me out on this. I I I just started watching the uh uh infrastructure transportation committee and you guys were going through a number of streets. You had this big long list.

Uh I I didn't catch it all. I'm sorry, but I I will finish watching it. But you guys were looking at where you can put crosswalks. I think that's what it was. Lighted crosswalks or that was a priority. You were talking about the top 10 and then I I thought I thought this was on there. I isn't it on my It is for the pedestrian crossing. Oh, okay. Yeah. But, you know, with with this motion, if it gets passed tonight, then we'll just add that as part of the solution. For instance, my first thought when it came forward to the committee was a raised pedestrian crosswalk, right? So, it acts as a speed hump as well as slowing people down.

This is a lot bigger. So we we miss part of this conversation. Ideas that council waters brought I've never heard of them before and I actually had to Google them so I understood what they were but good ideas though. They're really kind of innovative. I think maybe that's the way we should be looking at what we should be. I don't know the cost of anything or anything but that's why I'm very supportive of this actually. Uh councelor Day over to you. Thank you. So, unless there's been a change, uh, any citizen group can, uh, contact the RCMP and they have a speedboard and a a speed camera. Maybe it isn't a camera anymore that you point. I think the board might do it itself now.

Date myself, but uh, they do sign it out to community groups. So, I think we should follow up on that and make that as a suggestion that engineering could offer to residents who contact us about an area of concern. And uh I I think that's a a really proactive thing. Uh last time that I was speaking to the then RCMP inspector, he did say it was still available and they just need uh a a group to come sign out the their equipment and they will allow you to use it. And the last thing I forgot to mention um Machosen Road uh is crosses the road there and then becomes 80 road after it crosses over Kelly at that point. So that is a very important uh bike network link for residents who might be traveling by bicycle and come up and chosen road. You can avoid the very fastm moving traffic on VMP and instead be on the small back roads and bring you up to if you're going to the Langford direction say to visit the

business community or whatever. Uh it's an important link and and one that both of my uh boys used when they were working in Langford and traveling from South Colwood on their bicycles after high school. So it is an important link and there's an easy crossing and it's relatively level and makes sense uh to ensure that they are protected when they cross the road there. Thank you very much, Council Ward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh through the chair, I just uh thank Mr. Rosenberg for raising the raised crosswalks, so to speak. Um, you'll note that I've included that in the motion, and I did that deliberately, raised crosswalks and enhanced signage and things like that, because those are already in some of the staff materials that have come before the the committee as as councelor Day alluded to as well. So, um, again, the reason being that my goal here wasn't to limit staff from looking at something or or prevent work that's already being done from continuing. Frankly, my my

focus really was, and Mr. Mayor, you hit on it was on the innovative piece. It really was around exploring um these dynamic speed control systems and the active bump and and when I say exploring, it might be a simple conversation. It might be a phone call and two emails and Mr. Rosenberg comes back and says, "Councelor Ward is off his rocker. This is insanely priced. We can't afford it." Um but I do know that it's it's migrated internationally, you know, through different jurisdictions. It started in Scandinavia. Um you know, it's it's being used in Australia. It's it's all over the place. And um and I like the idea of only penalizing the people that are not being personally accountable for their driving habits. So instead of placing obstacles in the road for everybody to navigate, you have an obstacle in the road that only impacts those who should know better, quite frankly. So I like the idea. That's why I I've brought this forward. um my focus was really around the exploration of

that with the all-encompassing um inclusion of everything else so that we didn't limit anything. Super. Thank you. Uh seeing no other discussion, I will call the question on the motion. Um all those in favor opposed councelor Jordison. Okay. And at this point in time, I will call a health recess right now and we'll see you back in 5 minutes at 8:05. All right.

take her out of recess and we'll get restarted and uh we're on to uh 6.3. Uh and I will hand that one over to council ward to motivate please. Thank you. You don't have to read the whole recommendation. Oh, sorry about the not your Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so this motion comes about again from um community input and I know this council received one email uh from a resident with a photograph attached of the traffic circle in their neighborhood. And um I met with some individuals, went out and looked at a couple and I looked at other examples that were out there as well.

And the reality is um in the the last I don't know if we can even put a time frame on it but we've had discussions around this previously um that where we have these traffic circles or culde-sac islands we they're very unckempt. They're they're not being maintained by the city quite frankly. And we also approached um we we put out a discussion or had a discussion with uh our our manager of parks and put it out to the community to have neighborhoods kind of adopt some of these traffic circles. And so um councelor Jordison and I were just discussing that. But I think I'm I'm going to seek a report back from staff on how effective that has been or not because we certainly see some issues around it. Um so I'll do that in a moment. Um, secondly though, the the goal of this motion to be honest isn't because I want to see everything bricked in or or um filled in with concrete.

That's not it at all. Um, in in fact in the motion here it says um hardscaped or lowmaintenance design standards. And so what I'm looking to find out from the city is okay, let's be honest. Can we or can we not maintain what we have? Do we have the wrong plantings? Um, and so what I'm looking at is, okay, where we have irrigation in place, for example, would it make sense to apply, you know, a meter of brick around the outside that is is kind of attractive looking? And in the inside we we replace some of the plantings that are there now with more durable um you know kind of slower growing um just more easily maintained um species like varieties that that are maybe native plants but things that aren't going to grow quickly. I mean I made the mistake once I'm a neopight gardener. I planted a whole bunch of mint in a herb garden and if anyone ever knows what happens there it just

explodes. So you know this is what I'm talking about. It's not get rid of the herb garden. It's it's find the right ingredients in the herb garden so that it it can be attractive and uh and work with relatively low maintenance. Um there is a great example at um of all places um Calwood Corners. There's a a traffic circle when you enter in there. Um and they have a the circle that is partially bricked in with multiolor bricks which look quite attractive. And then there is the the garden section in the middle which looks very nice because it's it's presented in in such a nice way. And so I guess what I'm looking for here on this is is first of all to answer those questions. How successful or not has this neighborhood adoption program been? What has prevented the city from managing these traffic circles, particularly in recent months?

And um you know, what can we do moving forward to ensure that the the residents that are bringing forth these complaints can have their concerns addressed on a long-term basis, not just on an intern basis. So through the chair to staff, I'd ask those questions. Thanks very much. John, do you want to take that one on? I can take on some of it, but I do have our manager uh Gourd with parks here, so he can uh update you with regards to the program and then talk to you a little bit about uh issues with regards to priorities. Go ahead, Cord. Can you hear me?

