Transcript: Special Council Meeting - 2026/09/28

Speaker A · All right. Good evening and welcome to today's special council meeting for Monday, September 28, 2026. Thanks for everyone who came out in this slightly damp, cool evening and we're going to get going right away. I call this meeting in order. Councillor Harder, would you like to do our territorial acknowledgment, please?

Speaker B · Yes. Thank you, Mayor. The city of Langford sits upon the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, the Wasabzim, Songhees and Chiana nations, as well as the Wasanic First Nations. Wasanic peoples, rather represented by the Sartlip, Seot, Sachem, Okeechin and Malahat First Nations. We thank them for sharing this beautiful land.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker C · Good evening, everyone. My name is Marie Watmo and I will be the moderator for tonight's meeting. Participation by the public is in person or via Zoom, either using the Zoom app or telephone. If you're joining us through the Zoom app and wish to make a comment, please use the raise hand function in the app, keeping in mind that you're able to both raise and lower your hand and you'll be called on based upon your username, you will need to unmute yourself when it is time for you to speak. If you're joining us via telephone, you must press Star nine on the telephone keypad to raise your hand. You should hear a recording that advises you.

Speaker C · The moderator will be notified that you wish to speak and you'll be called upon using the last three digits of your phone number. Please press star6 on the telephone keypad to unmute your phone. If you're attending in person, you can approach the podium one at a time. Once the public participation portion of the meeting begins. And in all cases, please start by providing us with your first initial last name and municipality of residence, as well as indicating which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to. There may be more than one opportunity to speak, but additional comments will be limited to those not raised by you previously. You may speak to any item on the agenda subject to the three minute time limit.

Speaker C · And at this time, we remind the public that the City doesn't tolerate bullying or harassment of city staff, elected officials or members of the public during council and committee meetings, so please keep your comments respectful. For any matters not appearing on on tonight's agenda, please contact City hall by calling 250-478-7882 during regular business hours. If you experience technical difficulties in getting through tonight, please contact City hall tomorrow. And as always, the City also accepts written submissions and comments.

Speaker A · All right. Thank you very much. Can I have an approval of the agenda, please?

Speaker D · I'll move the council approve the agenda

Speaker B · as presented and I'll second that.

Speaker A · Any comments, questions?

Speaker D · Just a question. As we don't have minutes, I just wanted to make sure that that was correct.

Speaker C · Yes, they'll come forward at the next regular meeting.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, I called a question. All those in favor, close that passes. Okay, we are on to item number five, public participation. You guys know the rules. Come say your name, location, where you live and what specific item number you're wanting to talk about right now. I'll ask for anyone in the gallery that wants to come forward, please raise your hand. See hand right up there. Looks like second row. Yep. Come on up.

Speaker E · Foreign.

Speaker F · Council. My name is Hans Frederickson. I live at 2613 Viola Place and I've been a resident of Langford for 51 years. I'd like to speak to 7. 4. I'm very disappointed that you're having a special council meeting and have putting this on. I think this should. You should wait for this and table this until a new council is elected, whether it be you or whoever. I know that I've spoken to some of you about the cost of garbage pickup and all that kind of stuff, and it's been very high. But I myself have found another way to do it and I can do it myself for under $15 a month.

Speaker F · And I'm not prepared to pay $300 a year for what you're proposing because when I talked to some of you, I heard it was around $200. But now it's. We're talking $300 plus. You're going to hire somebody to oversee this for a year. Well, that's going to cost around $75,000 to hire somebody. I know that you don't get a public servant for anything less when you consider all the benefits and everything. So we got to look into this. So I just. I implore you to table this bylaw until a new council has been elected. Whether it be you or anybody else doesn't matter to me. But I would like you to table this.

Speaker F · It's not fair to have a special council meeting to something that's going to cost the people money. I know it's not a tax, but it is the equivalent of a tax because spending money, I'm going to be 80 in two months. I can't afford all of this. The tax increases, everything is costing more and more. I live in a bare land strata. Our costs are going up because the government is making us do all these different things. Depreciation reports, EV reports, which we don't even need, but we're compelled to do them. It's not right. And it starts right here in Lankford. So please label this. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, sir. Okay, guys, you know the rule. Come on. Next person I'd come forward, please raise your hand. Front. On my front left here. Yep. With the glasses. It's okay. Oh, there it is. Actually both. He had glasses. Yeah.

Speaker G · Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Councillor. My name is Jane Devonshire and I live in neighbouring View Royal and I'm the Chair of the South Island Climate Action Network. I will be speaking tonight on item 6. 1. I really just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Langford council and staff for all the hard work you did in bringing to fruition all the amazing plans you've put in place over these past four years. Your award winning OCP and your Urban Forest strategy are to be lauded. It would be wonderful to cap off tonight with your Climate Action Plan. I really did appreciate how inclusive and welcoming you have been in allowing the public so many opportunities. Participate in surveys and in workshops.

Speaker G · I was so tickled pink to see that you really took note of some of our recommendations and that some of these have actually been incorporated into some of the actions in your Climate Action plan. Like the rainwater collection, supporting the Goldstream salmon hatchery and aligning with the CRD Green stormwater infrastructure. Your residents should feel very reassured you are looking after their best interests by proactively planning ahead. Protect their health and safety by identifying all the imminent risks to them and making plans for mitigation. What a wonderful plan. Thank you so much.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person like to come forward, raise your hand please. All right, your hands raised. Come on up.

Speaker H · Hi, I'm Connie Moore, I live in North Lankford and I'm Speaking to item 6. 1, the Climate Action Plan. I've been looking forward to this visionary and specific plan being brought to council, council and the Mayor for adoption.

Speaker H · This is one of the greatest challenges of our day. Many people are understandably busy and sometimes worried about seemingly more important things in their lives. But this plan points out vividly that Langford has both immediate and long range climate related hazards like wildfires and related smoke, extreme heat, flooding and other issues. I'm relieved that our elected representatives take the environment seriously and work to minimize disastrous effects of climate change. This plan shows how to keep us safe and how to manage climate related costs in a proactive way.

Speaker H · Saving significant money in comparison to simply reacting to, quote, surprises. There are significant costs attached to climate change, many of which we are already shouldering as taxpayers. Our next step should be to join the municipal subig oil campaign to claim a fair share of climate costs from the fossil fuel companies that have been and are still knowingly causing our climate emergency.

Speaker H · Those polluters rake in huge profits at our expense. The outgoing UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called on the world to tackle the moral and physical crime of climate change, which he described as, quote, the most profound intergenerational power imbalance of all, unquote.

Speaker H · He also said, quote, big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer and cashed in on the consequences, unquote. For now, though, passing this climate action plan tonight would be a significant victory for Lankford.

Speaker H · Please do vote for it.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. I see a hand raised. Come on forward.

Speaker I · Am both Lankford.

Speaker J · I also want to comment on 7. 4. My family's lived in Lankford for at least 25 years. We've been homeowners for about double that time. We have always taken care of our own garbage. We don't make a lot of garbage because we compost everything we can. We recycle everything we can. What little food, stuff that I have that might spoil, I put in a plastic bag and keep in my freezer. My husband takes our garbage probably two bags every two months to GFL in a year's time. That costs us $95 or less. I do not want to have to have curbside garbage pickup when this has been working for my family all these years. It's a lot cheaper than anything you're proposing.

Speaker J · And I feel that as a taxpayer, my family as well as all these other people that have said the same thing. We should have the option to take care of our garbage and not be saddled with curbside pickup. And especially if you're going to have one company with that contract, then the prices are going to keep going up and up. So I want the option to opt out. And I do have a question anybody can answer. Why is this being run through before the election? Who wants to answer?

Speaker A · This is not a forward and back yes.

Speaker J · You can't answer an easy question like that. Like I say, the election's coming up. If you get voted back in, then you can revisit this. If not, why not let the next mayor and council take it on? No answer.

Speaker A · Just as I thought.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Hey, we have an agreement here where we're not Cheering or booing people, okay? Doesn't matter what side you are in any single item, we are respectful because someone you may agree with, the next person may feel like, oh well great, they're going to be against me. That's how all municipalities work. Okay, As a reminder for people. One second. Wendy, you can ask a question and counselors can ask staff the question when that item comes up. But this is not a forward back between the person at the speaker and council. It can still be asked your question later today. Ms. Hobbs, your hand was up there first.

