Transcript: Regular Council - Sep 08 2026

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call our September 8th regular council meeting to order and acknowledge we are meeting in the traditional territories of Luangan Sincot and Okamin speaking First Nations with whom we are committed to building stronger working relationships. Tonight's meeting is being livereamed and recorded, enhancing transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and efficiency. Members of the public can watch live or view the recording later through our meeting portal under the Tonight's agenda page or on the District of Highlands YouTube channel. Information and links to access the meeting were provided on tonight's agenda. And this is kind of a special meeting because it's the last meeting of our four-year term. And I'm going to take this opportunity because to thank council and staff for all their contributions and uh members of the public for helping us along and uh it was really uh been a great time fun working with everyone.

[clears throat] All right. So, uh members of the public of course are welcome to share their comments during petitions and delegations uh either in person or electronically. to speak at the meeting and receive Zoom information. The public was asked to request to speak through the meeting portal. If there is anyone who hasn't registered but wishes to speak, the time now is to raise your hand. And uh okay, with those additions, I look for approval of the agenda. Second. Right. All those in favor opposed and not opposed. That carries. I'd like to invite our first registered speaker, Scott Richardson. Please uh come up to the mic and push on that button.

Good evening. Um my purpose in taking up few minutes of your time this evening is to focus on you. Um all of you have [snorts] served multiple previous terms. Many of you may continue to offer your services in the future. Bravo. [snorts] But this is to take a moment to acknowledge some of your contributions over just these last four years. Um [snorts] I don't need to tell you um but the numbers themselves are very overwhelming to me. To begin with, council, special counsel and CO meetings, over these past four years, [snorts] you have spent at least couldn't get a precise number, 110 meetings like this one politely listening to residences, residents, discussing and debating, usually politely as well. uh voting and deciding on issues of import to our community.

[sighs] Sometimes the issues were ones which divided the community, resident against resident, even business against business. As someone born with the affliction of being able to see both sides of every story, I can't imagine how painful being in your seats must be. having to cast a potentially deciding vote in an emotionally fraught debate. I therefore honor the act of putting yourselves in that sort of firing line [snorts] over 25 times per year. That said, I hope it didn't feel like a firing line too often. Um [sighs and gasps] but that work in those councils and committees and special meetings um were often dealing with less than routine issues.

Um, some of the highlights included dealing with the inflationary effect of the cost to replace assets [sighs] resulting in a need to double the reserves requirements. It's not easy. An organizational capacity and strategic review. a secondary suites bylaw, an increasingly um interventionist provincial government and respective multi-unit housing, a zerocarbon energy step code, [sighs] amendments to the maximum size of buildings, and a favorite of mine, of course, slap finalization and incorporation into the OCP. And parenthetically, uh, I would note that while the jury is maybe out somewhat on implementation, I have seen how you have collectively leaned towards finding implementation outcomes that are true to the spirit of Schlle.

Uh a bit of a digression here which I'm think you will permit me. Um before leaving the work of all these council meetings, I know that none of you would want an acknowledgement of your work to overlook the work of the staff from whom so much support, advice, research and writing. Not to mention minute taking, agenda writing, and uh even in fact often midmeating emergency guidance that goes into each and every one of those meetings. So, here's to the staff uh that contribute so much to making council look good. Whoops. I think I meant to edit those last few words out of my remarks. [snorts] All right, back to the numbers.

There are still district committees as well as regional committees, commissions, task forces, and boards. So beyond the roughly 11 time 10 times you met as a council there are all these other entities requiring representation from district elected uh people as well. In fact, a quick back of the envelope estimate arrives at roughly a further 200 meetings per year at least in which the district is represented by one of you attending and participating in regional decision-m over four years. That's roughly another 800 freaking meetings. um or about 115 each. It is worth noting that out of all of those regional bo bodies, two of them has one of you as chair and another two has one of our own as vice chair.

So, are we carrying our own weight in a region of 460,000? Well, not only are the Highlands doing that, but with an population of approximately 1/ half of 1%, we are hitting way beyond our weight. I tell you uh in more detail about how many hours I would estimate you have each invested, but I'm cognizant that some of you may have filed nomination papers and I wouldn't want to give you the opportunity to um reconsider. So I'll leave the hour calculation out of it, but it is on average roughly um 225 meetings over just this recent most recent 4-year period. That's massive. Um so at the end what's it all a native of well I think it's our autonomy to self-govern to exist apart from view royal sanage or heaven help us langford that this is that that this is in in aid of that and of course having the privilege of having Highlanders decide Highlands issues.

[sighs] and your ability to participate regionally so effectively over these last four years and more means no one has the right to earmark us for future amalgamation. Surely after the battle of the 80s and early 90s, we all remain united, both newcomers and longtimers together on our desire to be an autonomous self-governing district where decisions for Highlanders are made by Highlanders and the Highlands values are so well represented in the region as a whole. In summary, I think we owe our autonomy to those brave souls that step forward every election cycle to serve. In this case, to the seven of you. Thank you for your service.