Absolutely. Perfect. Um yeah, so the um the adopt a uh a culde-sac program was something that staff brought forward through a service review um a couple of service reviews ago. Um we did have a a fairly robust uh robust um uh feedback from from uh uh residents. Uh there were quite a few. Uh but it was also uh in doing so we were hoping for more of a you know a grassroots uh allowing people to look after their um uh their culde-sacs with uh support from from staff. Uh it ended up being very labor intensive uh administratively and and and with the the coordination end of it. Um, so we backed away from that program because what we did have was our new volunteer program starting up with um with Angie, our new hire. Um, and and so what we thought was we would back away from that now because there was there was quite a bit. It was it was not um viable to do that off the side of the desk. So, uh, as our new volunteer

program is now maturing and we've had, you know, three brand new stewardship groups, um, this was a program that we were going to look at again. Um, because we do have there's there there were quite a few people that were interested, uh, in in doing this program, but there was just a lot of coordination involved in that. Uh, so this is a this is a program that we would um that we'd want to do again. Um, as far as the the maintenance of culde-sacs, uh, predates uh, my time here, but there's there was never really, um, from when I first started with the city many years ago. There was never really any formal plan for culde-sacs and we were able to do culde-sacs on a limited basis. Um but as you know core services with brand new um uh boulevards and plantings and as the city grew culde-sacs uh kind of came, you know, we just we started doing them. We would do them once a year. We would clean them up um and and twice if we could. And that's that again has um

I think I might have uh that again has uh uh fall fallen by uh this year as we're behind in just our core services to be able to to get to the culde-sacs and um so the so pursuing um a stewardship program would be something that we would definitely do again uh through the through the new volunteer co volunteer program. Thank you. Uh, councelor Day, please. Thank you. I was just uh trying to think back to how long ago we looked at this last. I think it was around 2011 or 2012 that I recall us looking at it last. And uh uh I think that hardscaping um has its place, but uh it's it's not something that I would like to be the rule. It it it there's uh not very many places where hardcaping is going to really provide much benefit other than not having to maintain it.

And I'd rather have some birds and some bugs and uh a scraggly looking culde-sac than no birds and no bugs. Um because the scraggly looking culde-sac can always look better a few years from now. But no birds and no bugs is no birds and no bugs. Uh and I think that's really important to Callwood. Uh that's been my experience when we've looked at these issues in the past. We've we've tried to be fair with what people are asking for, but when it comes to culde-sacs, they're primarily enjoyed by the people that live next to them. And it really should be an extension of the way you look after your boulevards, which is largely left to residents to look after your spaces. And hopefully some wonderful volunteers might show up to help you if it's, you know, gotten into a bad shape and and you really need a little extra muscle to get yourself over the over the hill as it were um with the blackberries or the broom or whatever is taking over.

So, uh I I can't support the motion the way that it's written for a couple of reasons. My first reason, not that I don't appreciate it coming forward to talk about because it's a concern in the community and we should talk about it, but my issue is that it me makes work for staff when we're already having trouble getting to everything. And uh because anytime somebody just volunteers and makes something better um and other people agree to help make it better with them um that's a positive thing happening in our community and I don't think anybody is going to get in the way of it but you can't really mandate it.

uh is one of those roll up your sleeve situations and I don't think that any of the hardscaping solutions really work long term. I've seen um let's see the astroturf growing weeds anyways. I've seen uh the rocks that are planted in cement to look like kind of a rock wall laying on the ground get weeds growing up all around through cracks that eventually make their their way into happening. So, I just think that yes, if you don't like the way your culdeac looks, um get together with some neighbors and and have a let's fix the culde-sac uh party one weekend and and uh make it better. There are places where the city needs to do it like on Whale Road for safety reasons. There's busy traffic on both sides of you. I don't want to send any of our residents out there to do that. We need to set up the signs and make a day of it. Maybe we could have some volunteers if they wanted to help public works when it comes to something like that. But um I

think for the culdeacs themselves were fairly safe in leaving that in the hands of the residents who live there. Thank you. We didn't we didn't have a second on you yet, did we? W I I'll second it just to so we can continue the discussion on it. Councelor Jordison, please. Thank you, Mayor. Um I have a few questions through the merit of staff but um first I just want to think say I think that um that's why service review is so important because in the service review for the for 2026 it's stated under the 2025 priorities um that under the boulevard maintenance policy that it was implemented um I can't even find that policy about the boulevard maintenance or the the plan or the program that was set up. Um, and honestly, if it was unsuccessful, I would have rather have heard that at budget time than just saying it was implemented because it doesn't appear to have been successful. So, um, I think rather than asking whether we should replace landscaping with heartscape, I

think we first need to kind of uh figure out what kind of street streetscape we want college to have. I think that's important first to figure that out. Um, but rather than investigating how to remove landscaping, maybe the question is to investigate how we can lower maintenance through better landscaping and and just do it better. Uh, regarding, you know, the costs and and the budget for the for to the city, to the residents, and just to, you know, um I think there's a choice. There's a lot of choices out there. So, I'm I can't support this motion just to go right to hardscaping. And I think like some of the direction around culde-sacs is where I would see larger trees go and not hardscaping. And so, I just I just have trouble supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, council Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll be brief. Uh, hardcaping, I just don't like the word to be honest. I I don't think it's reflective of of the community here in Cwood. Um but I can appreciate the sentiment behind the motion. Um and and I think that I could get on side with looking at hardcaping um for art, you know, along arterial roads where it makes sense um for lowmaintenance plantings and stuff. But as far as culde-sacs, I just I really struggle with with removing kind of that that green aspect of the community. Um my question is really for staff like the the capacity to be able to fulfill this um you know it it just seems like there would be quite a bit of work involved in in um with this motion. So I was just wondering if you could enlighten me. Thank you.

Thank you. Um thankfully the person that's going to write this report is not the person that's cutting the grass. So, um, from a staff perspective, we can, you know, certainly look at this between myself and Gordon and a couple of the supervisors to get a handle on it. And, you know, what we're really fortunate to have is Brian, our our, um, GIS guy, is phenomenal. He can put together, if I give him an idea what council's looking for with regards to calls and boulevards and all of that, that'll be back to me within a day. He's so good at what he does. And it's it's really something that I know back a while ago council supported that initiative and and it helps us do these types of things when we're asked to look at different areas.