Speaker K · Wendy Hobbs, 3442 Luxton Road. I have serious concerns about this council moving forward with a major change to garbage collection just weeks before the municipal election. This is a significant decision that could affect thousands of Lankford households financially for years to come. The city conducted an online survey right here. There were only 430 respondents in the community of approximately 60,000 residents. Of those respondents, 49 indicated they were dissatisfied with how they had their garbage pickup. A limited survey response cannot on its own demonstrate broad community support for such a significant change. But my greatest concern is good governance and the potential for for you guys to fetter. The council that the people of Langford are about to elect.

Speaker K · Residents are being asked to choose who they trust to govern the city for the next four years. Yet just weeks before the decision is made, the current council is considering a potentially long term commitment that could limit the options available to the next council. Just because council has authority to make a decision does not mean every major decision has to be made at the end of its mandate. If this results in contracts, financial commitments or service agreements that are difficult or costly to change, the practical effort could be to the ties of the incoming council. Why the rush? Just like the last lady said, why the rush? There is also an important question about cost. Residents are being told that the fee for household required to participate in the program is expected to be under 300.

Speaker K · But residents deserve to see the evidence supporting the estimate. What assumptions were used, what will the actual contract cost? And what happens if the cost is higher than anticipated? Before Langford is committed, Residents deceived to know the full cost, service levels, contract length and items terms and how existing local waste providers could be affected. You're people out of jobs and that is not your mandate. You're putting less food on families table, that is not your mandate. There is no democratic harm in waiting a few weeks and allowing the newly elected council to review all the information. There could be, however, be significant consequences. Good governance means transparency, accountability and Meaningful public engagement. The next council should inherit choices, not decisions already made.

Speaker K · And I believe in the last four years you guys have not had good governance, not been transparent, not been accountable and certainly not have meaningful public engagement. Thank you,

Speaker A · Mr. Morton. Your hand in the back there and then sir, up here.

Speaker L · Hi, Mike Morton, Langford resident speaking to 7. 4. First, you may not be aware, while it is not set in legislation, it is normal practice and tradition in British Columbia that governments go into caretaker mode during election periods while they keep the lights on, so to speak. No new or notable legislation is brought forward during that election period, particularly legislation that could impact future governments and residents, obviously. So first off, why did you bother wasting more taxpayers dollars on an, on an online survey when you knew what the outcome was going to be? Your decisions had already been made, you were going to have regular waste collection no matter what residents may have indicated.

Speaker L · And as was noted, roughly 430 people reported, responded to the, to the, to the report and only about 20% indicated a little bit of a desire to have a flat rate service. You've stated time and again that you are transparent and you are, and you listen to residents. And here we are once again at a special council meeting having the first, second and third readings of this bylaw just so it can be adopted next week just prior to the election. Again, it's clearly illustrating that you are not really paying attention to what Lankford homeowners and residents are saying. Apparently for all of the. For all of those people too.

Speaker L · I think it's already been mentioned too, that could be out of work that are employed by other waste collectors. So that's something else that I don't think was taken into consideration. I will wrap up by simply stating that it is probably entirely fitting that with 18 days to go before your performance review on October 17, you impose one more tax on tax or fee or whatever you want to call it on Langford residence. Thanks very much.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, sir. And the gentleman Center Frontier next.

Speaker M · Good evening Mayor and council. A more positive note, my name is Richard Lazell, I live in West Hills and I have read the entire climate action plan for Lankford and have come to speak to that. I'm not an expert myself, but the council and staff, to their credit I believe appear to have consulted many. The plan speaks to dealing with rising temperatures, stresses on air quality, extreme weather, increasing likelihood of fire, floods, unhealthy air, food shortages and health dangers posed by heat. It sets out in the relative short term of 10 years to possibly reverse some Trend lines and mitigate others. Where to go when this happens, what to do to prevent that climate hazard and vulnerability mapping appears will support intelligent land use planning in future. More and more often we watch transfixed as catastrophes unfold on our devices.

Speaker M · Like the flash flood at Camp mystic in Texas 14 months ago when relentless rain caused a river to rise 26ft in an hour and 25 campers kids died and we ask how did they let this happen? In 2011, I retired to land I'd bought 25 years ago at the base of Birkenhead Peak, an hour north of Whistler, but for the ferry ride. It's about three hours from here. I was visiting there in 2008 when a hundred year slide scared the hell out of us and required a lot of cleanup. But I'd moved there permanently five years later when rocks the size of shopping carts came down the mountain and rolled in my neighbor's back door and out the front further down less than a kilometer away, it buried a two story house entirely.

Speaker M · My point is simply that 100 year events are becoming increasingly common there. The glacier is melting like it was never supposed to, creating new flood risks and forest fires move closer to villages and cities every year. One of my big motivators coming here in 2024 was the increasing number of days because I have COPD when I went outdoors and couldn't breathe the air. Not many of these events are still preventable, but nearly all of them are predictable. And I'm proud of our council for doing this work and listening to experts, getting the facts and making appropriate plans to do something. I want to see the plan passed and I applaud you for doing that. In short, I just don't want the cockroaches to survive alone a thousand years from now and write the history of this period.

Speaker M · I'm serving to us as the species.

Speaker A · The time is plan ahead. And then Normal on the back there. Your hand is raised. Yeah.

Speaker N · Good evening, Normal. Joel, long time Langford resident. I've been here for a while, thought maybe pick up the last couple here.

Speaker A · But anyways.

Speaker N · First off, again, many have asked why during an election, why are we doing.

Speaker A · Sorry.

Speaker N · Talking to some.

Speaker A · For the government.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker N · Why are we doing this during an election period? Do you know how many people in Lankford have weekly pickup? Does anybody know that? Can anybody answer that?

Speaker A · You can ask staff.

Speaker N · So 70% of Lankford residents have weekly pickup. You're gonna go bi weekly with a smaller can. It's not gonna work. We got bears around. We Got other wildlife around and it's not gonna be good. I'm also with $140. How did, how did you guys come up with that number? Like is it like, is it already a handshake deal with Super Save to do this garbage pickup? I mean you just gotta, this is just a formality tonight bears a Coke.

Speaker E · And then

Speaker N · one of the things that I've been keep hearing is it's a, it's the overflowing garbage cans in, in Victoria or sorry, in Langford, Downtown Langford. The garbage cans are overflowing. It's one of the reasons you guys want to do this because it's going to stop that it's not. You actually go and look. Most of the stuff you see falling out of the garbage cans is the Tim Hortons, Starbucks and all that. The single use stuff. Why not actually do something positive for the environment and ban the single use?

Speaker A · Let's get rid of them.

Speaker N · They've done it in Vancouver. Why can't we do it here? And it won't cost the taxpayers anything. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much, sir. Next person I'd come forward, raise your hand please. Oh, I see a hand just right there. Come on up.

Speaker O · Hi, Darlene, Mill hill area. Also 7. 4 for the garbage. So many questions and very hard to find any answers. I'm very curious how much it's going to cost to get a bylaw officer to enforce these fees, the cost for the public worker staff for the 12 month term and how much it costs to get the consultant to review all this information. I am part of Barrel land strata with 38 units. It appears based on the information that I read that we're not even part of this plan. We can opt in based on the discretion of the engineer, but all owners must agree to opt in. So that means that 38 different parcels of land and houses have to agree on that. So good luck with that.

Speaker O · So then it's like, okay, well what do we do with the garbage? Like we currently have GFL coming on our street on Fridays and CCR on Wednesdays. So what does that mean? Can I still go to gfl? Can I still go to ccr? How is that going to work? Is it going to actually impact them? So it's, you know, lots of questions, you know, in regards to the garbage cans where it's talking about, you know, it's 120 liter for garbage and 120 liter for organic and it's every two weeks. You know what happens when the residents need weekly service or two garbage Cans weekly or bi weekly. How much will that cost? How exactly does that work?

Speaker O · I have a family of four, we do one garbage can pretty much every two weeks and our neighbor across the street, family of four as well, two garbage cans every single week. So everybody's going to have their most like their own needs. And then it's also ignoring all the people who just go and drop off their garbage at GFL and pay by the bag and get the little stamp because it's cheaper. So it's hard to do this when everything is showing that it's mandatory. Everybody must participate. And then for us, you know, that are part of fair land strata and some of the townhouses. How does this work?