Thank you. So, which would like Courtney? Would you like to go first or you can go together? Um, thank you for your time. First of all, uh my husband and I sent in letters starting about 8 months ago to the district, but we haven't really reached much of a conclusion. Um and so I was actually very surprised upon contacting all of you how quickly this has made its way to meeting. So I really appreciate it. Yeah. Um everything was outlined in my letter. I didn't really prepare anything to speak here, but if you want me to, I can just kind of summarize it quickly. Sure.

Okay. So we live on Caleb Pike. uh just a property down from the Caleb Pike trail head. Um during the summer season when the main parking lot is open, everything's wonderful. We have no complaints. Uh but in the offseason, BC Parks closes the large parking lot and so our entire road of Caleb Pike becomes a parking lot on both sides. Several several cars on every warm day. Um probably like an upwards of 30 to 40 cars. Yeah, it extends all the way down to the next road, Highlands Park Terrace usually and sometimes beyond. So, we've just had issues like people blocking our driveway, loose dogs, lots of garbage.

We do mostly pick it up, but it's like dog bags and things like that left behind because it's treated like the parking lot. So, our goal is just to have BC Parks open the parking lot year round because it is an open park and people do deserve to have a place to park. We're not trying to deter visitors, but we really just want the parking lot accessible. Yeah, it's arguably significantly more busy over the winter, it seems, from what we've noticed. And it's just if the park's open, why should the parking lot not be taken care of and been open? Yeah. So, they did um tell us to contact our district and then they also told us to contact another Yes. a separate uh company that they have that deals with it, but they sent us right back to BC Parks. So, so it's just been kind of a runaround and here we are.

Yeah. We're just getting generic. All we have is like an info at BC Parks and they don't actually do anything. They just say, "Oh, your message has been passed along." So, we're really struggling here. So, we're just hoping for the district support and contacting somebody. Yeah, thank you very much for that. Um, and your item of course is later on the agenda and if we have questions, you're ready to do that. Thank you, uh, Courtney and Charlie. Right. Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, Crow. Yeah, thanks for coming and I I hope we'll come to some conclusion to help you out. And I can't let Scott's uh uh Scott's presentation go by without immense I mean you must spend hours on that yourself. So [laughter] I appreciate it, Scott. Thank you so much. It's so rare that uh council gets anything like that other than criticism.

So I appreciate your appreciation with a a great deal. [laughter] All right. Uh I'll move on then to uh adopt a minute. All those in favor opposed and none opposed. That carries. Reports of committees and commissions. Councelor Bar. Thank you. I'll wait to Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I've been holding this uh tight uh this knowledge tight under my hat for quite some time. Um the council will know that the CRD regional water supply has been dealing with a very uh I'm going to say a very big program, the development cost charge program. And uh back earlier this summer in July, we received statutory approval from the BC Inspector Municipalities. And um it wasn't until the agenda was published today that I can say that uh the province has approved it and uh our mayor and the rest of the CRD board will hopefully be approving it tomorrow sometime. So that's a huge huge win for the CRD and um yeah has been pretty exciting. Thank you. Thank you.

And uh also when uh Carl was registered has a an item on there. anything to add to that because I think it's a nice story. I bet you on here. Uh yeah, I think it speaks for itself. Moren has been head of the library for 16 years now. She's done an outstanding outstanding job. U she has created partnerships with the library with dozens and dozens of organizations. It's amazing what you can do at the library now and what you can what groups you can connect with. Um and uh all because she has organized it so well. So um uh I I can't say enough good about [clears throat] how how Morin Saw has led the library. Uh we look forward to Stephanie taking over this month. U I'm sure she'll do a great job and carry on the carry on the great work that Moren started. Thank you. Any other additions?

The one thing I'd like to mention is something that we put out on the newsletter and that's that the handy dart is now expanded its range in Highlands and and its service and there are numerous uh improvements in the transportation. We had a a good talk with Lisa Ren of BC Transit and I also met with the Minister Farnsworth and uh whose staff is we'll be working with our staff on making improvements to transportation and highlands which brings us to the adoption of uh late items none unfinished business and this begins with the development permit variance application. DVP0126205 Milstream Road and the planner is available if we have any questions and uh I believe this is this is has already gone through the three readings and this is to be adopted. Council councelor B.

Yeah. Thanks Mr. Mayor. I'll move the recommendation. I'll second. Discussion see I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. That brings us to 6.2. And uh this is um Duke and Drive East and West the encroachment agreements. And I'd like to invite our planner to introduce uh I'm going to recuse myself from the discussion. Uh seeing as one of the property owners is a family member or part of our family. So I will discuss. Thank you for that. And that includes me as well. Okay.