So picking up the areas be pretty easy coming back and discussing alternatives with regards to areas and and I would agree if if we're going to look at the hardcaping or super low maintenance areas. I love the idea of arterial medians being our first objective. Um, I like the idea of a volunteer program within the culde-sac. And quite frankly, I mean, if we're going to do maintenance and and not do maintenance, we're going to do the not maintenance in the low profile areas, the low volume traffic areas, those areas where 10 or 12 people are driving by the road on a a weekly basis. uh it makes sense if we're if we're not able to get to them to not get to those as opposed to cars that are going down thousands of of cars a day going down and and putting a you know an issue with regards to neighborhoods and so on where there's high volume traffic.

We definitely want to keep the you know the city looking as nice as we can in those higher noticeable areas. So they do tend to be the ones that fall off when we start getting busy and you know we get droughts and so on. So yeah that that can happen. Thank you John. So, I think I mean this motion isn't committing us to hardcaping by any means. So, I think that if we can get the information in a timely manner and it's not costly um and costing a lot of staff time to produce it, then it's really just giving us options for us to explore. So, I think I can support this.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I will end this. Oh, no. I see councelor Wood. I'll go for the first time. I'm um I'm totally supportive of this and I'll tell you why. Um, if you do look at our service level review, we said maintain that's our decision. We made that decision. I don't think we knew what the hell that meant to tell you the truth. Uh, but I can tell you one thing. Um, this is the worst year we've ever had. Now, there are mitigating circumstances. I think you guys can guess what one of the reasons are. I won't have to say that out loud here, but there was a mitigating circumstance here. So, it it it became an issue. But I can tell you myself, and I I'm pretty strong about this right now. I'm pretty adamant on this. I uh I came close to hitting our own freaking people on uh soup road.

They didn't realize that their foot was over, you know, over the grass and they were trying to do their job leaning and pulling weeds. And I went, "Holy mackel." Now, that happened a few years ago. Since then, we've put that safety cone things around, right? But I still think it's it's still a problem because, you know, we got this thing called a traffic problem here in in Cwood and we take our our major arterial road and we one lane it because I've got stuck back at the I was telling uh I was telling John today about this where I got stuck at the at the private school coming down the hill. I was going, "What the heck?" And I thought it was they had one lane where that building was going up because they were doing that before, but no, it was actually uh it was our guys and they pyloned off one they were working on where the community school is that whole thing there and they had it pyloned off and it was it was just holding up all the traffic. It was not good. So, it's dangerous still. inherently they have to

stop, you know, um stop traffic and then put the combs out and I don't feel good about that. I mean, I am bonafideely worried about our our our our public works people and I I don't like it. It just doesn't it gives me the willies to tell you the truth. So just along those main corridors is yeah, that should be our top priority right now and we should be hardcaping that like I'm not even gonna or something better than that. We have a you know it's funny this um young lady who who lives in Royal Bay and her father owns the uh biggest nursery in in the world and uh she's actually Turkish but she is Canadian now. She lives here and she actually offered to come and help us with this. Like she goes, "Oh, I can tell you you could do way better.

you could you can put different types of flora down and just improve your whole area with less maintenance, less water. And she volunteered her time, but we just thought we can do it better and ignored her. But, uh, I I will give staff her her card because she is still interested in helping us. She's actually doing a lot of the work for um for Beachlands now. That's how good she really is. So, uh, I I [clears throat] still think, uh, just from a I'm more of a safety kind of guy and I kept on thinking, well, maybe hardcaping is the way to get around all these problems and just forget about it. But, as councelor Dave said, you know, I did see some hardcaping even in your old haunts there in H Royal, they get pretty bad after when the seeds get in into the cracks, right? And they get pretty ugly looking.

So, but I I I would I would probably almost insist on on from a safety point of view, um, Sou Road is only going to get busier. And I I think personally, and I just don't like seeing our to see our our people risking their lives for for vanity, like keep it on whale because that's nice. The speed limits are lower. Well, there's as low as as as Souk Road, but no one on Souk Road does 50. If anyone tells me they do, I'm going to say Bo Pucky because that's not that's not true. They don't. So, from a safety point of view, strictly for our employees and you know, when you start reading it across Canada, how many people get killed doing maintenance in the middle of a a major arterial road or highway? It's unnecessary. you know, for the vanity of a city.

That's how I feel about this. Looks great. We'll keep it on whale. There's certain areas and we will and I'm not even going to protest around uh around our streets in in Callwood, but we we can do better. I still think we can do better with this. So, I like the whole idea of this because it it's going to make us take a pause, take a look at this because I like I said, I I similarly to uh councelor Olson, I don't see anything that's obligating us to do this. It's just you're looking at that, but you're also the nice thing is that we're going to get an inventory because I have no I just learned every every day I get another complaint. I go, "Oh, I didn't know that was there either." You go and drive up it and you're looking go, "Oh my god, there's one there, too."

just in the middle of nowhere just arbitrary throughout Calwood. I know where the ones here are in in in Royal Bay. In fact, uh if you want to look at uh Royal Bay or beachlands, uh I guess you guys are driving driving the bus there because I noticed all the culde-sac uh little roundabouts are all hardscaped. They're stamped. That can't be that can't be achieve. But uh they look good though. I mean, they look really awesome. So anyways, I am supportive of this uh motion just just from the fact that we're going to have so much more information and valuable information to me to make future decisions. So that's why I'm going to support it. Uh council ward for the second time.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll try to be brief. You know, I think the title of the um of the motion is is a little, you know, inspiring fear, I think, in the sense that hardcaping does sound a little harsh. I get it. Um, and I said at the outset, that really isn't my objective, but I think the reason I put this forward, much like the the proceeding motion was based on on resident feedback and the fact that we know there's a problem, we can't keep hiding our heads in the sandal. and and councelor Day alluded to it being brought up in, you know, 2011 2012 was the last time. In fact, I I think the last time it was raised was early in the first year of our term, this this term here in 2022, because the discussion came up that Royal Bay in particular was posing a challenge for the parks department because of much of the the sort of greenery that was well-intentioned, but they were struggling to maintain it. And so you saw this subtle move or or not so subtle

move that you just mentioned about beachlands but also happened in Ltoria south where all of the traffic islands and culde-sac islands and things are are either fully hardscaped or very close to it. There was no specific policy around that but there was direction from the city with a sort of partnership arm-arm partnership with the developer that this would be an easier way to go from a a cost maintenance standpoint. So it's happening anyway. So, we need to get out in front of it and establish like definitive policy on it. And I think the when you go through this, there's a lot of words, but the all the whereas parts in the motion, I don't know if it would help to see it, they just simply describe the current situation. Um, the actual actions from this and and Mr.