Speaker O · Like, I have no clue. Regarding the fees, it was the $140 max for the garbage. $140 max in regards to the compost. But then every year starting in 2028, 3% increase. So you just keep compounding it over five years, that $280 I'm assuming, plus GST now becomes $324 plus GST after five years. Because every year it goes up 3% and it compounds. So, you know, just questions about that in regards to, you know, the fines. And then that's going to be now happening because pooling of liquid in the bins and stuff, which happens all the time. The mandatory participation, you know, there's going to be some minor exemptions. The consultation report with 431, like how is that proper engagement? Why is this being done now?

Speaker O · Because it's going to be adopted next month before the election and I'm running out of time. So that is it for me.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. I see. Hander, come on up.

Speaker P · Costello, Langford. 7, 1, 2, 3 and 4. The first two, the bylaws for tax exemption and vote no. Lankford can't afford it. We live in a democracy. I hope you all know what that means. I think you do. Prove to me that a majority of Lankford taxpayers want to give away their tax money. Seven, three. It says no known financial implications in the bylaw. Are you kidding? Everything has a cost. It doesn't matter what the bylaw says. Piece of paper it's written on costs money. So you need to go back and figure out how much money that bylaw is going to cost Langford taxpayers. Everything has a cost.

Speaker P · You can't say it doesn't. Just try and get something for free. And then the solid waste again. Back to democracy. I think you took 500 people in a survey 500 people is a majority of Lankford taxpayers. And speaking of taxpayers, I know you guys have done nothing about illegal suites that would help pay for other things, maybe even the tax exemptions. If you don't have a building permit in Langford and you have a suite, it's illegal. No extra school tax or municipal tax comes off from the owner. None, not a dime. Debt with free money. It's free money. It's sitting there.

Speaker A · Okay? We need to keep it to one of the agenda items. I recognize your exuberance there, but it's all tax.

Speaker P · It's all tax. Let people pick what they want to do with their garbage. Unless you can come up and prove to us, all of us, that there's 50 odd thousand people in Lankford and a majority of the taxpayers want it, then we'll listen to you. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. So Farhan back there.

Speaker K · Right on.

Speaker A · Al, you were first and then Patsy, you.

Speaker C · Sorry, your worship, just before we continue, we only have four minutes of public participation remaining, so come on up.

Speaker A · But can I have a. Is there a motion to extend public participation?

Speaker B · Thank you. I move that we extend public participation for first time speakers second.

Speaker A · All those in favor, post.

Speaker Q · All right, thank you and good evening. My name is Elizabeth Brooke. I live in Lankford in the West Hills area. And I want to speak to item 6. 1. I wanted to just express my gratitude and thanks to this council and the staff for this excellent, excellent climate action plan. I really appreciate the transparency and engagement that went into building this report, the long process of engagement, the inclusiveness of it and the recognition of the importance of this issue. I appreciate all the robust work that went into developing that. Others have spoken more eloquently than I will to that, but I also appreciate how it balanced the ways that climate intersects with so many things that matter to all of us here in the community.

Speaker Q · Transportation, schools, parks, jobs, our environment. So many, so many different aspects. It's nice to see those all reflected. I appreciate the effort that went into identifying the risks that Lankford, our community will face in the near term and prioritizing those and coming up with real actions that can be taken to address those important issues. It's practical and visionary and that's a big ask. So I appreciate that. The last thing I wanted to say is how much I appreciate that part of the engagement was focused on youth. The fact that their voices were given space in this process I think really adds value, especially because these are issues that will be with us for a long time.

Speaker Q · And in many ways, they will be the ones who will have to live with the decisions we make today. So thank you very much and have a good evening.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker R · Excuse me, were you saying something?

Speaker A · Did I look like I was talking?

Speaker S · Hey,

Speaker A · we treat each other with respect in here, okay? Regardless of anyone's opinion on an item.

Speaker R · P. Hamilton, speaking to the solid waste collection bylaw number 229, 2299 and 2026. Good evening, Mayor and council. I have not been inclusive with regards to this pending bylaw. Thank you to the person who pointed it out. My apologies for not speaking up sooner to all of you because there was ample opportunity to do so. So at this very last minute, I would like to ask the mayor, council and staff consider adding assisted waste collection to its proposal as an option for the residents of Lankford who may require it. The city of Victoria has such a free program called Helping Hands, which could be easily incorporated into the city of Lankford. I don't believe that this bylaw is being rushed or buried. In a way, I believe that assistive.

Speaker R · Assistive waste collection has been missed as part of the conversation between all persons who have been involved in creating this bylaw. This is very late in the proposal. However, I appreciate, as always in the last four years, including tonight, the opportunity to speak and be heard.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. I see a hand raised there in the center back. Come on, forward.

Speaker T · Armstrong, Rodney road, speaking to 7. 4. So I'm going to be the outlier here because I do think having municipal garbage is a benefit in the sense that it allows us to. And 60,000 people don't need garbage pickup.

Speaker T · A lot of the multifamily housing around me, they all have their own pickup. I checked with family in Cumberland that has that service and their rates are comparable. 68, 40 per quarter. So just under about $280. Their garbage bins are a bit bigger. The nice thing is, is that. And I don't see where it says it, maybe I've missed it, that the compostable. So food waste includes yard waste and Saanich has it, Cumberland has it, which is a small town. Port Alberni has it. You know, all these other cities. Now, for those who. I always take mine and I go to Heartland or I go to dfl, but there is periods of time in this last year that I couldn't for weeks and weeks and one period for almost two months because of a broken limb.

Speaker S · So.

Speaker T · And I have somebody I know who's just lost their License. So the ability to take it is not there. Half out of eight houses, half in my cul de sac, they get garbage pickup, half take it and one doesn't do anything, takes it to work. So, and I have seen that, you know, things that have gone into the garbage. I go to Heartland every two weeks and I see the landfill getting higher and higher and higher. And I think with having a regulated system, you're going to see that things that shouldn't be in that waste stream are removed. And certainly I have a family member who did that for a lot of municipalities on the west part of the island, because it is a huge issue. We're an island, we can't create landfills.

Speaker T · But I would like to have a little bit more information and I would have liked to have had this earlier in our, in the year. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person, come forward and raise your hand please. You're standing. Come on up.

Speaker U · Linda Morton.

Speaker S · Hi, Linda Morton, resident of Lankford. I'm reading this on behalf of a resident who could not attend tonight but wanted their voices heard. So good evening, mayor and council. Let's be honest about how we got here. The issue wasn't our residential outside services. It was the overflowing public garbage cans in our downtown core. The sensible fix for that was and still is right in front of us, servicing public bins frequently and potentially up updating their design. Instead of pursuing this simple and relatively inexpensive fixed. We are now looking at the sweeping mandatory municipal monopoly that impacts nearly every homeowner, townhouse and family in this city.

Speaker S · Despite 78% of respondents to your own survey who indicated that they were content with the current private service monopolistic city run program treats every household as if it fits into a neat standardized box. But real families don't fit into boxes. What about the households that generate low volumes of garbage? The senior or single resident who produces so little trash that they barely fill a bin once a month, managing just fine with occasional drop offs for a fraction of the price indicated in the proposed bylaw? Under a mandatory municipal contract, they lose their freedom. They are forced to pay significantly more for a rigid standardized annual fee for services that they simply don't use or need.

Speaker S · What about neighbors, duplexes and shared properties that pool resources and split the cost of a single bin to keep their bills down? The city is proposing the city's proposed model strips away that cooperation, mandating separate contracts and separate fees for every single unit. And let's talk about the math and projective savings. Any projective savings are anchored to bare minimum baselines for larger households or those requiring extra capacity. Those numbers quickly unravel, hiding the true long term financial burden behind a misleading average. Beyond the negative financial impacts to residents, this proposal also deals with heavy blows to economic freedom. Right now, local private haulers compete for our business. Competition forces companies to keep prices sharp, provide reliable customers customer service and innovate.

Speaker S · When you hand the entire city to a single executive contractor, you create a municipal monopoly. Private competition is pushed out. Local jobs are put at risk. Accountability vanishing. When a monopoly drops the ball in our street, you don't have an option to call a competitor. You are stuck waiting for municipal red tape. For years, Langford has thrived on a flexible open market. Private subscription model allows residents to choose what works for their budget and lifestyle. Why are you rushing to replace a working model? A top down bureaucratic mandate, especially during a municipal election. I urge council to listen to the public, respect household choices and vote for option 2 as outlined in the staff report. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person, I'd come forward. I see a hand raise in center there. Come on up.