I'm going to ask our planner to introduce the item. Thank you, Mayor. Council has discussed the unopen section of public road between Buen Drive East and Buen Drive West for several years, most recently with a focus on reducing the district's liability as a first objective. The district has already closed the area to the public and installed signs. The remaining step in this first objective is to address the existing private structures that extend into the road road rightway. This report provides draft encroachment agreements for 2627 Bukin Drive East and 2770 Buen Drive West. These agreements would allow the encroach existing encroachments to remain under the existing property owners tenures. The agreements would also clarify the property owner's responsibilities and reduce the district's liability. Once the agreements are in place, council could consider future action ranging from if and how to reactivate the public space or divesting the land, the public land to potentially sell it. The draft agreements for two of the three affected properties are ready for council's consideration. The agreement for the remaining property is not included

because the owners have outstanding questions. Staff recommends that the district's authorized signitories be permitted to execute the temporary encroachment agreements with the owners of 26 27 Bukan Drive East and 2770 Buchanan Drive West substantially in the form attached as appendices 3 and four to the staff report. Thank you. Questions councelor Mercy? Well, some sad news. One of those owners passed away on Errol Kman passed away on Saturday. Um so it is likely that um Kathy will sell the property um in the next year or so. But um I I had a discussion with Laura today. Uh so I'll I'll just bring up the question. um is the the reasoning for having uh structures removed before the land is transferred. Uh can you just uh go over that through the mayor? So the the structures are on district land. So there's no way to um put a notice on title in most of the cases. Um if a structure is both on district right of way and on the land the owner's land then there would be a mechanism by which to put a notice on

title. Um for the most part though the structures exists mainly in the road right of way and so it it's to protect the district. It's these structures don't belong there. They've existed there for a long time. um back when every time the issue surfaces the first thing that always comes up is okay well why are these structures there we now know where they are where they exist in space so we can have these encroachment agreements to say sure you can keep those there while you own the property before you leave though you got to take the stuff down and return it back to uh district right of way yeah that makes sense thank you are right. Council Mlan, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, thanks to staff for the report. I have, um, several questions and, um, I just had another one come to mind. Um so just to clarify then is this going to be allowing you know some we had a site visit many many years ago [laughter]

and um uh you know some people had fencing in repairarian areas. Some people had livestock and repairarian areas. Are these potential draft encroachment agreements going to allow I'm sorry that type of nonsense to continue? So through the mayor, it doesn't preclude the district enforcing its bylaws at any point in time. It doesn't um okay the situation. It simply says these things exist in district road right of way. Um it it yeah so it it would the district could take bylaw action against the folks. Um but that's that would be another topic of conversation. Okay. Because I recall at the time that was a a significant concern for a number of council members who are on council at the time. I was one of them. So my other question is um in respect to the um survey cost that District of Highlands had to do, was that split in any way or did we absorb all of those costs? The district absorbed all those costs.

Okay. And another question I have is in respect to these encroachment bylaws, sorry, sorry, backing up these encroachment agreements, um, is anything filed on both of these properties land title at the land titles office in respect to, um, the agreements. So, so the agreements exist between the district and the land owners. So they cannot because the the the agreements concern chatt or items that are in the district road right away. So they can't they're not on the folks's property. So they can't be attached to a title. Okay. Um, so was this was this the best approach to take or might it had been better if both the property owners were willing to uh go into restricted covenants on title? Would that have been a an approach or no?

No, that's not that wouldn't have been an option. Okay. Thanks. Um, thank you. I'll move the recommendation discussion. Seeing no further discussion, I shall call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries on to seven correspondence. And this is about the Oh, we got to bring our members back in. Sorry.

We're we're beginning the correspondence item seven and this is about the Caleb Pike parking and Courtney and Charlie are here to answer questions if need be. And uh so um I'm going to ask Councelor Mlan to start. Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so thanks for bringing this to our attention. I do drive up there frequently and have a look around. I'm always on patrol, people. And um and I do know people who are volunteers at the at that end of the road that lock um the gates up and open them up. I don't know if they're still doing that, but that's what they had a some kind of agreement with BC Parks. Um so from my perspective and my read of this actually what I'm thinking um council may wish to consider doing the logical thing to me would be to [sighs and gasps] write to BC parks and inquire why are they keeping the uh lower parking area locked for six months of the year is my understanding um spring and winter

what's what's their rationale and um you know reiterate to them that this is impacting um our residents because people are parking on the road and um that that's what I think we should that should be our first step especially if um residents who are trying to rectify this are are potentially getting the the runaround by the powers that be people I know used to know worked for BC parks would be retired by now so no point in pursuing that but anyway so I just wanted to express that and um and so [snorts] how long ago how long ago did this start this 6 months locking the lower um parking level uh we've only lived here a year but our neighbors told us that it's been going on for many Especially since co I believe that it's been getting progressively busier as the Langford population is growing and so many people are using the trail head them locking it for six months.