Mayor, you hit on it. The core piece is to to create an inventory of citymaintained traffic circles and culde-sac central islands. We don't know what we don't know. So, let's get an inventory of what all of those are. Um, understand what the current maintenance requirements are and the costs that come with those. And those could that that also I was going to consider an amendment to add a bullet point seven around community adoption programs, but I believe that um it's already incorporated in there when we look at Sorry, can we go down again? Just right there. Right there. Um, and bullet point two, um, when we talk about current maintenance requirements, associated costs, and known challenges, that generically can include the false start on community adoption programs already.

Let's do a bit of a postmortem on why didn't it work? What were the challenges? Are there other ways we can move forward? Are there community partners we could we could explore working with on on this kind of thing? We've seen a real uptick in um in groups, you know, like we have P Cwood come forward, obviously a different scenario, but we have um Friends of Cwood Parks, like there's there's certainly people in the community that that might be interested in supporting the parks department on this. And um if we can identify a map of all of these places and then understand that of these 40% could be serviced by the neighborhood, the remaining 60% have no interest in doing that, then we know where our our efforts need to be located. Um the other things like the lifestyle cost comparison um you know that that's let's let's get a sense of what it's going to cost and in there we can also include things um you know as Mr. Rosenberg already mentioned some of the other options, but we can look at

sunken biosails. We can look at, you know, lowmaintenance drought tolerant plantings. So, do we just change what's there? I like the idea in certain places. Now, it doesn't work everywhere, but in a culde-sac, it does where, you know, you have partial concrete or brick work and you've got irrigation and so you can put one single tree that eventually will become a central point in that culde-sac providing shade over that circle. So there are things that we can do that don't take us away from what Cowwood is or should be. But we have to be realistic about what's happening. Otherwise, we're going to default to a scenario right now when we have a new development like Royal Bay or Beach Lines. Heartscaping is already happening. I didn't put a motion board to do that, right? So we we can't keep our our heads in sand like ostriches. We got to get in front of it if we want to do something different because maybe we could have, right? Maybe with beach lands, we could have said there should be a tree on every island. That might have been our policy. Maybe in Ltoria South we would have said hey instead of

concrete everywhere. Um how about some lowmaintenance um droughtresistant plants that really won't require a lot of work but that ship has sailed. So while the hardcaping term I think like I said there's a bit of fear factor I think it's really about information gathering and understanding what our needs are and and I hope and I leave this for staff to determine that what we're asking for here isn't a significant lift. That was my thought when I put this together. Thank you. Thank you very much, Coach Jordison. Thank you, mayor. Um, further, I just I guess I just want to understand whether this discussion belongs within our broader budget and service review process or as part of a comprehensive boulevard and um like as a sorry, as part of a comprehensive boulevard and streetcape policy, including safety, rather than focusing on one particular design solution. Like I just why are we I I guess I'm saying why are we going to uh look at this now? It's really part of the the budget and service review I

would think and that is my question. Is that where it belongs? Okay, council ward I've just responded through the chair councelor Jordison. I think the reason I brought it forward is that people are tired of waiting and and not just on this subject, but this council term is four years long and and some of these issues have come forward time and time again. Like I said, this first came up in 2022. It's just the reality is if you're a resident and you're unhappy with what's happening. I mean the commentary we had and one of the letters was shared with all the council was that you know I pay taxes and you know these folks clearly weren't interested in in being part of a voluntary program to to deal with their traffic circle but they felt that the city should deal with it and the picture they submitted showed you know the plants collapsing all over the road and and it really was a mess and and I think we owe it to constituents to to bring you know when

they're brought to us in a in a professional way with a genuine concern expressed We have to look at it. Does it mean we'll necessarily take action? No. But there there's many of these issues that I think people it is their central issue. We we can diminish it here. But every time we say well we need to put it into some other plan, push it off, you know, a month, three months, six months, a year. The perception is then well they don't care and then people stop bringing things forward and that's the worst case scenario. So even if we do nothing about it, at least we're talking about it. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Uh seeing no more any other discussion I will call the question. All those in favor and opposed councelor D and councelor Jordison motion carries. Okay 6.4 over to you Mr. Johnson. Thank you Mr. Mayor members of council. This is the adoption of records management policy and records management scanning policy. Heather Power, our deputy corporate officer, is here to answer any questions that council may have regarding this. Essentially, what it is is a housekeeping amendment uh to uh outline our records and being uh digital records as opposed to hard hard records and hard copies. And you can see the um quantum of that in the report which uh shows the number of records that we have to keep uh in hard copy. Uh many many many hundreds of boxes of uh corporate files that we need to keep.

this would uh help reduce that administrative burden in keeping hard records. Thank you very much. I I just have one simple quick question for you. So, do we have to take this thing through legal review at all? No, that it's not required. Okay. Thank you very much. And over to you, Councelor D. Thank you. Um, I'm not sure what we still have and what we don't have because I can't find anything on our website [laughter] anymore, but how long are we keeping records for? For example, reports that have been written on the city issue. Um, pretty much every record has its own retention schedule. Um, some of them are seven years like bylaws we keep for forever and ever agendas and we keep forever and ever. Um, so there are certain things but we go through the LGMA which is the local government manage management association has a retention schedule that Cwood follows as do all the rest of the municipalities in the province. Yeah.

Okay. So I have written reports that went on agendas. Would those still be available? Correct. Yes. If you reach out to city hall those are um accessible um on our city website. Might not have since the beginning of time. Um but [clears throat] yes, we do keep those agendas and reports for forever. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other discussion, call question. All those all those in favor. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. We'll move on 6.5 from Williams Parks Management Plan Project initiation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. of council. The recommendation is that council receive this report on the Herm Williams Park management plan project initiation for information. This outlines the scope and responsibilities of staff and Miss Bosworth is here to answer any questions that council may have.