Speaker G · Good evening.

Speaker R · I'm Jennifer Frederickson and I live in Lankford. Very simple. I'm talking on 7. 4. I don't have anything written down except for please do not pass this motion tonight.

Speaker V · You have 17 days.

Speaker R · There's not enough information given to us at how much it will really cost. Think about this. This is not right.

Speaker S · Simple.

Speaker R · Pass it.

Speaker K · Wait.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person I come forward. Come on up.

Speaker K · Hi, Lisa Foxhall.

Speaker V · I'm going to speak to 7. 0 for waste collection. Mayor and council understand there may be benefits for having one contracted provider for some, but there also may be many drawbacks and hardships for others. Not every household uses garbage collection in the same way. I've also I've heard from only one or two households currently while talking to residents that this has been a concern. We have a large number of homes in Lankford with secondary suites, unlike other municipalities. Before making this mandatory, I think we need clear answers about how multiple dwelling units on one property will be handled, how many bins will be required and what those households will actually pay.

Speaker V · We have neighborhoods where bears and other wildlife are a real concern. Will the bins be wildlife resistant? If collection is less frequent or bins are too small, this could create more wildlife attractants, potentially harming our wildlife. Bear Mountain has an increased bear population. Many homes with suites and many residents are on weekly pickup. As resident Nirmal said, there have been many challenges there with garbage, and there's potential for this to create even more. The staff report also mentions additional bylaw enforcement and fines. How much additional enforcement will be needed and what cost will that be to taxpayers? Another concern is that we have residents on fixed income who take their garbage bags in every few weeks that only spend $6 a bag.

Speaker V · Under this bylaw, they would be required to pay a service that they have not chosen to use with an increase of 57% in taxes over the last four years. And now having these people pay for garbage, this can cause this group of residents new financial suffering. I echo what Resident Bonds behind me spoke about tonight. Many of these garbage companies have employed Langford residents who have called our community home for years and have worked hard serving Langford residents. Their jobs and livelihoods are on the line because of this potential change. We need to take that into consideration. This is a significant change from a voluntary system to a mandatory one. Residents should have a direct say in that decision, not the government. This is not a win or lose situation.

Speaker V · Local companies could lose clothes and jobs would be lost. That doesn't sit well with me. I feel for these employers and employees. These are our friends and they are our neighbors. Before Langford introduces mandatory garbage collection, I would like to see this question put to reference to residents through a referendum on a ballot. Let's let the people of Langford decide.

Speaker R · Thank you very much.

Speaker A · All right, guys, I've been good. I. There's conversation going on when. We don't have conversations, when people are speaking. The clapping, non clapping. That is not my little rule. That is what happens in municipal halls so that you don't get people afraid to come up or people will be afraid that their opinion is going to be against the others. All right, I chastise both sides, regardless of what side it is on the item, and I'm asking you to respect that. Anyone else like to come forward, please raise your hand. Come on up.

Speaker R · Good evening.

Speaker K · Norma Stewart, South Lankford.

Speaker A · Wow.

Speaker K · Four years is almost up, eh? And what a learning move. 60,000 people in your hands. It's a big, big responsibility. And I think a lot of people right here tonight are trying to explain to you that they're worried about chaos, they're worried about jobs, they're worried about climate. But at a time when our whole world is changing and we don't know what next year is going to happen, we don't know. We've been told by the government of Canada that we are expecting at least one increase in rate this year before December. We really need to make tough decisions as to whether or not we want to add to the loss of people's lives.

Speaker K · Another thing that I just wanted to say that many of you probably way too young to remember, but a few years when I was in my 20s, there was a huge garbage strike. Why? Because there was one garbage company. Garbage was piled up in lacrosse boxes, in tennis courts, in park. It took forever to get that cleaned up. There was a huge rat festation. Having competition can be good. We could have opportunities and if something does happen with one company allows us to pivot to somebody else. And I think we always have to have that opt in to give. So please give considerations. I know it's a very tough one for you tonight.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Next person I'd like to come forward. Raise your hand please. I hand way in the center back there. Come on forward.

Speaker F · Good evening.

Speaker L · Sean Blair, Lankford Pete Road.

Speaker T · I've received five hundred and fifty emails

Speaker R · for residents this last five days. They've asked me that to ask you

Speaker N · guys to suspend Bill 74 until after the election.

Speaker A · Thank you. All right, let's. We got a few online. Let's go online.

Speaker C · App user Wendy B. Please unmute yourself in the app, provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker D · Good evening.

Speaker R · W. Bowers, longtime resident, speaking on item seven.

Speaker C · Sorry, Wendy, we can't hear you.

Speaker T · Sorry,

Speaker A · We can't hear you, Wendy.

Speaker C · Just try muting and unmuting your phone again. Great, Wendy, Keep your hand up and we'll come back to you. App user Travis Sherman. Please unmute yourself in the app, provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker W · Hi there, Travis Sherman. I'm Speaking to item 4. 7, as most people are. I did not receive any confirmation on. Can you hear.

Speaker F · Yep.

Speaker W · Yeah, okay. I'm just speaking to that and I did not hear anything regarding consultation to the majority of Lankford. But I did Hear that only 500 residents were interviewed for that and we have thousands of people that live here. I also know that monopolies are generally not a good thing. Competition's good. Also, what were the costs that will be incurred as far as the infrastructure to support it? Like, because these trucks don't just run on their own, they have shops that have to maintain them and that sort of thing. Not to mention the fluctuation in gas prices. Who will absorb that? So either way, the city is going to lose money one way or another if we end up changing this to a public service instead of a privatized system.

Speaker W · Myself, I used Waste Connections and I'm fairly disappointed that I will no longer be eligible to get that service. And I guess the last thing I would have to say is if there are. What I'm wondering is, does the city have any relationship, the city council, that is, have any relationship to Dogwood? I've been approached by a group that is advocating for the city. Well, the city councilors, as they are now, which is a third party towards the election, and they're basically campaigning against your competitor.

Speaker A · Sir, we're talking about 7. 4. We're not talking. If what you're talking about is not to do with 7. 4.

Speaker W · Okay, my mistake. Okay, so basically I just want to know why the majority of Lankford was not canvassed on this and only 500 people were. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker C · Telephone user ending in 164. Please unmute yourself by pressing star6 on the telephone keypad. Provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker E · Good evening. Derek Ferguson. I live in Lankford, South Lankford, down Happy Valley. Mr. Maryland Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm going to speak in the 7. 4. I do have a concern on the time frame of this. I just actually found out about it or saw it on Saturday. Nothing was there Thursday. So obviously it was posted for a minimum amount of time, you know, which for an item that like having to put new gravel into a park at the corner of Humpty and Dumpty, that would be fine to put through on the first, second, third reading and away you go.

Speaker E · But this is an item that is going to affect every single owner in Langford. And I don't believe that there has been enough time for anyone to properly read it, to absorb it, to research anything on it. I myself have several questions out to staff. If you end up going to third reading, it doesn't even matter what those several questions are. I don't have that information. I'm unable to maybe give advice or give a properly formed opinion and it goes forward. So I really believe option two is the way forward with this particular item. We need a bit more information on it and we need to be able to have a read of it, have a look at it, and then make an informed opinion and move forward.

Speaker E · I'm also concerned about the requirements, knowing Contracting when I was reading paragraph seven tells me to skip schedule A for the options that are available to me. There's a 120 liter garbage and a 120 liter organic. I'm making the assumption that the organic is going to be a combined yard waste and kitchen waste that some municipalities do and a collection bin at cost. We don't all fit into the same envelope. Or houses. This isn't a one size fits all. You really have to. When you're sending out a sole source contract, particularly on someone's behalf, you need to flush out your requirements. Right. What our requirements are.

Speaker E · And I understand that the city can impose requirements, but those requirements have to be realistic. They have to be attainable. 120 liter garbage doesn't cut it. I should be looking at that and seeing a smaller one. I should be looking at that and seeing the size up larger. Or maybe an 80. Maybe 120. Maybe 180. Right. As other municipalities have because people have different uses. Same thing with the organic. Have you studied this at all? I think you'd find that a lot of people that do use organic yard waste do not use that 12 months out of the year. Why would you want one in December, January and February, unless you're running a greenhouse? I. I wouldn't know.