Okay. Well, I thank you for that. That's all I have for at this point, but I'm I may I will make a motion that um that uh District of Highland staff be directed to communicate formally with BC Parks to inquire um uh I don't know quite how to word this, what the parking restrictions or why are there parking restrictions? for the six-month period uh to Galant Todd Park uh parking lot, the lower level, and we we'd be interested in hearing back from them um as it's causing some problems in the community for for a while. Steph, thank you. Um, I've actually reached out to um the Ministry of Environment and Parks. It's been a I understand the difficulty because I've spent the last week trying to get an answer from anybody um or to get a number to call. I finally did get transferred to a number, but the only option when I pressed parks takes you to the camping reservations.

I've dealt with this. Yes. So, um I have sent an email asking all of the questions that um that [clears throat] you're I think that you're trying to express. Um and I did in the email express um the difficulty trying to contact them as like that's a hu I couldn't believe I can't believe how hard it is and you can't find anything on their website anymore. Um so what I have asked them is I did express that the um all the parking concerns and the safety issues around that um and that on their website it actually says that the lower parking is open during the winter months but not the upper parking and so I so I'm not quite sure and then it doesn't say what the winter months are. It doesn't say it's November to March or it doesn't say anything. So, I've asked them to clarify that as well.

Um, and then I indicated that we'd appreciate any information regarding the operational reasons for the season seasonal closure of the upper parking lot because according to their website, the lower parking lot is open. um the dates or criteria used to determine when the upper parking lot is open and closed, whether the ministry has assessed the traffic and public safety implications associated with reduced parking capacity, and any opportunities to increase parking availability or address the parking measures experienced by visitors and the locals during the winter months. So hopefully I get a response. I can also put this in a letter as well, so it could Yeah. So it's documented.

Yeah. But also, um, [sighs] I'm just losing losing that thought there. Um, when I checked it out recently, I mean, there's it's still just the old sign saying that it's going to be locked between 9 at night and 8 in the morning. It doesn't even say that there's this closure. Did they put up a sign? No. Like, is it just somebody change the number of time when it gets to winter? But it doesn't change anything. just just somebody doing willy-nilly whatever they want. But um yeah, so some formal communication so we can you know follow up if need be. that apparently we need to find out some facts first and you know but I mean it it it will even impact the other parking lots and I I live at the pan by the panound into gallant Todd off of North Milstream Road and I look at Lone Tree Hill parking lot when I go by and I have more cars up my way that's than is in Lone Tree Hill parking lot of CRD park and for all we know we've got

people coming up from the other because that's the main entrance into Gallant Park and the main parking for Gallant Park. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Carl. Thank you and thanks for your presentation and thanks for your concerns and thank you Amanda for for delving into the the neverending BC parks foam system. Um, I agree entirely a council letter to BC Parks, but um, the other thing that occurs to me is of two staff, are there bylaws being transgressed by by people parking there? As far as I understand, there aren't any bylaws. Um, there's there's not any no park there's no parking signs. There's no no parking signs along that area. So, um there wouldn't be any ticketing involved there. If people were um parked in a no parking area, then that could happen. But, right. And and are pe to you. Are people parking off the pavement or or half on?

Okay. So, I I'm I guess one thing we could consider long term is having a no parking zone or around the houses there. That's that's something I would like to look into. Um as as looks like there's no enforcement to be done on our part, but I totally agree with the letter to BC Parks. If that was a motion, I'll second it. [laughter] Council Gord. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um and I think that there's a few people at this table who are all thinking very much the same thing. I'd sent a a motion into staff. They had one already prepared and staff has already done sort of the first section of that motion. So I my motion is kind of mute. Um but I certainly would support a letter uh to in line with what um our corporate officer has already put forward, but I did have a question to staff uh in addition. So, a second part of my emotion that I was going to bring forward was to have um a

BC parks representative and the MLA for Lanford Highlands attend the committee the whole uh if need be, but that's going to be premature, I think, because depending on what um our corporate officer has underway. I don't think that that's going to be needed. Um, and so I will potentially I may or I may not be here next term, but uh I would think that if we don't have any success, we may want to put a little bit of uh additional pressure onto uh some of the the faces that deal with this at this table in front of our community. Um, so I won't make a motion because I think that I'll leave that up to councelor Mlan and councelor Rosing for that motion to be formalized at the table.

Um, but I'm certainly supportive of it. Yeah, thanks. Uh, before we get to the motion, I was just wondering at this point if we should be c CCing the ministry staff as well to go above parks here. And this would be actually an actually if with UBCM next week it would have been a great time to meet with ministry staff to talk about such a thing. But um so I look if there's any more comments if there isn't we'll vote on the motion. Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed. That carries. Thank you. Do we think there would be value in talking to the volunteer who opens and closes the gate because they may have a contact at BC Parks? I would assume directing them as to when to open and close.