It's pretty straightforward. Uh any questions? Uh council seeing none. Can I get a a motion? We we don't do we have a motion to receive. Okay, we don't we just received, right? Okay, we'll move six then please. Same thing. Same uh with the outlook park management plan project initiation. Uh considering that the agenda was received as was received by council previously and this is for information. Okay, questions. Councelor D. Thank you. uh this park along with uh most of the other parks in in Royal Bay uh were things that I worked on uh and uh were created during my time as the chair of parks in R for Cwood. Uh so I just wanted to check in um with regards to this area. It was an area identified prior to the development of the Royal Bay subdivision and uh saved in spite of a lot of blasting and things etc. It is still being maintained as a natural park going forward. I do understand that um but accessibility has always been a challenge and that is mentioned u in the summary. Uh so I just

wanted to highlight that that it's really important for people who have mobility challenges to be able to get out into nature and be able to enjoy areas where you can observe. Um this particular park is one where there is both a good long vision view. You could actually see Mount Baker from the Outlook Park area. Uh but it's also a place where you can observe uh birds and other uh animals in the area and be a little bit outside of nature without actually having gone maybe all that far. So I just wanted to put a word in for um retaining as much of a natural environment within this park as possible.

Thank you very much for your comments cons. They're good. Thank you. Okay. Uh we have received and we will move on to my favorite subject Sophie 6.7. Thank you Mr. Mayor members of council. This is the statement of financial information or Sophie. The recommendation is that the 2025 statement of financial information be approved and that the mayor, the director of finance, and the manager of finance be authorized to sign the approval of the 2025 statement of financial information. And there's a statutory requirement that this be done before the end of the month. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Councelor Jordan, questions. Yeah, I just have a question. Um, at the April 1st, uh, budget meeting or I guess, yeah, budget meeting, um, CEO Johnson mentioned that the budget framework and planning for next year's budget will be coming back to council in July. Where are things at with this?

Thank you for the question. Um I might be missing the connection to the Sophie but the budget process um we were hoping to start in July. Um I actually had a meeting with um administration today to talk about u methods that we might want to start getting information from the public because we have not had a lot of public input into our budget process. So we are starting those talks and we are starting um the budget process. However, we have not uh formally uh we would be bringing that to council first for consideration before we did anything like that. But did I miss sort of the connection? I apologize if I did, counselor. No, just that it was in July.

So, I guess um with along with this motion that we're or recommendation, I guess it's just for information, but I just maybe I'd like to make a motion that we that council direct staff to return to the August 24th council meeting with a proposed 2027 service review and detailed budget. I I'm going to make suggestion we'll just do a notice of motion at the end here. U because this is about Sophie right now. I I I agree with you. It's It's good what you're saying, but we'll just Sure. We'll just do We'll put it as [clears throat] a notice. Just remind me before and it I'll just ask for a notice of motion. Okay. And I'll send it to you.

Can I get a a motion, please? Just to uh to approve the Sophie, please. Thank you. Councelor Day and Councelor Olsson. Any further discussion on Sophie itself? Seeing none. I all the question. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Thank you very much. and uh 6.8 Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. This report has been received by council. Uh this is the annual development cost charge report which is a statutory requirement similar as the Sophie uh to ensure that the dcc report is coming forward for council's consideration. Questions? Thank you. Uh councelor Dean and councelor Jordison. Thank you. Did did you want to provide your uh I was very curious about this because when when looking at development cost charges? Uh I tried to uh keep my eye on the ball if you will on how we how well we follow through with what we told the public to expect when developments come forward. And uh when I was reviewing this uh some of it jumped out at me as um uh not what we had uh approved and I got a really good answer.

So I would just like to ask staff to give us their uh reasoning behind why the numbers in this report don't exactly match the numbers that we made the recommendation for. Thank you Kathy. Thank you for the question or the clarification. Um, as timing would um, have it, the financial plan, the 2026 to 2030 financial plan was approved at the same meeting as this Karendale project, BCC project was brought forward to council for a decision on the three options were presented actually in terms of how to proceed with design a low cost, a medium cost and a higher cost. So the ultimately council did approve a lowcost option based on estimates that were provided in that report. However, no budget amendment has been approved to date and those costs were high level estimates and we will be um engineering will be tendering that project this summer hopefully in August. Also, if council will remember that report, that project is complicated. There's also a grant application currently in progress that we're waiting to hear back on and

that result will also be known in the summer, hopefully in July. So, all of that information will inform the budget amendment. So the budget we actually report quite um detailed on our dcc reporting that it's quite over the top to be fair in terms of what we provide because we are trying to be transparent. Sometimes that aim misses the mark a little bit when stuff is happening. The timing does influence how that information is perceived. So appreciated the opportunity to clarify and explain why that number looks a little bit higher. In reality, um, we do hope that it comes in lower when that final budget numbers are submitted with the tenders.

That's a great question, councelor D. So, great answer. So, ba basically for any public who's listening and might be confused by this, there's the higher number is included in our potential spend from our development cost charge piggy bank. Uh, and because the project isn't yet tendered or completed, we don't know if there are any cost overruns or how it will all actually shake out. So, in the end, the number will be revised when all of our budget numbers are revised together and we have the final figures confirmed. Perfect. Uh, Councelor Jord, please. Thank you. I just had a quick question about um when we were reviewing things previously that was mentioned that the sewer DCC is really outdated and that um that maybe we should also consider looking at additional DCC's like storm water infrastructure, RCMP or fire. And I'm I'm just wondering where if that's uh a priority like where that fits in the priorities I guess going forward.

Thank you for the question. This is really um a multid-disciplinary question and a very complicated scenario, right? When we start talking about our stack, it doesn't change the fact that the sewer DCC bylaw needs um attention regardless of whether we'd look at new DCC's or not. I would have to um I'm not as familiar with what when we're talking about that DCC. I think it's coming up though, right? Sewer currently. Currently, [clears throat] the work program has the road dcc uh being implemented in 2027 and the sewer DC is likely going to go in 2028. Both are massive endeavors with regards to timing, but uh the roads one is the one that we're going to see the most movement on uh over the next couple of years. So, it's the one we've made the imperative driver on the dcc allocation. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. And that was just for information purposes again. So we just received. Thank you very much. And we'll move on to bylaws section seven. Marcy want to start us off? Thank you Ra. So uh the first one we have is sewer local area service enlargement amendment bylaws going for first, second and third reading. uh the Cowwood main sewer local area service and this is for LA enlargement of 3391 Fulton Road and as well we have Cwood West local uh area service establishment bylaw for the LSA enlargement for 3391 Folton Road Council Grove Council Ward discussion seeing none uh call the question any opposed see none motion carries next It's co land use bylaw number 151989 amendment number 220. This is for CD43 3145 Mosen Road bylaw number 2054 2025 and this is for adoption.