Speaker E · Other times throughout the year, coming the end of next month, I'm going to be having eight bags, probably 10 sitting on the side of the road with the. With leaves and everything else in it. So inclusive to the requirements should be a list of.

Speaker A · I'm sorry, sir, but the time is up.

Speaker E · Yes, that's sad. It's too bad. We had no time to talk and no time to observe this. And I think you should go with.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much, sir.

Speaker C · App user Desmond James. Please unmute yourself in the app. Provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker U · Hello, Desmond James, Lankford resident. I live up in West Hills. First, I appreciate the extra time so that I could speak. I'm Speaking to item 7. 4, the solid waste collection bylaw. I understand it was first formally discussed about 14 months ago, but had been informally discussed for some time before that. I was one of those people discussing informally because people were dumping garbage at the park. Okay. So while I understand the financial pressures we are all facing, much of which is well beyond our ability to control or influence, I am 100% behind this proposal. No doubt you've heard very variety of views on this Proposed bylaw, I'm going to offer mine and I'm going to give you actual data, not hypothetical thoughts because the data will help more based on schedule A, which is exactly the same service I currently use.

Speaker U · And I needed to check my math three times because I was caught off guard by the numbers I saw. I will save my household approximately $600 per year. To put that in perspective, my tax increase last year was just under $500, which was the largest increase over the last four years that we've had all those tax increases. Had this been implemented in 2022, I would have saved about $2,400 over four years. And in that same time, my taxes went up about $2,000. So this potential move essentially eliminates all of those tax increases to my household in terms of actual dollar value from 2022 on. Further, this means literally, for no additional tax dollars from my household's perspective, the city managed to deliver the police officers, the firefighters, the bylaw, all of those things, including the safe schools, the new sidewalks, the trails, the parks, the multi use paths, for no additional cost to my household.

Speaker U · That's the hard numbers for me. And again, I did the math three times. I'm still a little thinking I must have done something wrong had I been taking my garbage to the dump in 2022 and beyond. And again, there's the same as schedule A, I would have only saved about $10 per year. But to be clear, I could not have taken my garbage to the dump for many, many, many months in that time. So I wouldn't have had those savings. So I just want to say I support it. I applaud council and staff for doing the tough work for the many months and years to deliver a proposal that makes a large positive impact on my household. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker C · App user Sandy Seifert. Please unmute yourself in the app. Provide your first initial last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to, please.

Speaker X · Hi, can you guys hear me?

Speaker C · Go ahead.

Speaker X · Hi, yeah, I want to speak to 7. 4 and if I have time, which I probably won't, 6. 1 S C for Langford Rest resident. So 7. 4, yet another bylaw and a plan that wasn't a priority that 99% of residents knew nothing about. Yet it will likely increase their cost of living and provide a lesser service than they have today. I feel that last caller was one in the minority. Perhaps municipal garbage service works well in Saanich and Victoria and I'D like to remind you once again that most of you live in Lankford, not Saniture Victoria. You know, I did have this on my bingo card though.

Speaker X · As I recall, last election, Matt Dell and Jeremy Caridona, both Victoria city councilors, shared in a podcast that there is garbage everywhere in the streets and people in Lankford just don't care about their community. Many of you shared that podcast and thought it funny. On behalf of Lankford residents, I want to. I want you to know that it wasn't funny then and it certainly isn't funny now. It was just distasteful and disrespectful. However, you clearly weren't bothered by it and you have spent more time in the last four years listening to your peers in Victoria and Saanich.

Speaker A · Hey, let's. Let's get back to 7. 4 not politics in another city.

Speaker X · Okay, so you have used online surveys to determine priorities and budgets and create plans that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Mayor Goodmanson, you told the Times colonists that even counting cars on an overpass to inform your master transportation plan as a survey with merely 400 people for a population of 60,000 people. And we aren't sure if there were duplicates or people were even from Langford. As Keith would say, any teacher would tell you no go redo that homework if you try to present present this as evidence prior for prioritizing municipal garbage service. But the one statistic that is interesting is those surveyed didn't indicate this was a problem for you to solve. So why are we now?

Speaker X · I could go on but I have seen this play out too many times in the last four years. Your CRD peers and the electoral electoral organization that elected you are what matters most.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker X · No, I'm not done. And have been your priority. You have blamed the past council for all of your decisions and haven't shaped from campaigning to governing.

Speaker A · Back to 7. 4 please.

Speaker X · Ma' am this bylaw 7. 4 tonight and there is no need to spend money on solving a problem that isn't a problem or priority.

Speaker A · All right, thank you very much. Your time is Noah. Okay, see we have still two more

Speaker C · apu zero vote for Stu is a vote for you. Please unmute yourself. Provide your first initial last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker P · Good evening mayor and council. My name is Josh Relfe. I'm a resident of Langford and I'll be speaking to item 7. 4. I do not support this bylaw. This bylaws presented leaves far too many unanswered questions about levels of service of various residents require. And frankly, without a contract in place, the proposed $280 per year is a total shot in the dark. I currently have weekly pickup of the same size, 120 liter bin that comes to $457 annually before taxes and fuel surcharge. This equates to about $8. 80 per pickup. Your proposed BI weekly pickup at $280 works out to about 1077 per pickup or 22. 5% more. We generate 120 liters of refuse every week.

Speaker P · Where is my extra 120 liters of garbage supposed to go if the city only offers a single 120 liter can on bi weekly pickup? I urge the city to take more time to examine a service that can be tailored to suit the various needs of Lankford residents. After all, this is math, not magic. Let's put people before politics. Please have a good night.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker C · Abuser Wendy B. Please unmute yourself in the app, provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item items on the agenda you wish to speak to. Sorry Wendy, we still can't hear you.

Speaker A · Just for clarification, can anyone in the gallery hear us? It's not just our speakers here.

Speaker C · So Wendy, if you're calling from a computer, I think that it's the microphone that you've got set on the computer. We're going to go to the next caller and we'll come, we'll try and come back to you again. App user T Forgive me, Stemedianos. Please unmute yourself in the app, provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker Y · That was a pretty good pronunciation. Thank you. I'm T Samidows and I'm a resident of Lankford. Can everyone hear me okay?

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker Y · Excellent. So I'm speaking in favor of this motion. First, I do not really care if this motion is happening close to the election. Our representatives are elected to a term and they are expected to serve the public for the entirety of that term. And I probably can guess that many folks are currently upset that the NDP are not carrying out their term that they had in the most recent election. So it's a bit of a double standard to be upset at this council for governing until the end of the term.

Speaker A · Keep it to municipal politics please, sir.

Speaker Y · Yeah, I've heard Individuals try to represent and talk about young families. I'm the father of a young family. I want my kids to play in clean parks. I don't want trucks driving around constantly in my neighborhood every single day of the week. Friends who moved to Langford alongside us were surprised that there was no garbage collection. It is very common in modern civilization that usually folks don't think about it like they just assume it's there. So that's how much of a benefit waste collection actually is. I'm also hearing a lot of arguments that folks don't produce enough waste to benefit from this bylaw. So did and so do my like 90 year old grandparents.

Speaker Y · But I know that my grandpa wouldn't download any cost onto me. He would contribute and I would encourage these individuals to look at the healthcare system. I'm a healthy adult and I do not need the healthcare system as much as my wife when she had our kids or my kids going to the doctor more frequently than I do. We can't progress as a society in a rugged, individualistic way. Everyone has to contribute for those who can't. Individuals are also talking about monopolies. And municipal services are not monopolies. They are service and have no profit motive. Heartland is the sole waste facility on the island. Waste service cannot get cheaper than the city running the service because they're going to be serving it at cost. There's no profit motive there.

Speaker Y · And lastly, as a voter, I also find it frustrating that individuals use this meeting as a campaign event. It comes across as disingenuous and other electoral content.

Speaker A · Let's keep it to 7. 4, sir.

Speaker W · Thank you.

Speaker D · Point of privilege, Mayor. I'm trying really hard to hear everyone that comes and shares their opinion when there's a lot of comments from the gallery.

Speaker Q · I can't.