Okay. Right. Okay. Because we would also be happy to volunteer if needed. Yeah. If you could um pass the information on to me, I would appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you. Hey. The next is uh bylaws 8.1 and it's the permissive tax exemption. It's gone through three readings and uh we look for adoption. Nothing else. All those in favor council councelor Gard has a question. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um certainly in favor of the tax uh the tax exemptions that have been put forward, but um I I will support the motion that's on the table, but I still have concerns that we've moved it from 5 years to one year. Um when I think about uh one of our uh one of the applicants that is receiving the the permissive tax exemption which is why and thinking about how they have to plan multi-year ahead. What we've done, I think, is we've just made it so they can't plan multi-year ahead. And that causes me a

little bit of constrnation because our goal is to try and support these. I recognize that the intents are really to try and demonstrate to the community that we're trying to be conservative with our tax with our taxation and our costs. But I think that um in doing that we may have potentially caused some damage to the groups that we're trying to support. So I I will support the motion. Um but I am concerned about the outcome of this. All right. Question is staff. Um I'm I'm assuming that any change in the length of the exemption would be would run it back a reading or two.

Yes. Yeah. To a future meeting. I'll support the motion, too. The next council will have to uh uh extend this if they if it's their will. So, um um I think it's yeah, too late to change it, but I I'll support it. All right. So, anybody else wish to uh comment? We have a motion. Pardon? Yeah, that's what I said. Now, we're going to vote on it unless anyone else has anything to say about it. All those in favor? Opposed? None opposed? That carries. And that brings us to uh new business. And this is uh 9.1 and it's about triplesot cross fondo cycling event. And that always sounds so appetizing to me when I hear that title.

So, uh, council, I'll move the recommendation. I could Could you turn your mic on? Okay, you're on. I'll move the recommendation now. And seconded by councelor Gourd Baird. Discussion. We have Oh, yeah. We have our We have Mr. listister um par and he's uh on online to answer any questions about this council to ask anyone have any questions it looks like uh questions are are not come forthcoming it looks everyone's satisfied with the presentation so I would like to call the question all those in favor of the recommendation opposed not opposed that carries please. Thank you. You're welcome. And then 9.2 update to purchasing of goods and services policy.

And this is uh maybe staff could discuss this a little bit and look for questions. Thank you, mayor. This policy is before you to update a 2020 policy. uh m much of the content from that 2020 policy you'll see repeated here, not all of it, but much of it. Um but what this new policy proposes uh is a little bit more wholesome. There's a definition section. It it talks more about methodology and breaks it out by value and service type. It provides ethical considerations and it also has a section on vendor relations and then reviewing contracts uh if that's deemed appropriate. Part of this is about right sizing and trying to have a procurement methodology that's aligned with the type of item that we're trying to purchase and also trying to aim for more efficiency and align what we do with best practices that are happening around the province and and lining up the municipality um in keeping with other municipalities our size. And so the version you see before you as a draft is that document

that that seeks to do that. And um we uh we welcome comments and and feedback be but uh it is the document that you see before you. Thank you councelor Mlan first. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh so I have a question to staff through the chair. Um uh just so on the first page of the uh deputy chief financial officer's report uh to council, well actually it's to you. Um the last sentence in the last paragraph states purchasing limits in the draft uh updated policy have been aligned with the trade legislation to ensure compliance. And I mean that sounds logical, but I'm not really too sure what that means. So let can you kindly provide some further clarity on that sentence as I'm not sure why a trade legislation could or may impose purchasing limits on a municipality.

For some of our larger items, we would need to go to BC bid and post those on a BC bid, which is provincewide. And then vendors from perhaps um across Canada or the new west partnership trade agreement would be going and and shopping or looking there for projects and that is BC, Alberta, uh Saskatchewan and Manitoba and so those will trigger those types of procurements and so that's why that piece is included there. Um, thank you for that. But I still don't really uh grasp how that is imposing purchasing limits on a municipality. Perhaps the language in the cover report should be more aligned with the procurement method. So that would be under the public competitive process then for some of those larger items. So for example greater than 200,000.

Okay. Thank you. So I have some other questions but I will hold back. Thank you. Did you have a question? Nope. Okay. I'll get you off here. Councelor Barrett. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I had a lot of questions and staff uh gave me a lot of their time today. Thank you. Um I think one of the the main questions or the the many of the questions I had really kept coming back to the fact that we lay out the financial plan and any aberrations from the financial plan come to the table. So it's sort of built in we already have built-in safety mechanisms.

Uh, one of the questions I had for staff and and I think I'll have staff answer it, um, but I'll also probably put a motion forward is with regards to the any bids that are $75,000 that don't require um a sort of the the public tendering process. Um, is it worthwhile? Like I'm thinking if we had say $150,000 uh say a road project $150,000 but it's two phases to me uh that should be tendered but it could be broken out in two phases and skip the tendering process and I'm just wondering if it is worthy to have some sort of additional comment under the um under the ethical considerations that stops the splitting of projects in order to avoid the potential of avoiding a public tendering process.

