City Government Watcher
All Langford meetings

Council Meeting - 2026/09/08

City of Langford · Tue, Sep 8, 2026 19:00 · Council Chambers & Electronic Meeting

AgendaMinutesVideoTranscript
Watch the meetingOfficial minutesOfficial agenda

Summary

AI summary · check against sources

Council adopted the Official Community Plan (OCP) omnibus amendments after a public hearing where Mill Hill residents questioned whether the transportation plans reflect car-dependent trips, regional traffic and gaps in local transit; supporters said the plans offer more travel choices and bring previously adopted work together. The most divided development discussion concerned a proposed six-storey mixed-use building at 2639 and 2645 Sooke Road: some councillors supported advancing it under the city’s growth plan, while two opposed it over unresolved road access and provincial upgrade timelines. Council also approved the asset management and long-term financial plans, which identify a long-range infrastructure funding challenge and rely on the current financial plan’s planned contributions to reserves rather than additional tax increases beyond those already planned. For a proposed 953 Walfred Road rezoning, council required the applicant to remove two requested variances and return with updated plans before council takes further action.

Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.

What was discussed

AI summary · check against sources

3.1 BYLAW NO. 2292 — Public Hearing

governance10 public speakers0:16 Watch · Read

The hearing concerned OCP amendments that incorporate policy directions and maps from the parks and trails, economic development, arts and culture, transportation and active transportation plans, along with housekeeping changes. Ten members of the public spoke. Several Mill Hill residents said the transportation work did not reflect car use, limited transit, regional traffic or the practical needs of families, and questioned whether consultation had clearly explained possible effects on their neighbourhoods. Other speakers supported the plans, arguing that more reliable transit and safer ways to walk and cycle would give residents choices without eliminating cars. Staff said the OCP changes are high-level alignment with plans already adopted, not approval of every possible road or transit change. The hearing was closed; the bylaw came back to council later for readings and adoption.

Agreement
  • Speakers on both sides said transportation choices and services need to work for Langford residents, including people in areas with limited transit.
  • Staff clarified that the amendment aligns the OCP with previously adopted plans and does not itself approve detailed projects such as a bus-only lane.
Disagreement
  • Some speakers opposed the transportation direction and its targets, saying car use, regional commuters and Mill Hill’s weak transit service were not adequately considered.
  • Other speakers supported reducing reliance on personal vehicles, saying better transit, walking and cycling options would serve residents who cannot or do not wish to drive.
  • Residents raised concerns that the public had not received clear, early explanations of neighbourhood-level impacts; supporters said the planning work had included consultation and should be reflected in the OCP.

9.1 Asset Management Plan (Approx. 45 min)

utilities infrastructure4 public speakers1:02:09 Watch · Read

A consultant presented the city’s first asset management plan alongside a long-term financial plan. The city’s assets were valued at about $2.2 billion, including assets operated by West Shore Environmental Services; city-owned depreciable assets were estimated at about $1.8 billion. The analysis estimated that current funding covers about 57% of the long-term replacement needs if sewer assets are included. Continuing the current five-year financial plan—including shifting debt payments for the Langford Aquatic Centre and Woodlands Park into reserves—would raise that to about 80%, which the consultant said could effectively cover the balance through investment returns. The consultant recommended directing most existing capital funding to existing assets, improving asset data and risk practices, and studying the future sewer obligations. Several public speakers supported long-term planning, while others worried about affordability, recent tax increases and the plan’s assumptions. Council approved the plans later in the meeting.

Agreement
  • Council members and the consultant agreed that the city needs to plan for maintenance and replacement before a large wave of aging infrastructure creates urgent costs.
  • Staff clarified that the plan does not require additional tax increases beyond those already included in the current five-year financial plan.
  • The consultant said the plan should be refined over time as asset data, condition assessments and risk practices improve.
Disagreement
  • Supporters said planned reserve contributions and investment returns would reduce future tax and borrowing costs; some public speakers questioned whether the funding approach was fair or affordable for current taxpayers.
  • A public speaker questioned why the sewer asset’s eventual acquisition cost was treated as uncertain, while the consultant recommended a separate study of future sewer responsibilities.