Speaker D · There's. There's one person that's trying really hard to have volume. It's. It's really distracting. If we can hold space for everybody's comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Speaker P · Yep.

Speaker C · App user, Deb's iPad. Please unmute yourself in the app. Provide your first initial, last name, municipality of residence for the record and indicate which item or items on the agenda you wish to speak to.

Speaker S · Hi there.

Speaker R · Deb Wormald, 694 Goldie Avenue, Lankford. I'd like to speak to. I think you said 704 the garbage, is that right?

Speaker A · 7. 4.

Speaker K · Okay. So I've been in my home for

Speaker R · many years and adamantly recycle and everything. The proposed garbage that you wish would more than double the cost. I raised my daughter. She's now 33 and through my recycling habits have trained her to be the same.

Speaker R · So if you're in a household and

Speaker K · you do all the things you can

Speaker R · teach your children that as well, I can't afford any more cost. So I'm really hoping that you will

Speaker K · reconsider and let people have a choice. That's it. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Okay, is there anyone else that has not spoken that would like to speak today in the gallery? All right. See no hands and no one online. And my apologies, Wendy. I'm not sure why we couldn't hear you. I'm going to close Public Participation, thank you very much. And then I split the page here. We are going to go right away to item number 6. 6. 1. The Climate Action Plan Adoption thank you, Mayor.

Speaker Z · The purpose of this report is to present Council with the final Climate Action Plan for consideration of adoption. The Climate Action Plan establishes a five year implementation framework within a broader ten year planning horizon. While some of the actions are expected to be completed within five years, others will continue over a longer period. The Climate Action Plan will be reviewed and updated approximately every five years who reflect progress, emerging priorities, technological advancements, funding opportunities, legislative changes and evolving community needs. The Climate Action Plan is structured around 6 big moves, 5 strategies and 59 actions. The 6 big moves describe the long term outcomes the City is working towards including to prepare Langford for climate related emergencies and community health risks to create low carbon resilient buildings and infrastructure to enable clean, connected and low carbon transportation choices to protect and enhance natural systems that support climate resilience to advance a circular economy and economy and reduce waste through prevention, reuse, repair and resource recovery and to strengthen local food systems and food security.

Speaker Z · The five strategies under which the actions are organized describe the approaches that the City can take to achieve the big moves and these include plan and regulate, lead by example, invest in infrastructure and services, enable community action and partner and advocate. Actions within the Climate Action Plan were informed by technical analysis including climate risk and vulnerability assessment and greenhouse gas emissions modeling, as well as community engagement and leading municipal best practices. Input was gathered through a public survey in collaboration with 19 multi sector partner organizations, through interviews, focus groups and workshops, including a dedicated youth workshop. A prioritization matrix was used to evaluate each action based on its potential to reduce emissions, strengthen resilience, deliver community benefits and be implemented using available resources.

Speaker Z · Draft of the strategy of the Plan was made available for public review and comment from August 27 to September 9. Summary of the Feedback received along with key changes incorporated into the final plan are described in the staff report and staff are available for any questions that council may have.

Speaker A · There's lights on. So Councillor Wagner, I fear I might

Speaker R · stray into comments so I would like to put a motion on the floor and then there still might be questions, if that's okay. So I move that council adopt the City of Lankford's climate Action Plan as presented.

Speaker A · Okay. Do you have a seconder

Speaker B · Second that.

Speaker A · Okay. Motivation.

Speaker R · Thank you.

Speaker O · Yeah.

Speaker R · I'm really happy to see how the public feedback was incorporated into the plan and it was really great that people came out and spoke to that and they really felt heard. It sounded to me and I was aware at the time as well of the let's chat Langford engagement, the workshops, the focus groups and the interviews. It was all quite an effective process and it unfolded as we all would hope that public engagement would. I also receive personal emails and discussion when I was out in the community. So it's just been really great. I feel like there's been a lot of meaningful engagement on this. I really like the staff report, how it sort of brought it all home.

Speaker R · Bringing the specific items such as increased advocacy to BC Transit, exploring options for rainwater collection and clearly outlining our support for agriculture, land and other food security initiatives. Provisions to strengthen support for local food access, distribution and resilience planning, the pillar of the climate action Plan around food security I found really exciting. So it was nice to see that and it ties in with our official community plan as well. So we're bringing things out of the official community plan and putting them into a more of an action focused how are we going to get where we want to go and meet our targets? So I think the plan was just really easy to read and appreciated that many items were clarified including new considerations to increase everything from youth involvement to funding opportunities. So just thanks for this fantastic body of work.

Speaker R · I wish we could do it faster but it is going to require phasing in so the timelines that show what we can do in two or five or 10 years, I think it's realistic.

Speaker V · Ish.

Speaker R · Instead of just being my aspirational hopes of let's get it all done now. So thanks for this plan and I think we will be able to save money in the long run because any action we take today will help us in the future and the important thing is our quality of life and our health and reducing property damage as well. So there's many co benefits that will come along with implementing this plan. Thanks thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. Through you, that was very well put by Councillor Wagner. Thank you so much for the summary there. I just want to begin by saying thank you to those who came out to speak during public participation for support for this climate plan. I think it's no secret this council has done a lot of planning and it's nice to have this one kind of leading up the rear because in my view climate is everything. And applying a climate lens through all of our plans, in my view is the most important for us or is the way for us to move forward as a community. I just want to point out a few elements of the plan that I really, really appreciated.

Speaker B · We've done this in other plans, but applying an equity lens to understand which parts of our city are most vulnerable to some of the climate risks that my generation and our community is going to be facing in the coming decades. I thought that was a really great approach to make sure that we're making the best use of our resources because they're limited. I also just want to acknowledge that I appreciate that the report demonstrates that there's going to be ongoing monitoring and check ins as the plan continues on in the hands of the next council. I think it's really important that or something that I've heard this term rather that I think is really important to keep in mind is that these plans don't mean a lot if they just sit on a shelf.

Speaker B · And so I appreciate that this plan is very actionable through the recommendations and the big moves and I'm looking forward to seeing it come to life. Langford has always been progressive. I remember at the beginning of this term learning about some of the policies, the concrete policy comes to mind and I'm happy to see concrete actions to support climate resilience in Langford from more holistic lens. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else like to say anything? Councillor Gary, thank you.

Speaker AA · I'm really excited to see this come forward. It's having been teaching for over 10 years now the impact of economics and the environmental impacts, environmental economics, if you will, it's always been very troublesome. Each year going through and updating my course notes and updating for the current situation that the world that our local economy, that our local environment is facing and each year updating those statistics in horrifying directions, not just in small steps of things getting worse, but things falling apart in many cases. And continually having students just completely aghast by this and pushing back as to why we as governments are not doing More to address this urgent crisis that they are witnessing unfolding in their lifetimes that I've witnessed unfold in my lifetime.

Speaker AA · Although we are just one small municipality, we do see that we can have impacts locally. We have seen the impact that has happened to a community like Summerland, and I'm happy to see that in here. Although it's not a main part of the plan, it also does address aspects of evacuation planning, regional emergency coordination, but what we can do up front for fire smarting and ways to mitigate those key risks to our community. And so while we are just relatively a small player in the big scheme of things, that doesn't give us an excuse just to sit back and do nothing. We still have a responsibility to act.

Speaker AA · And I see this as that little thing that we can do to make a positive step forward.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Gyri.

Speaker D · Thank you, Mayor. Like my colleagues, I'm very grateful for the feedback, particularly for the last round of feedback that came through. When the draft went out to the public, there was a lot of really thoughtful feedback that came back and that it was incorporated into the final draft. It's really cohesive. There's a lot of. There's some parts where I wasn't really expecting to hear that are very relevant. And the youth participation as well, you know, like this is. We are thinking about our world for tomorrow. We heard a lot in public participation about how this is part of something larger. And, you know, it's been challenging every year that we've been here at the council table.

Speaker D · Every summer there's fires and we see communities negatively impacted, and yet we just keep pushing forward as usual. I also see neighboring communities that have these types of policies, and they're pursuing federal grants through Green Municipal Fund with FCM and then making their buildings more efficient. And now that we have this climate action plan in place and we have a strategy way forward, we have justification for making some of those applications ourselves and improving Langford in a way that would. That would show that dedication to the future and that recognize the voices of the youth that we've heard coming forward saying how important this is. My colleagues have spoken really well to it. I just.