I think that would be the cleanest place to put something like um staff who have purchasing authority will not split um transactions or purchase agreements to avoid the um exceeding applicable threshold. So language to that effect could live at 8G wonder under ethical considerations. Then I would like to make a motion that we add uh an amendment to this uh labeled 8G that staff with purchasing authority will not split transactions or purchase agreements in an effort to avoid exceeding flickable thresholds. And I I will argue for this if I may. Um, I think when we're dealing with we trust our staff, we have great staff, um, but we also have the role to ensure that there's public accountability and oversight. And so when I think about the procurement process and I think that a procurement um mustn't be divided across phases or otherwise structured in a way to avoid the tendering process because I think that um if that were potentially the case we wouldn't be offering the best uh the best services to to our

community. So I just wanted to ensure that ethical consideration lived in this document and that's hence why I brought that forward. Councelor Anderson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, I can support that amendment. I think, um, I think its value is primarily in in the message that it sends. I think the reality of attempting to audit staff behavior in a way that helps us understand whether or not that was an intent is is not super realistic. And and to to be frank, to some extent creates a risk for auditors when they come in and start nosing around as they do every year. Fair enough. It's part of the game. [laughter] But um um it's a bit of a challenge. So I do understand the the spirit of making that um amendment and it's not an egregious one to make. But I would also just remind us that staff often face significant pressure to to rightsize a procurement in order to to ensure that they can um

phase it so that we can support local businesses or do other things that are appropriate for other reasons about how the staff is trying to run and organize the way that the a project unfolds. And so there will there will be times where the right thing to do is to split a project into smaller pieces. And it's not because anybody's trying to avoid a procurement threshold. It's because it's the right way to do business. And it can be very difficult to tell those things apart. But I think as a gesture of indicating that it's just we recognize that sometimes there's a temptation to avoid a process and we ought to avoid it if that's the reasoning. That makes sense. So I can stand behind that.

Councelor Mlan, did you have another question? No, I'm waiting for the next one. Okay. I've got a question. Well, then uh no more on this amendment. I will call the question. All those in favor of the amendment opposed. None opposed. That carries. All right. Council, did you have another question now? And then council Anderson. Oh, sorry. Um my apologies. So uh page 69 looking at that or page two of the report. So the chart that staff have provided on other municipalities spending limits in BC for Vancouver Island. I note that for most of the nine examples provided only Tofino's population is close to Highland's population. There are seven others where the population is higher substantially compared to to Highlands.

And so um I also wanted to ask staff if you could go across the top of the chart and speak to those um headers like um why is there a council header there um and so forth. So across the across the chart on page 69 you know I understand CEO CFO or separately um so that is to speak to the issue in the purchasing policy on well it's my page four I don't know what it is in your package uh about the delegated purchasing authority um that is set out in the proposed or the draft policy. So uh for example um it talks to for example council will deal with items 200,000 for capital purchases budgeted operating purchases greater than 100,000 and um the CAO has uh the delegated purchasing up to that those numbers and then corporate officer deputy CFO and the fire chief have the 50 and the building official and planner have 25.

So those are the delegated purchasing authorities for the capital purchases and then under operating purchases the amount includes administrative assistance at 5,000. So for example I understand I understand those. Thanks for that but I don't understand the the council um I'm not saying I agree necessarily with those but I don't understand why council's on there. As far as I recall we don't have purchasing authority. I mean we do approval through budgets and so forth. This is when items would come back for approval. Even if it's in the financial plan, uh it would come back for so contract. So the the threshold would be $200,000 on capital and 100 and 100,000 on operating.

Yes. Okay. So uh Okay. And so um so also just note that so while I'm on this that the uh those two those two charts that we've just been speaking of um Oh no it's not that one. It's a different one. My apologies. Just a sec. Anyway, the other one has I have it here. Just a sec. So on page um 69 or page two they do not indicate categories of spending such as the proposed uh revised highlands chart indicates. It shows their four different possible spending categories. And so just in my view, the absence of that comparison information is it just kind of makes it unachievable because the uh the um the other one, sorry, I've just misplaced the page temporarily. The other one goes into four different uh areas of types of payment um through to um credit card and it starts out with I'm sorry I didn't copy them down but there are four of them. So it makes it rather difficult to compare when you're not comparing the same information is what I'm getting at.