10 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

governance8 public speakers2:21:19 Watch · Read

After the asset management presentation, residents addressed that plan, the proposed Honeycomb Cannabis temporary use permit, and two rezoning applications. A speaker supported the asset plans but asked the city to account for maintenance and replacement costs throughout each asset’s life. Other speakers raised taxpayer affordability and infrastructure concerns. A speaker supported the cannabis permit but urged the city to create a permanent zoning route for non-medical cannabis shops. Two speakers raised concerns about the 953 Walfred Road proposal, including variances, traffic, trees and wildlife. Three speakers questioned a proposed six-storey building at 2639 and 2645 Sooke Road, focusing on its effect on nearby homes and access along the Sooke Road corridor. Council then moved the asset management report ahead of the consent agenda to respect the consultant’s time.

Agreement
  • Speakers acknowledged the need to manage growth and infrastructure, though they differed on the appropriate pace, costs and planning approach.
  • A council member explained that the agenda was reordered to avoid keeping the consultant waiting.
Disagreement
  • Some speakers supported development or long-term asset planning; others emphasized affordability, traffic, neighbourhood effects or uncertainty about infrastructure funding.
Carried 6 to 0Item 102:42:10 Watch · Read

Move the reports section ahead of the consent agenda and renumber the remaining agenda items accordingly.

Official wording: THAT Council amend the order of the agenda by moving item 15. Reports prior to item 11. Consent Agenda and that the remainder of the agenda items be renumbered accordingly.
Moved by HARDER, seconded by WAGNER.

11 Asset Management Plan

utilities infrastructure2:42:10 Watch · Read

With the report moved forward on the agenda, staff emphasized that the plan covers existing infrastructure and relies on the current five-year financial plan, not further tax increases beyond those already planned. In debate, council members supported preparing for future replacement costs and discussed risk management, road maintenance, reserve contributions and how often the plan should be updated. Staff said the plan does not set a specific review cycle, but expected it to be refined regularly. Council approved the City of Langford Asset Management Plan and Long-Term Financial Plan.

Agreement
  • Council members who spoke supported having a formal plan to guide long-term asset stewardship.
  • Staff and council recognized that risk assessments and asset data will need to improve as infrastructure ages.
Carried 6 to 0Item 11.12:57:54 Watch · Read

Approve the City’s plans for managing its assets and long-term finances.

Official wording: THAT Council approve the City of Langford Asset Management Plan and Long-Term Financial Plan.
Moved by HARDER, seconded by GUIRY.
Carried 6 to 0Item 11.12:57:54 Watch · Read

Routine: extend the meeting so Council can continue until 11:00 p.m.

Official wording: THAT Council at 9:58 pm extend the meeting until 11:00 pm
Moved by HARDER, seconded by GUIRY.

12 CONSENT AGENDA

governance2:57:54 Watch · Read

Council adopted the consent agenda recommendations as presented, including the minutes of the August 17 special council meeting and the draft minutes of the August 31 Sustainable Development Advisory Committee meeting. This was a procedural decision.

Carried 6 to 0Item 122:58:53 Watch · Read

Adopt the recommendations in the consent agenda, including the minutes of the August 17 Special Council meeting and the draft minutes of the August 31 Sustainable Development Advisory Committee meeting.

Official wording: THAT Council adopt the recommendations for each item of the Consent Agenda as presented. Minutes of the Special Council Meeting - August 17, 2026 Draft Minutes of the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee Meeting - August 31, 2026
Moved by HARDER, seconded by GUIRY.

14.1.1 Bylaw No. 2279 - Application to Rezone 953 Walfred Road

zoning development2 public speakers2:58:53 Watch · Read

Council considered the proposed rezoning at 953 Walfred Road after hearing neighbourhood concerns and a request from a speaker to proceed without the proposed variances. Council amended the motion so the updated plans would return to council, rather than the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee, because there were no further committee meetings scheduled for the current term. Council then decided to take no action on the rezoning until the requested interior lot-line setback variance and the variance allowing a seven-unit townhouse building are removed and updated plans are reviewed. Two public speakers addressed this application.