Speaker D · I wanted to speak to the opportunities that I think having a plan has, and I'm grateful that we have this and that we've got it over the finish line before the term is done. Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else? Last chance. Questions? Comments? All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor?

Speaker J · Opposed?

Speaker A · All right, that passes. Okay. We're now on to item number seven, bylaws first 1. 7. 1. The bylaw number 2284. Staff, do you have any comments or. No. Okay, thank you.

Speaker B · I will move that council adopt city of Langford permissive tax exemption bylaw number 2147. Amendment number three, bylaw number 2284. 2026.

Speaker A · I'll second motivation.

Speaker B · Thank you. Just waiting for my iPad to load here. We've had plenty of discussion about these permissive tax exemptions, so I don't feel much need to motivate. But I do just want to comment that the bylaw is very clear on the different locations that are receiving permissive tax exemptions. And I do see a clear community benefit through all of them. So I can support the motion.

Speaker A · Thank you. And Councillor Brakener.

Speaker R · Yeah, thank you. This is adoption, so it has been discussed. But similar thoughts as Councillor Herter. These organizations are receiving a tax exemption because of their community benefit and we have a long standing practice of doing this. It was before my time as a counselor and we haven't been picking and choosing which organization. We are choosing all of the nonprofit organizations and those that come forward for community benefit purposes. So it is standard practice and I just wanted to comment on that as something that's continued throughout our term and I hope will continue in the future as well. I see that there is a little burden put on to all of the taxpayers, but it is standard practice to have these particular organizations supported and many of them don't have enough funding to survive without this type of support.

Speaker A · Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor Kucha, thank you.

Speaker AA · Not to poke holes, but I actually do disagree that this isn't a blanket thing that we do for any nonprofit. This is something that I do spend a lot of time looking at because for some of these, these are significant benefits to the community and significant benefits to, to the nonprofits there. In this case, each and every, each and every service group here that has applied for this permissive tax exemption as and continues to provide tremendous benefits to our community. And it's on that merit, and truthfully on that merit alone, that I believe that these permissive tax exemptions are worthwhile. To note few. I mean, we have the Chamber of Commerce here, which has been a tremendous partner and continues to work with the, with the city and local businesses to promote commerce and economic development.

Speaker AA · We have the construction foundation of BC and the work that they're doing on Spencer Road at the old, at the old clubhouse and the great, great work that is happening there. So I, I definitely see the benefits that These provide and looking at them each individually.

Speaker A · Anyone else? All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor post that passes. We're on to now. Item 7. 2, bylaw number 2295, the city length for permissive tax exemption. Bylaw number 2295, 2026. And this is for adoption.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker R · I'll move that council adopt city of Lankford permissive tax Exemption bylaw number 2295, 2026.

Speaker B · I'll second that.

Speaker G · Okay.

Speaker A · Motivation.

Speaker R · I think it's important again to acknowledge. I take Counselor Kuch's point is that it does matter what the organizations are, and we do look at them each time. I personally do look each time. And this One is the McColla Housing Society. And they're a fantastic partner. And we had an amazing housing project. We were hoping to get over the finish line and the province pulled the funding. But we know that they are looking for other ways to serve the community. They have housing in our community already and they're just really important partners that are doing such good work with a shoestring budget. So I'm very supportive of supporting them in this way.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker B · Not much to add. I just recognize that this is for a specific location. We don't have much affordable housing within Lankford. So I'm supportive of this motion to bring that type of service into Lankford.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Kuto, Councilor Gary. Okay, we'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes. Flipping the page, we are now to Item 7. 3, bylaw number 2158, subdivision and development services, bylaw number 1000. Amendment number 28, bylaw number 2158, 2026. This is first, second and third reading.

Speaker I · Thank you, Mayor. The purpose of this report is to present the proposed omnibus amendments to the city's subdivision and development servicing. Bylaw number 1000 2029. 22,009. Sorry. Amendment number 28, bylaw number 2158, 2026, to council for consideration. Proposed amending bylaw. Removes and updates outdated references to legislation and bylaws. Incorporates references to the adopted transportation master plan and active transportation plan. Replaces the outdated road cross sections and related tables with one standard, typical cross section and key minimum requirements for road rights of way and road cross sections. Modifies the city's use of the master municipal construction document to further the implementation of the city's low carbon concrete policy. Clarifies requirements for works to be done as part of the subdivision approval, including electrical systems and street lighting.

Speaker I · Road crown Grades and maximum driveway widths. Dates requirements for stormwater management infrastructure to reflect industry best practices, Erosion and sediment control plans and updated technical details. Revises Schedule 10 irrigation standards to clarify requirements and improve formatting ensuring current industry standards and designs are reflected in the bylaw and to promote smart technology, promoting water efficiency and conservation. Updates removes and adds technical drawings related to boulevard and street landscaping and irrigation and further changes outlined in the commentary section of this report. Overall, these amendments complete key objectives and support council's 2023-2027 strategic plan, including sustainable development, climate change and environmental stewardship. Transportation and good governance. Staff are happy to answer any questions.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions or wants to make a motion?

Speaker R · Councillor Wagner, we do have a question on this. Thank you. Through the Chair, I was looking particularly at the stormwater management section and I know there was a considerable amount of work that was done in this area. One thing that caught my attention was that we have less than 20 years of data and that the review is only recommended in 10 more years. I guess my concern would be, you know, climate change is happening fast. We're seeing these huge rainfall events, sometimes atmospheric rivers. I grew up in Langford. That was not a thing before. It's very new.

Speaker B · Feels a little scary.

Speaker R · I'm maybe not as comfortable that it says 10 years review. I wondered if you could comment on that. Often we do review things in a five year time frame and if you could also just comment on sort of what the curve shows. It sounds like our data showed that we were in a good range, we don't need to change it. But I was just looking for a bit more information on that.

Speaker I · So through the Chair, the City retained Colquitt's engineering to review and update Schedule 5, which covers stormwater management. And through that review we've proposed primarily housekeeping items or changes to reflect practices that are already being implemented by consultants and contract, but have contractors, but have not yet been formally incorporated into this bylaw. And Council may recall that one of Council's strategic plan items was to update the Schedule 5 stormwater management requirements, including the IDF curve, which is the intensity, duration and frequency curve. There were concerns with that curve being more than 20 years old and based on rain gauges of the day that were in Sydney and Seattle and averaged in between, that maybe it didn't account for climate change or maybe it wasn't that accurate to Linkford, so it warranted a review.

Speaker I · And the review found with the gauges that we had in the area, which again, as the report states, has only 20 years of data confirmed that actually the IDF curve is fairly conservative with regards to that. It does err on the side of the of caution. So while I think this was best case scenario for this, so the IDF curve is not recommended to be changed at this time. And staff, we're glad that we went through the process to use the more local closer data that we have to confirm that. But it is recommended that the IDF curves be reviewed in 10 years once more data is available at those local curves. And again we're talking about intensity, duration and frequency curves which.

Speaker I · So that's a normal time frame to review those curves on. Again, the last time that we reviewed this was 20 years ago when we didn't have this data. So we intend to review it again in another 10 years. It doesn't mean that these stormwater management requirements in this bylaw won't continue to be updated sooner than that. There are other requirements that need to be updated. And as stated in the Climate Action Plan, there are some stormwater related recommendations in the Climate Action Plan including and not limited to green infrastructure that staff will be exploring further.

Speaker A · Thank you very much.

Speaker T · Thank you.

Speaker R · So that was very well answered. I did have basically a follow up question about the green infrastructure and just before I move there, just to clarify. So the other data was available for many more years. It just wasn't rain gauge as that were right. In Langford. But there is a lot of data that was maybe 50 years, I don't

Speaker I · know through the chair. That's correct. That data from Sydney and Sooke was much older but again farther away from Langford so warranted a review.

Speaker T · Great.

Speaker R · Yeah, so it seems like actually we got lucky there. I was thinking of drainage in Happy Valley or other places that we just know around the Millstream Creek we had. When the atmospheric river came, it was really bad flooding there. So there's some trouble spots. Is this kind of change going to be enough to help mitigate flood risk in specific areas through the chair, the

Speaker I · 1 in 200 year floodplain map that's in the OCP is being reviewed separately and it's through a program through the province.