Okay, Council Anderson. Thank you. Uh Mr. Mayor, I just had one question um one observation I guess to start which is those thresholds are teeny bit high for a a small jurisdiction compared to some others. But um I personally heer on the side of giving staff more discretion than less. I don't typically find council oversight of things is very helpful for spending beyond the budgeting process. So um I think it I'm supportive of what you put here. But my question is under the authority and responsibility section and on page three of this document under section F um there's a a note that says contract awards and change orders that result in a procurement budget overage of 5% or less may be approved by the financial officer provided funding is available um but overage amounts exceeding 5% require council approval by resolution or financial plan. And I'm wondering if if I read that right, that sounds a little bit sweeping. Um, in terms of like, for example, if there's a very small dollar value purchase that staff makes and

you're 5% over, you got to come to us for something that you never had to come to us in the first place for, that doesn't sound useful. Like if you know, you go buy 10 reams of paper and it turns out to be 5% more than you thought it was going to be. I don't really want it to come here. [laughter] So, I'm wondering if that language um should speak to, you know, try to clarify that it's with respect to um expenditures that would have already been part of council's uh approval process or something that because it requires specific resolution or change to budget needs to come back to council as opposed to everything.

Thank you. We can add language that discusses yes contract awards and change orders for items that had required council approval. Yeah, for items we don't want to know that you forgot to put GST on the pen order before you put it in. [laughter] Um, thank you for that. And I just also one other teeny question under the ethical considerations. Um, there's just a sort of funny turn of phrase in there. Where is it? I had my version highlighted, but that's not the one that shows up here. It's about it's the language associated with um bias. Oh, it's the first the first section under ethics considerations um saying that bids and tenders will be evaluated with the removal of bias. Do we just mean without?

That could read with Okay. the way you say it might just it just a little bit more clear perhaps. Um and lastly, I just want to say u I commend you for putting together a a solid policy. I write a lot of these and I think this is a good one. So well done. Yeah. Thanks. I have one small comment and that is u to have just staff sign the checks. I you know it's never been it's never been burd burdensome to come in and sign them and and you kind of do get a sense of the flow in a small community of of how things are are are going out and it gives you a bit of an education on that. So from that point of view it's uh it's not a burden at all.

It's actually kind of a a great great thing to have to have one member of council and one member of staff on the checks. I'm just wondering how council felt about that. Councelor Anderson. Uh thank you Mr. Ray. I can appreciate that there's some value in understanding the flow of business. I wonder if in fact there is value in that. There's an easier way for staff to provide uh you know updates either to the mayor or to council just in terms of because we do we get such good quarterly updates from staff um about sort of the the flow of business. if there's, you know, maybe there is something if if future council wants to um engage in that that some way that just gives us that same sense without it having to involve the check signing because I mean I I understand what you're saying. You just get a bit of a sense of what's what might be going um through the district as business, but I'm not sure it's a super uh easy way for staff to manage check signing. So,

thank you for your comments, Councelor Mlan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Pardon [clears throat] me. Um, so actually I had that was my uh next uh point in question uh regarding District of Highland check signing process, the current process and respect uh to the claim that having a District of Highland mayor being the signatory to District of Highland check signing requirements as administratively uh burdensome. Um uh I [clears throat] I would query that at all. Uh sorry, I would query that as well. Um and um I don't support um that being uh uh altered um uh in this proposed um new policy and rescending the old one, the existing one. And um also I I think that um having a mayor being or and we always designate an alternate councelor Anderson is it I used to be it. Um having mayor uh required sign authority on all district of highlands uh checks uh also from my perspective provides better governance on the matter over potential authorized signage authorities on file

um uh instead of only being possibly uh two staff members. So my preference would be that it uh remains the way it is. Um and so this if I may this just leads to another question regarding um uh checks. Uh so my question was regarding page 69 or page two. Um could you uh explain for me how exactly aligning check requirements with the District of Highlands spending authority limits would be appropriate and consistent with current municipal practices? through the chair to staff, please. Thank you. The intent is to uh revise it such that including in the policy, it's not included in the policy, it's simply practice right now, that the mayor's signature be applied to checks that are at or above a certain value, and that is the 200 and the 100. So, the larger checks would continue to be signed by the mayor. Um and the smaller ones would simply be dealt with in house which is in keeping with um best practices around

the municipalities in in the region in the province. I thank you for that information because in reading this report several times I did not pick up on on that and what you said um earlier um as well and um so I'll let somebody else have a opportunity. Thanks. Moved by councelor Riffling, seconded by councelor Barrett. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the Oh, counselor Mlan, you got your light on? I do. There you go. Um, so I was um wondering um on page 70 or page three, uh, I was wondering if I was missing some important information, I guess, where it's speaking to, um, efficiency of purchasing of goods and services.

um because the report under financial on that page does not appear to speak to transparency or accountability. So I wondered if you could um enlighten me on that please through the chair staff. I'm not sure I understand the question. Um on page 70 and page or page three it has um most responsible and co cost-effective way that the cost of the procurement process is appropriate in relation to value and complexity of each procurement that there is efficient purchasing of goods and services. I didn't write it that's it's a quote from that page. [clears throat] So I'm wondering under financial there in bold it does not speak to transparency or accountability and from my perspective I always thought under financial those are two very important aspects.