Agreement
  • Council agreed that the application should not advance in its current form with the two identified variances.
  • Council members recognized the timing problem: returning the application to the advisory committee could delay it until a committee is formed in the next term.
Disagreement
  • One council member questioned whether sending the revised proposal directly to council would remove the committee’s opportunity for further public discussion; others favoured avoiding a potentially lengthy delay.
Carried 6 to 0Item 14.1.13:05:53 Watch · Read

Change the proposed review body from the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee to Council.

Official wording: THAT the main motion be amended by: Removing the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee and replace with Council.
Moved by GUIRY, seconded by HARDER.
Carried 6 to 0Item 14.1.13:06:46 Watch · Read

Pause action on the rezoning application for 953 Walfred Road until the proposed interior lot-line setback variance and the variance for a seven-unit townhouse building are removed, and Council reviews updated plans.

Official wording: THAT Council take no action with respect to this application to rezone 953 Walfred Road under Bylaw No. 2279 until such time as the following variances are removed from the application and the updated plans are reviewed by Council: a. The proposed interior lot line setback variance; and b. The proposed variance to permit a 7-unit townhouse building.
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.

14.1.2 Bylaw No. 2290 - Application to Rezone 2639 and 2645 Sooke Road

zoning development3 public speakers3:07:39 Watch · Read

Council considered whether to bring forward a rezoning for a six-storey mixed-use building at 2639 and 2645 Sooke Road. The proposed motion would allow the application to proceed to readings at a future meeting, subject to conditions including an access arrangement and a requirement that the final development-permit drawings substantially match the plans shown to council. Supporters said the project fits the OCP’s vision for a mixed-use Sooke Road corridor and could help secure road space for future improvements. Opponents focused on the effects of the building on nearby homes and the uncertain timing of provincial work to improve traffic flow and access. Staff said the Ministry of Transportation and Transit is involved in corridor planning, but the timing of upgrades is not known. The motion carried, with two councillors opposed.

Agreement
  • Council and staff agreed that Sooke Road has significant access and traffic challenges and that future upgrades depend on coordination with the province.
  • Staff said the city is seeking road dedication through rezonings so a future four-lane corridor and intersection improvements can be built.
Disagreement
  • Some councillors supported advancing the application because it fits the planned mixed-use corridor and could help secure land for road improvements.
  • Two councillors opposed it, citing uncertainty about provincial upgrades, access arrangements and whether the corridor can support more development in the meantime.
  • Public speakers differed over the six-storey height and its effects on nearby homes, privacy, sunlight, property values and traffic.
Carried 4 to 2Item 14.1.23:40:40 Watch · Read

Move toward rezoning the two Sooke Road properties for a six-storey mixed-use development, with required road dedication, frontage and stormwater work, construction and mitigation plans, property consolidation, an access easement, residential parking protections, electric heat pumps, tree protection, lower-carbon concrete, and plans that substantially match what Council reviewed. The bylaw would come back to Council for readings at a future meeting.

Official wording: THAT Council: 1. Consider bringing forward Bylaw No. 2290 for first, second and third readings at a future Council meeting in order to amend the zoning designation of the properties located at 2639 and 2645 Sooke Road from the One- and Two-Family Residential (R2) Zone to the Mixed Use Six Storey (MU6) Zone, subject to the following terms and conditions: a. That the applicant, prior to Bylaw Adoption , registers a road dedication plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works; b. That the applicant, prior to Bylaw Adoption , registers a Section 219 covenant in priority of all other charges on title, that agrees to the following: i. That the following will be provided and implemented to Bylaw No. 1000 standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Full frontage improvements; 2. A storm water management plan; and ii. That the following will be provided and implemented to Bylaw No. 1000 standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works prior to any land alteration: 1. A construction parking management plan; and 2. A mitigation plan. iii. That the properties be consolidated prior to issuance of a Development Permit for Form and Character; iv. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an access easement through the site to lands beyond be registered, to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer; v. That a separate covenant be registered prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development that ensures residential parking is allocated to each unit and visitors as required by the zoning bylaw and is not provided in exchange for compensation separate from that of a residential unit; vi. That the building be constructed with electric heat pumps for each individual unit or a central electric heat pump system; vii. That tree protection measures, inclusive of tree protection fencing, are implemented prior to commencement of work to protect the two trees in the southwest corner that have been identified for retention; viii. That all concrete used on-site will utilize ready-mix concrete that meets or exceeds the weighted average Global Warming Potential targets based on Concrete BC Baseline (average) mix data, and that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall provide a Type III Environmental Product Declaration that is 3rd party verified specifying the total Global Warming Potential value and confirming that the proposed development meets the requirements of Low Carbon Concrete Policy POL-0167-PLAN; ix. That the drawings submitted for approval as part of the Development Permit application substantially comply with what has been presented to Council through this rezoning application (Z26-0004).
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.
Voted for: Colby Harder, Kimberley Guiry, Mark Morley, Mary Wagner inferred from attendance