Okay. Thank you. Move and second please. Well I I I'm going to get the motion on the table and then you can speak to it. Is it a question or is it a comment? It is. Okay, you can ask a question. Absolutely. So my [clears throat] concern with this uh application is that the development uh is utilizing the lot in such a way as uh it may be the sideyard setback that is impacting Machosen Road. And um we've had a lot of discussion. We're only at the majosen road corridor study stage. Uh but we have talked about potentially needing uh 30 meters uh of right away for Machosen Road uh between uh Souk Road and Wishart Road on Machosen Road and I'm concerned that the setbacks may potentially interfere with the future needs of that transportation corridor. So my question is are the building footprints including stairs or any entrances going to be within um a 35 meter road right of way stuff.

Thank you for the question. So um as part of the original staff recommendation that included the conditions that would be registered within the development agreement. It included the requirement to register road dedication to achieve a 25 meter rightway. So they have dedicated that as that was a requirement prior to adoption and so setbacks would be measured to the new property line when considering the road dedication. Um this is a resoning application so they have not submitted a development permit application which is when we would assess the setbacks. So, uh when you assess the setbacks for the building footprint, uh will you consider the possibility that we may need 30 m of rightway? Uh because that is what the TMP was discussing the last time we talked about it. Um from Souk Road to Wishart Road.

And what I'm concerned about is jumping ahead a few years from now and needing that corridor and finding that we're up against a a hard um limitation where there's no possibility of acquiring that land at a later date. Um it at this time our tools are limited. Um we cannot ask for something that we don't know whether we're going to need it or not from a development point of view. So I can't think of a tool that we could use. We're currently using the tool that we have um our subdivision servicing by that would require it to be 25 meters. Uh that's what we used at that time. Um, and we haven't got anything that we've adopted with regards to the next steps. I can say that in my first initial looks at M chosen, it's not looking like we would need 30 mters, but at this time we would have to ask from that side of the street an additional 2 and a half meters if we wanted to go that way.

And and is that estimate considering 30 years from now what the needs of our community might be? A full buildup. So it would be to 2070 2075. Okay. Thank you. Thank you councelor Jordison. Question. Thank you mayor. Um I'd like to be labor that point a bit. Um I think this is about consistency in planning and um I realize that the local government act I think it is that says uh the bylaw provides 25 or it's the bylaw that provides a 25 meter road right ofway. Um, but I I really think doing it now, this is a negotiation at that at this point, and I think doing it now is better than um potentially having to expropriate land or build a road right up to a house because it's so close um it's like 5 meters. So, I just think it's consist consistency in planning and um that this land uh use bylaw may be limiting this and future council's ability to improve our transportation network along with this corridor. This

is um this is a frequent transit route as well. So, I'm I'm just concerned. Um but I also had a a building and height motion amendment um as well. I just I guess I just wanted to point out sorry I have to find my notes the development agreement covenant um it's been registered on title prior to council's consideration um for final adoption but it's not been attached to and I know this is a new process but I guess what I'm saying is you've heard what we've said and that sort of thing but we have no way to ensure that that what that says because it's not attached to the agenda like the um the development agreement covenant or so it's just here like it just says development agreement covenant was registered on and what date but we don't actually know what it says so it's hard for us just to approve this but I'm just saying maybe going forward we could just append them yeah sorry

go ahead yeah thank you um so for when um bylaw amendments receive third reading um We do provide the wording that would go into the development agreement as part of the staff recommendation. So that was included in the agenda from November 10th, 2025. Um so the applicant's uh lawyer will submit the draft covenant to staff and we will compare the wording in that covenant with what was adopted by council. And so that is the wording that goes within the development agreements. Okay. And um further sorry Mari the next part was the the motion amendment was just to separate the the height and the number of stories because potentially we could end up with a 11 or a 12 meter building. I mean like just the way it's I've just never seen it like I don't typically see it like that. I see it separating them as two different things. I don't know. Yeah, thank you. So, I would say um our land use bylaw I mean we have 44 comprehensive development zones and I would say the way in which we regulate height is not necessarily consistent.

Sometimes we will require height in meters, sometimes stories, sometimes it's both. Um we have separate definitions for height and stories. So I would say when we regulate it by um 11 m or three stories, we're just providing flexibility in building design. Um this particular property is located within our neighborhood designation, which is generally flatter lots. So I would say um for those properties there's less of a deviation between height in meters and height in stories compared to properties that are within our hillside developments which might have a higher height in meters when they meet the height in stories. Um certainly if council wants to make that amendment, we certainly can resend third reading and um redo third reading as amended and adopted. Um I will say for this one, they have not submitted a development permit, but if we're requiring them to meet 11 meter height, it might require a variance.

I just think or has a definition and when it says or it just doesn't meet what the intention is in in my view. So that's a motion that I'm putting forward and if anybody wants to support it or not. Thank you. What is it currently? But do do you I I guess can you just quickly tell me what it is? The proposed height in the bylaw, it's 11 meters or three stories. So the amendment is and so they would have to comply with both height requirements. When it says or that suggests they just need to comply with one. So it would typically be three stories, but technically they could be higher than 11 m.

I see. Thank you. I just count. Go ahead. Clarification. Thank you. So, uh, three stories. Uh, would that mean that it could not be more than 11 m? So, I'm just proposed amendment would suggest that it has to be 11 m and three stories. And and so if the amendment did not carry uh currently, would that mean that the building could be 11 m tall and two stories or 11 m tall and three stories or would it mean it could be 12 m tall? It typically would be the lesser of. So I would say it could be three stories and 12 m tall. Uh, so that that's the that's 11. So it could be taller than 11 meters.

Yes. Currently the way it's written. The way it is currently written because it says or Okay. Then I will be supporting the amendment. Mr. Johnson, please. Well, this is not helpful for this application. This is precisely the reason that council is asking for development permits to be associated with the resoning application so that there's shity uh wi with that uh this allows more flexibility and the way that we previously did business versus you will see what that design guideline will look like with the form and character and you will have shity moving forward. Okay. Uh any other well any other questions? Uh so that's your motion right now. Um councelor Jordison second councelor day. Uh any other discussion on this?