The purpose of the whole review has been about uh value for money. It talks about fairness and efficiency. It talks about our process being open and transparent and accountable um in the purpose section of the of the staff report and I would hope that the policy that's been presented provides that um but it also does uh seek to provide a right sizing such that the procurement method and um time spent and and resources spent on uh purchasing what the municipality needs is is tied together such that we're doing the right amount of work for the items we need to get and um and if it's a big project that we're spending more time on those things and if it's small that we scale it down and uh to me that's cost-effective and it's accountable and it's transparent in in the way we go about doing that and now it adds the component of vendor relations and being um have ethical considerations as well. I don't know how

best to answer your question. Um it's it's a package. Um it will I think play out as we go through and do more purchasing over time and if there is things that need to be changed, we can look to change those over time as well. I have another question if I may. Um so on page 72 uh which is the existing district of sorry district of highlands goods and services purchasing policy. So clause 4.4 and 4.5 which both currently um read for the public as follows. The CO has the authority to issue and award any purchase up to $50,000. And it also states council approval will be required to award all purchases over $50,000 and 4.5 of the existing policy currently reads the CAO shall report to council in respect to the award of any purchase over $25,000 up to $50,000.

So first thing on 4.5 is currently is only speaks to any uh purchase is it does not appear to speak to awards sorry awards for services say for example uh consultant contracting. So I just wondered if you could comment on on that. I I think you're not wrong. I think a large part of it has to do with there's no definitions in this policy. Um to me would be a purchase of goods and so contractor services would not be covered under this existing policy. Contract of services is not under goods and services. Well, it's it's not a there's no definitions in this policy. So, it's a very unclear policy to to follow.

Okay. So, so what concerns me is the um regarding 4.4 and 4.5 that um the revised policy um has removed those. Yes. And um and it's also suggesting that staff uh be the signatory to to the checks and district highlands checks and um and uh I'm not sure why through the chair to staff. Not sure why District of Highlands would need a goods and services purchasing policy to be applied to all employees, officers, and other designated people acquiring goods, services, rentals, leases, and construction on behalf of the District of Highland. So, do we really need or want every um potentially every staff positioned as outlined in in the deputy chief officer financial officer's chart under five uh to have delegated purchasing authority.

I think it is useful because there are staff that do transactions of many natures through throughout the week, small and large. Some of it is ordering paper, some of it is ordering pens, some of it is booking hotels, some of it is buying all sorts of things, gasoline, many, many things that happen to run the municipality. So I I'm just so also to acknowledge then for the CAEO at this time I just want to make sure I have this correct [clears throat] the delegated purchase purchasing authority the spending limit for the CAO at this time is uh $50,000. Is that not correct? 50,000. The CIO has the authority to issue an award any purchase up to 50,000 under 4.4 of the existing policy.

Right. And so this revised this uh revised um policy from staff is suggesting that budgeted capital purchases and budgeted operating purchases for the CAO would go up to Oh, I'm sorry. Capital only would go up to $200,000. Correct. These would be for items already approved in the financial plan. Yes. Yeah. and 100,000 for operating. Yes. So, but why that why that change? I think it will allow for more efficient operations in the municipality such that there's less report writing on things on decisions that council has already made and that work can begin to happen in for example construction windows and um there's less waiting for things to happen.

in accordance with scheduling and that work can proceed. Okay. Thank you for your patience, Counc. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I think that the CEO just actually pointed out very perfectly uh what I was going to say, so I don't need to say it. We have a financial plan. I think the policy in and of itself that's presented has uh all the clarity in it. Uh the efficiency of having staff being able to make some decisions as to which we have given the appropriate capital planning and financial planning to is there and um we know that when things are needed that fall outside that that staff always comes back to us. So I have no concerns with what's in front of us. Thank you.

Okay, if we have no further discussion, the motion by councelor Rousing with the amendment included. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? One opposed. Councor Mlan. Thank you. And that brings us to 9.3, which is the electric vehicle fleet purchase. And we have a report from our deputy chief financial officer. I think the report is it's a written [clears throat] report. It's it's a pretty short report. So it's it's there before you. Nothing to add. All right. It was a great news story, council. All right. All those in favor? Yep. No one moved it, but we're just receiving it. We move receipt. All in favor? Opposed? Not opposed.

[clears throat] Councelor Mlan is opposed. All right. So, that brings us to the last big question of this four-year term. And it's a motion to move in camera that council move in camera in accordance with the following section of the community charter 91E, the acquisition, disposition, or expropriation of lands or improvements. If the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interest of the municipality, Moved by councelor Roing, seconded by councelor Barrett. Discussion saying none I shall call the question. All those in favor oppose and not oppose.