15.1 TUP26-004 - #107-2317 Millstream Rd

zoning development1 public speaker3:41:14 Watch · Read

Council issued Honeycomb Cannabis Inc. a temporary use permit to operate a non-medical cannabis retail store at 107-2317 Millstream Road, subject to the permit’s listed conditions. A public speaker supported the permit but argued that licensed cannabis retailers should not have to rely on repeated temporary permits. Council members acknowledged that changing the zoning approach could be considered by a future council.

Agreement
  • Council members supported issuing the permit for the store’s current location.
  • Council members acknowledged that the broader zoning rules for cannabis retailers could be reviewed in a future term.
Disagreement
  • A public speaker supported this permit but opposed the city’s continued use of temporary permits for legal cannabis retailers.
Carried 6 to 0Item 15.13:43:15 Watch · Read

Issue Honeycomb Cannabis a temporary permit to run a non-medical cannabis store at 107-2317 Millstream Road for three years, ending September 8, 2029. The permit requires the business to meet conditions covering its appearance, windows and security, operating hours, nuisance and impairment issues, education, legal compliance, and signage.

Official wording: THAT Temporary Use Permit No. TUP26-0004 is issued by the Council for the City of Langford to Honeycomb Cannabis Inc to operate a non-medical cannabis retail store on the property legally described as Parcel 1, Plan VIP81886, Section 1, Range 3W, Highland District, (Being a Consolidation of Lot A & B see CA3468036), PID No. 029-213-533 (107-2317 Millstream Road), in accordance with Section 493 of the Local Government Act , subject to the following terms and conditions, and notwithstanding Sec. 3.02.02(5) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300: 1. Conditions a) Exterior walls shall be treated in a manner and colour that is consistent with other parts of the building which the business occupies. If the non-medical cannabis retail store occupies a standalone building, then the exterior of the building will exhibit colours from a muted, earth tone palette with contrasting accent colours for windows, trim and doors. Bold or vivid colours that are intended to be distinctive and eye-catching (e.g.: lime green or fire engine red) may be used on signage, but not on the building façade or trim to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Planning and Development Services; b) All windows shall be opaque or constructed with spandrel panels behind. Windows and spandrels may not be embellished with any form of imagery; c) Security devices, such as window bars or roll shutters, shall be deployed on the inside of doors or windows so as to be unobtrusive and invisible from the street; d) The applicant shall provide security measures associated with the premises from which the nonmedical cannabis retail store will operate in accordance with the applicant’s proposal in response to the City of Langford Request for Proposal for the Retail Sales of Cannabis and Cannabis Related Products (RFP), as determined by the Chief Administrative Officer; e) The applicant shall address issues of nuisance with respect to odours, smoke and noise relating to public use of cannabis and cannabis products in accordance with the applicant’s proposal in response to the RFP and the regulations, terms and conditions outlined in the Cannabis Control and Licencing Act of B.C.; f) The applicant shall address impairment issues relating to public use of cannabis and cannabis products for non-medical purposes in accordance with the applicant’s proposal in response to the RFP and the regulations, terms and conditions outlined in the Cannabis Control and Licencing Act of B.C .; g) The non-medical cannabis retail store must be a stand-alone business; h) The hours of operation of the non-medical cannabis retail store shall be limited to 9am to 9pm Sunday through Wednesday and 9am to 10pm Thursday through Saturday; i) The applicant shall provide educational initiatives and materials associated with the impacts and related social concerns of the non-medical use of cannabis and cannabis products in accordance with the applicant’s proposal in response to the RFP and as outlined in the Cannabis Retail Store Terms and Conditions, a handbook for the sale of non-medical cannabis in British Columbia ; j) The applicant shall conform to the regulations stipulated in the Cannabis Control and Licencing Act of British Columbia B.C. Reg.202/2018 ; k) The Applicant shall ensure that the non-medical cannabis retail sale is in compliance with all applicable laws, including all City bylaws; SIGNAGE l) All