Okay. Uh see I'm going to get let council work have one turn then I'll come back to you councelor D. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, I'm comfortable with the change potentially, but I think it, you know, we are at the 11th hour on this and that we've done third reading. Um, and I'm always cognizant that there's other parties that are involved and and obviously aren't represented here this evening because they probably assumed this was failed and it would just be rubber stamped and moved on. So, I wonder if um if there's some consultation required between staff and the applicant um you know around this.

Yeah, I'm just I'm trying to be devil's advocate. I think if I'm on their side, I would see this as a fundamental shift from from what I'm looking to do. They may well have architectural designs that are three stories with high ceilings on the master bedroom that bring it up to 11.7 meters or 12 or something. So, um I I just question if we should be so draconian as to impose it now or to send it back um you know as a proposal even through the um the planning and land use committee to you know somehow to engage the the applicant to give them a fair shot at they may well just say hey this is not an issue for me but I think we've we've gone a long way and we've had ample opportunity to raise a hand then you know I I feel it might be perceived as as less than honorable to to do it at this stage but that's just my personal perception on it.

Thank you very much Dr. D. Thank you. I just wanted to ask the CAO after his comment. Um I was thinking that um this would be under our old system, not under our new system where we would uh have more requirements uh for for when we got to the development permit stage. Yeah. Moving forward, you will see the building plans that will be associated with it because the development permit would be approved the same night that the resoning would be adopted so that there' be shy about the height, the number of stories, and how all that fits together. This is under the old system whereby essentially we're zoning and then we're not sure when the development will actually happen.

um the developer themselves from what I understand had a higher um had a higher height for the minimum building side. So if this is something that council is considering I'd suggest that you defer and allow staff the opportunity to have that conversation because that conversation has not been had with the developer. Okay. I I I'm uh concerned uh about the heights given that it's in the midst of an existing neighborhood and I'm concerned uh that we have a process change happening that makes us a little less sure of what we're doing. Um I think it's for the better. Uh it just left me wondering um you know how accountable uh anyone is going to be after this choice.

I guess my question is sorry before I go to you I'll just quickly get a comment here. Sorry. Sorry. I just wanted to provide clarification that this development permit would come forward to council for approval. So you would have an opportunity to review the application at that point. Just a clarification. So that's the new rule. That's under the new rule, right? Yeah. Regardless, I think that this should always be they're two different things. And you can see when the or is in there how it can be used to the benefit of the developer. And I think that with these being within neighborhoods that we have to be cognizant of that. So I actually think that this should be the standard going forward that we should always be separating these things to get the right meaning. Um I don't know if that should say that. I mean like even the next u one on the um agenda I'm sure it had it too. I So if that's Yeah. I just think that we need to make this the standard because

of what could happen. Um that's all I wanted to say. Thanks. Um Council Ward, I I completely understand the the logic behind it and I think it makes sense. Again, for me, the concern is just moving the goalpost midstream. Um, I can see having it be definitive that it's one or the other, but this particular applicant was working under this. So, um, I I can't support the amendment, not because I don't support it in principle, just because I think, uh, it it to me is to 11th hour. I think I would like to see us look at this um as councelor Jordison said as a as sort of binding across um you know change the definition across all applications but I think that has to happen maybe after um some review here. So I I'm going to vote no and then I'm going to seek to uh defer following the outcome of that if it's not successful. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Uh any other discussion? Yeah, I I I I agree with what you're trying to get at right now, but this is what you know as a business background. If you did this to me, I'd be I'd be pretty angry about this. You can't change you can't ch keep changing the goal line on this. You know, we got some other issues like this coming up in front of us right now, but it's not a good place to do business. You know, if we we we do this. I understand. I I know where we're going with this right now and I like it because we got a lot more control. But right now it is what it is and that the people bought the land had the proposal based on what they knew what the rules of at the time are. We are changing the rules right now though. So I don't know if I should just sort of sort of say you know um you know we we got to grandfather some of these things. I don't know. That's that's how I feel because it's just I'm

trying to understand both sides of it right now. I I guess that's where I'm having problems with this. I you know it's a good rule. Um so I'm not uh criticizing what you're trying to do with this council jurors and by any means I think there should be maximums. It shouldn't be either or you know but if if in good conscience the developer developed this because of of our old rules or existing rules right now then it is what it is. So I'm having don't know I'm having a lot of problems supporting this right now. I'd like to see it uh in future like this is a good thing but uh I'm having a lot of problems myself. Anyways uh councelor day. Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to refer this back to staff so that they can speak to the developer and know so we could have some shorty moving forward. There's still time. There's one more council meeting. It shouldn't delay it overly. Uh can I get a second on that referral? No. Motion to amend is always in order. Yeah, it is. So, it's amendment. It's a motion to refer, right? Okay. That's why seconder on the referral. Thank you, councelor Olson. And uh discussion on the on the referral. Councelor Jordison. I I like that. But I just wanted to like there's other ones on there's another one coming up and the you know the next um bylaw for Fulton Road that I think would have that in it as well. So I'm just wondering how we can make this encapsulate everything.

Uh we deal with it one at a time right now. That's how I want to deal with this. Okay. Uh, can I I'll call the question on this. All those in favor of referral. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. Okay. Next one, please. 7.3. Uh, it is callwood land use bylaw number 151, 1989, amendment 231, HA1 for 3415 Fulton Road. And this is for adoption and confirmation that the development agreement covenant registration has been confirmed. Questions? Councelor D. Thank you. Uh Tamari, could you uh let us know is the condition also uh present in this application? Thank you. So, the height in the hillside attached housing zone is regulated um a maximum building height of three stories or 12.5 m. So, as I mentioned previously, this property is located within the neighborhood hillside designation. So it is expected because of the grades that the heights will be higher than in on a flat lot which is why there's a deviation between the 11 m and the 12 1/2 m. Now this is one of our

template zones. So we have also reszoned 546 Winthrop which we have an active development permit application and so if there were any changes to the HA1 zone that would impact that application that we currently have. So I'm um not proposing an amendment to the zone but to the specific application. Is that not possible? Um, we could add in the zone um that we're going to regulate height with three stories and 12 1/2 mters for a specific property. Um, I would say that is not necessarily our intent of the use of the template zones though, but we can certainly do that. Um I guess I I'm trying to reconcile the intent of a template zone. We have a lot of zones in Cwood. Most of them were developed based on sight specific uh applications.