signage shall be subject to a subsequent Sign Development Permit application process and shall be constructed and placed in accordance with Langford Sign Bylaw No.1250 and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Planning and Development Services; m) All signage shall be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colours, and details of the buildings within the development; n) The location and size of signs shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the buildings; o) As a condition of issuance of this permit, and notwithstanding what is permitted by Bylaw No. 1250, the business is limited to three signs only . This signage shall indicate the name of the business only, and shall not display company slogans, and may not employ any play on words with respect to cannabis or drug culture. This signage may be internally illuminated in accordance with City guidelines, but may not be animated in any way or have variable messaging; p) Notwithstanding article o), the business may have one illuminated sign which indicates that the business is open, provided that this signage is affixed to the interior of a door or window visible from the street and does not exceed an area of 0.2m2 (2ft2); q) Sandwich board type signs are prohibited; If a previous Development Permit has been issued with respect to Form and Character and no new buildings or exterior renovations are being proposed some of these conditions may be waived. 2. Whereas a) The non-medicinal use of cannabis and cannabis related products has historically been prohibited by federal law in Canada and, as a result, has historically been prohibited by the City under its Zoning Bylaw No. 300; b) On October 17, 2018, the Federal Government legalized the non-medicinal use of cannabis and cannabis products; c) The Federal Government and the Provincial Government have developed a regulatory framework for the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products for non-medicinal use; d) The City wishes to authorize the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products within its boundaries, but recognizes that there are challenges associated with it doing so; e) The City issued the Request for Proposals for the Retail Sales of Cannabis and Cannabis Related Products to seek proposals from individuals and organizations interested in undertaking the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products for non-medicinal use within the City’s boundaries, and required that proposals include details as to how the challenges with the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products would be addressed; f) The City received and reviewed over 30 proposals in response to the Request for Proposals, and identified Honeycomb Cannabis Inc. proposal as one that best addressed the challenges with the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products; and, g) Honeycomb Cannabis Inc. is committed to assisting the City and taking positive steps to address the challenges with the retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products; Now therefore be it resolved that Council issue Temporary Use Permit TUP26-0004 to Honeycomb Cannabis Inc for it to operate a Cannabis Retail Store at 107-2317 Millstream Road for a three-year term subject to the terms and conditions listed within. 3. Expiry THAT the Temporary Use Permit be issued for a period of 36 months and will expire on September 8, 2029. Authorized Resolution passed by the Council of the City of Langford on September 8, 2026. Permit issued on September 8, 2026.
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.

16.1 BYLAW NO. 1665 — Fire Prevention and Regulation Bylaw No. 1665, 2026

public safety3:43:15 Watch · Read

Council adopted the Fire Prevention and Regulation Bylaw. A council member said the bylaw had already received extensive discussion during committee review and its earlier readings.

Carried 6 to 0Item 16.13:44:02 Watch · Read

Adopt the City’s updated fire prevention and regulation bylaw.

Official wording: THAT Council adopt “Fire Prevention and Regulation Bylaw No. 1665, 2026”.
Moved by YACUCHA, seconded by HARDER.

16.2 BYLAW NO. 2286 — Fire Prevention and Regulation Miscellaneous Amending Bylaw No. 2286, 2026

public safety3:44:02 Watch · Read

Council adopted the miscellaneous amending bylaw for the Fire Prevention and Regulation Bylaw. No further debate was recorded.

Carried 6 to 0Item 16.23:44:02 Watch · Read

Adopt amendments related to the City’s fire prevention and regulation rules.

Official wording: THAT Council adopt “Fire Prevention and Regulation Miscellaneous Amending Bylaw No. 2286, 2026”.
Moved by YACUCHA, seconded by HARDER.