So, uh I think um I'm familiar with the heights being uh problematic in areas where there is a large differential between one side of the property and the other such as on Triangle Mountain and uh it has been a cause for concern between property owners in the past. Uh so I would like to see us be clearer with what we're proposing as applications come forward. Uh so I would prefer to see and rather than uh or uh in in our statements that this is the height that they're allowed to be and this is the number of stories that they're allowed to be rather than or um because that that uh can be uh particularly difficult in areas where the height measurement is particularly effective. ed by Greeks.

[clears throat] Again, this is another one of these cases. You're caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. Again, it's we've just changed the rules of the game at the 11th hour. It It's It's not fair, mate. That's how I see things in life. And I I think this is wrong. Wrong. And I'm I'm actually becoming more perturbed about this because we've had so many opportunities. I'm not saying your ideas are bad. So don't get me wrong, but why at the 11th hour? I don't know how much people have spent on doing this. I don't know. I don't know where they are. And for us to sit here and make that judgment, I it's another one of these ones right now where I don't feel comfortable unless I do understand the impact to to the proponent. So you sure can coun uh so it depends on what your time frame is.

Yeah. I invested 40 years ago in this community and I've had something completely different than what I anticipated my outcome being proposed in my neighborhood. So, I'm just saying that that the sword cuts both ways that both the existing residents are impacted by many recent changes and the developers are affected with us trying to find ways to make it more easily understood and more uh better understood in advance of a buil building being put up. Councelor Jordis and then councelor Olson. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say I think without the gentle infill strategy information and protection for legacy neighborhoods that this is maybe fair if you will uh in the interm because I don't know I've just if you look at other um municipals governments they do not uh they don't do the or it's usually one for each line. So, um I I just don't understand why we did it this way. And I think that um residents might feel that it was done in favor of develop

developers. Um maybe there's a way to leave these ones and move on for the the next ones that we are cognizant of this. I'm not sure. Thanks. Thank you very much, Councelor Bolson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think with respect to 7.3 the topography and the landscape like really makes it challenging. So um I would be inclined to just support this uh for adoption because the nature of the landscape um it's really irrelevant this conversation I think to this specific item on the agenda. Thank you. Y council war. Yeah, I'd echo what councelor Olsson said and you know I'd remind everybody at the table that this came before a planning and land use committee which you know is is also comprised of residents and then it came before council and then we moved it forward and I I understand the argument. Um and I think as a on a go forward basis I'm open to to looking at that. I think there is some some benefit to to that

and it should as councelor Jordison said probably be a component of gentle infill strategy um to have clearly defined definition so there is no vagueness or ambiguity but in this particular case I agree with what you said Mr. Mayor, it's it's moving the goalpost. Um, you know, yes, resident concerns are are valid and we've had ample opportunity to hear them and address them and, you know, now we're in a place where where people may have significant money invested and we're talking two or three feet of of roof height potentially, um, realistically. U and, and it perhaps Mari or through the chair to Mari, a question on this one. Will this also then come before council uh, similar to the last one or no?

Yes, it will it will have to um have council approval for the development permit. So, and I think we we seem to have glossed over that that in both these these circumstances both in 7.3 and 7 or sorry 7.3 and 7.2 um we'll have the opportunity to look at it yet again and I think if something extraneous came forward that really stood out that imposed uh you know something on the neighborhood that none of us foresaw we'll have opportunity to speak to it. So I think we've got a mechanism to address these unique ones that fall between um and then it behooves us to to try and look at whether or not we want to add additional uh measures moving forward. So I will just going to support what's the staff recommendation today because of that. Thanks. We we need to Oh Mari, sorry please.

Thank you. I just thought I would add one more point that this is a resoning application. So as part of resoning applications, our job is to review the application against the OCP. So for um Machosen, it's within the neighborhood designation. Um that designation supports buildings up to three stories. So that is sort of the measure that we look at. It does not identify height in meters and so that is up to us to develop what an appropriate height in meters would be for that property but ensuring that it still complies with the OCP. So I just thought I would add that comment and if I can just comment as well the development permit is for the form and character right and that form and character does look at the height and what it does to adjacent neighbors. So council will have the opportunity to debate that at that design stage when it comes forward. What council has given us direction on is to require resonings with DP so that there is shortity about the height the density not the density

the form and character of what's being proposed and all that does encompass the number of stories as well as height within the designation and whether or not council finds that appropriate as well as uh neighbors having an opportunity to comment. Okay, great. I think there's also something else. I mean that the DPS still have to be developed and you can be influencing that right now. You know how we feel about this right now. So uh C uh I guess I got to get the motion on the floor. Thank you councelor War Councel Olen. Any other discussion on this? Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor and opposed. Councelor George, councelor D.

Okay. Next 7.4. Uh we have off streetet parking regulations bylaw number 1903 uh or sorry 1909-3O for adoption. Okay. Um mover and second. Mr. Mayor, can I just add a quick interjection? Um, council will all also have seen that we sent a letter to the ministry today. Um, just for council's information, the deadline was June 30th, but council did ask for some amendments. So, we did let the province know that those further amendments will be coming uh at our next meeting uh so that we can consider that and we just give gave the province the heads up. This is part of the measures for Schmoo, but the entirety of Shoo is coming back based on what council's direction was at the uh at a previous meeting. Okay.

Thank you very much. Move and second please. Council Olson, Council Ward. Discussion see none. Call question. Uh all those in favor post. Councelor Day. Councelor George. Okay. Uh next one 7.5. Sorry. Public not public notice bylaw number 2117 2026. And this is for adoption. Okay. Questions? straight forward. I move it and second councelor Grove and councelor Olsen. Discussion call the question. Um all those in favor? Any opposed? Good. Okay. Uh motion arising then please go ahead. I'm just changing business here. We're going to be more efficient here. I can probably help based on what the previous conversation was. The previous conversation was that staff bring forward a report at the August 24th meeting about the budget schedule.

Right. Okay. Go ahead. That sounded funny. Sorry. It's just that um that staff um I mean I couldn't say it the way I wrote it, but just that um that's that uh council direct staff to return to the August 24th, 2026 council meeting with a proposed 2027 service review and budget development framework process. You put it up as soon as you got it done. Okay, perfect. Okay, second, please. D council Ward discussion. It's pretty straightforward. Oh, yeah. That's that's true. [laughter] Although I it's a notice of motion. Okay. It will be put on to the agenda for the next week's meeting. Thank you. Okay. And on that note, there being no further business, I will adjourn the meeting.

Thank you very much everyone for attending. No fireworks.