16.3 BYLAW NO. 2248 — 1234 Goldstream Avenue, RT1 Text Amendment

zoning development3:44:02 Watch · Read

Council adopted the zoning text amendment for 1234 Goldstream Avenue. The chair reported one councillor opposed.

Disagreement
  • One councillor opposed adoption; the transcript does not reliably identify the councillor’s name.
Carried 5 to 1Item 16.33:45:00 Watch · Read

Adopt a zoning text change related to the RT1 zone at 1234 Goldstream Avenue.

Official wording: THAT Council adopt “Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300, Amendment No. 750 (1234 Goldstream Avenue, RT1 Text Amendment), Bylaw No. 2248, 2026".
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.
Voted for: Keith Yacucha, Kimberley Guiry, Mark Morley, Mary Wagner, Scott Goodmanson inferred from attendance
Voted against: Colby Harder

16.4 BYLAW NO. 2292 — Official Community Plan Amendment No. 2 (Omnibus No. 1)

governance3:45:00 Watch · Read

Council gave the OCP omnibus amendment second and third readings and adopted it. The changes align the OCP with previously adopted city plans and update maps and policy language. The public hearing had taken place earlier; no new public comments were heard on this item during the council meeting.

Agreement
  • Council members who spoke supported incorporating the adopted plans into the OCP and said the amendment aligns policy rather than adding new detailed projects.
Carried 6 to 0Item 16.43:46:40 Watch · Read

Give the Official Community Plan amendments their second and third readings and adopt them. The changes incorporate directions and maps from several City plans and strategies, update park and street-network maps, and clarify some land-use policies.

Official wording: THAT Council give second, third readings and adopt “Langford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2200, Amendment No. 2 (Omnibus No. 1), Bylaw 2292, 2026”.
Moved by HARDER, seconded by GUIRY.

16.5 BYLAW NO. 2296 — Housing Agreement (2615 Sooke Road)

housing3:46:40 Watch · Read

Council adopted the housing agreement for 2615 Sooke Road. A council member described the agreement as supporting affordable housing units.

Carried 6 to 0Item 16.53:46:40 Watch · Read

Adopt the housing agreement for the property at 2615 Sooke Road.

Official wording: THAT Council adopt "City of Langford Housing Agreement (2615 Sooke Road) Bylaw No. 2296, 2026".
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.

16.6 BYLAW NO. 2297 — Housing Agreement (2124 Longspur Drive)

housing3:47:37 Watch · Read

Council gave first, second and third readings to the housing agreement for 2124 Longspur Drive. Council members described it as another step supporting affordable housing.

Carried 6 to 0Item 16.63:48:22 Watch · Read

Give the housing agreement for 2124 Longspur Drive its first, second, and third readings.

Official wording: THAT Council give “City of Langford Housing Agreement (2124 Longspur Drive) Bylaw No. 2297, 2026” first, second, and third readings.
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.

16.7 BYLAW NO. 2298 — Housing Agreement (2797 Scafe Road)

housing3:48:22 Watch · Read

Council gave first, second and third readings to the housing agreement for 2797 Scafe Road. A council member thanked staff for working with applicants on housing agreements.

Carried 6 to 0Item 16.73:49:07 Watch · Read

Give the housing agreement for 2797 Scafe Road its first, second, and third readings.

Official wording: THAT Council give “ City of Langford Housing Agreement (2797 Scafe Road) Bylaw No. 2298, 2026”, first, second, and third readings.
Moved by WAGNER, seconded by GUIRY.

17 IN CAMERA RESOLUTION

governance3:49:07 Watch · Read

Council voted to close the meeting to the public under sections 90(1)(b) and 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter. The closed discussion concerned a possible municipal award or honour and preliminary discussions about a proposed municipal service.

Carried 6 to 0Item 173:49:07 Watch · Read

Close the meeting to the public to discuss a person's possible municipal award or anonymous gift, and preliminary negotiations about a proposed municipal service that Council believes could harm the City's interests if discussed publicly.

Official wording: THAT Council close the meeting at 10:49 pm to the public pursuant to section 90 (1) (b) and (k) of the Community Charter to consider: personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public.
Moved by YACUCHA, seconded by HARDER.

Decisions

Official · from the minutes

All 18 decisions from the minutes appear under the agenda items above.