Speaker R · Oh, thank you, that's reassuring. And I did see in the Climate Action Plan that there was exploring green infrastructure. So is that something that would happen or would a council need to make further direction in the future to make sure that that happens now if the. Well we did adopt the Climate Action Plan so that's now on the books through the chair.

Speaker I · Now that the Climate Action Plan has been adopted, staff will be bringing forward recommendations to council through the city's budget process as to how we can best deliver on those requirements in the climate action plan.

Speaker B · Great, thanks.

Speaker R · Yeah, I see some co benefits there. So I was quite interested in that.

Speaker M · Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, does anyone else have a question or comment or would like to look at a motion? Councillor Harder, thank you.

Speaker B · Through you, just a question to staff. So provided that this bylaw passes tonight, can you just perhaps speak to which type of projects it will impact? Will it impact any developments that are currently in stream or will it just be for new developments moving forward

Speaker I · through the chair? Section 511 of the Community charter applies to any subdivision and development servicing bylaw which provides a 12 month grace period for any developments that have a preliminary approval or in stream.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Councilor Gyri, thank you.

Speaker D · Through you Mayor. You mentioned housekeeping and in regards to the stormwater management, a lot of these other updates seem to be mostly housekeeping as well as they're in alignment with policies that council's already approved. Am I missing anything that that would be out of the ordinary that would have cost worth considering.

Speaker I · Through the chair. None of the proposed amendments in the amending bylaw tonight should be of surprise to anyone. A lot of these are housekeeping amendments. Others are to ensure that our bylaws align with our policies and our plans. So you'll see in here that a lot of the changes are a result of the transportation Master plan active transportation plan being adopted or the city's low carbon concrete policy. So prior to this update 1000 actually conflicts with those adopted plans and policies. So that needs to be corrected.

Speaker A · Okay, Anyone else?

Speaker R · Councillor Wagner, do you have another question? Thank you.

Speaker A · Go ahead.

Speaker R · Through the chair. I was looking at the boulevard landscape standards and I guess I was a little bit concerned about no new coniferous trees and other tree related things here. So just being not a fan of Cash and Lou, I'm trying to save some mature trees. I just wondered if you could comment on will these changes cause us to accommodate development more or less and retain more or less trees?

Speaker AB · Through the chair. The point of the coniferous tree comment is to ensure that coniferous trees aren't getting planted in our municipal boulevard center medians and at the edge of roads. They're not suitable. There was a period of time we were putting some up on Bear Mountain Parkway and such and those trees aren't. Aren't great for engineering infrastructure roadways and curbing and sidewalks and such. So that was for. That's the comment I have about streets and boulevards. The other is the my ability to assess trees. And of course, at every chance we're going to try and retain trees that are on existing developments. If a DP is granted, obviously, and they're allowed to do tree clearing, they're allowed to do tree clearing.

Speaker AB · But for city owned boulevard trees that fronted development, any change that we've made in here is to try and strengthen our cost, to ensure that if we can't, if they cannot be retained, that will be permanently compensated for them.

Speaker R · So I'm just wanting to be absolutely clear that we're still going to be trying to retain the trees because the cash and lieu doesn't help us as much as the tree in terms of tree canopy shading, other goals that we have for heat islands and that kind of thing.

Speaker AB · Yeah, through the chair, 100%, we'll always try and retain large, healthy trees. Possible cash and Lou is the last resort.

Speaker R · These are practical considerations I'm hearing. Thank you.

Speaker A · All right, anyone else? Councilor Harder.

Speaker B · Thank you. I'd like to move that council give first, second and third reading to subdivision and development servicing bylaw number 1000, amendment number 28, bylaw number 2158, 2026.

Speaker A · I'll second motivation.

Speaker B · Thank you. Appreciate the questions from my colleagues before we get into discussion here. I just want to thank staff for this huge body of work. I appreciated the report providing some of the context of how this bylaw has been amended in the past to keep up with, you know, best practices and current standards as we develop our community. But I'm really grateful that we're implementing this bylaw and putting this bylaw in place to make sure that the planning work that we've done this term isn't just a suggestion, but rather a bylaw requirement. This is the technical work that will actually allow us to build better in Lankford. This is the way that we're actually going to see better street design, better boulevards, better community.

Speaker B · And so I really appreciate that we did do all of the planning work to get us this far. I think the recommendations, or rather the changes that are going to be coming forward through this bylaw, are really going to be greatly appreciated by the community and deeply impactful to improving our quality of life. So I'm fully supportive of them. I think it'll be important for us, and rather for future councils, to maintain an open ear to the development industry as market changes and as building conditions do continue to be challenging for a lot of small builders especially. But wholeheartedly I support this and I'm looking forward to seeing it get implemented on the ground.

Speaker A · Thank you, Chancellor Wagner.

Speaker R · Thank you. Yeah, this is good governance. You don't want your policies not matching your bylaws and your plans not actually doing anything. So I am very happy to see the breadth of changes here. I hope people will see that the things that were already, you know, had robust public engagement and consultation with various stakeholders, things like the transportation and active transportation plans, the low carbon policy. We don't want our things contradicting each other. It just makes things really bogged down. So I remember in the design guidelines conversation, and the consultant came in with this giant stack of papers and was like, you guys, this is not easy to follow. Like, you really want to streamline this.

Speaker R · So we definitely need to put in the time and effort to make our plans align. So did want to appreciate that members of the construction industry might be concerned about these changes and to sort of reassure that these are living documents. And I remember the tree bylaw coming in and then an amendment coming back within a year to say, hey, we've had some experience with this now, and these things need to be tweaked. So we would like to always review our policies. It's really important to keep updating based on how things are turning out in real life and then adjust them as appropriate. So just wanted to comment on that aspect of constant change and the constant need for review, especially with something as important as this type of bylaw, where all of the new developments will need to be listing it out and seeing how it works.

Speaker R · And then I would expect there could be some changes or sometimes it's clarifications because it's confusing. So it's really important that we take this step and I support this.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Councillor Gyri, thank you.

Speaker D · Just to expand a little bit further. I think this is a difference of what the city would like to see and what we're doing required. We're asking to be required to come through with different development. And when we have this misalignment, and my colleagues have commented a little bit on this, but it's a record position for our staff to be in when we have some direction looking one way and in some direction looking the other, and then they have to navigate that with our partners in the community. The other type of friction where this causes is if we have developers that don't normally build in Lankford, we have 13 different municipalities and trying to navigate different communities and what's expected and what's required, that alignment is really important.

Speaker D · Just in a regional context in order to make us accessible. So my colleagues have commented a lot, but I just wanted to expand a little bit on that because I do think the regional context and what this means for operations is really important.

Speaker S · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, I'll call the question all those in favor post that passes. All right. And one we heard the most about today. Item 7. 4 bylaw number 2299 solid waste collection bylaw number 2299 2026. This is first, second and third range. Before we go into a motion to does anyone have any questions? Actually, first staff, let's thank you Mayor

Speaker I · the purpose of this report is to present the proposed Solid Waste collection bylaw number 22992026 to council for consideration. Proposed bylaw is the result of Council's direction to better manage waste collection in City of Langford. The municipally contracted residential curbside garbage and organic waste collection program is expected to provide cost savings for residents on average compared to the current open market private subscription model, reduce GHG emissions and infrastructure impacts by reducing the number of garbage collection vehicles on city roads and mitigate nuisances to the community such as illegal dumping and traffic congestion.

Speaker I · The proposed bylaw is required to implement a city garbage and organic waste collection program by establishing fees for the service, requiring use of the service for residential properties that contain up to six dwelling units inclusive, regulating the use of collection bins and setting fine amounts for bylaw offenses.

Speaker I · If I may provide a bit of an update. On July 30, 2026, the city proposed posted a negotiated request for proposals for this service on the City's website and BCBID, which closed on September 3, 2026. Three addenda were also publicly posted in response to 27 questions during that five week period. That process has now closed and several submissions have been received. Staff are currently reviewing the potential collection contractors. The contract has not yet been awarded. In anticipation of the contract, the city services must be established by bylaw. Staff have reviewed the city's the CRD's solid waste management plan and best practices in other municipalities and have drafted the proposed bylaw to reflect the City's garbage and organic waste collection program and Mayor, if I may provide some clarifications to address some of the questions from the public.

Speaker I · Thank you.

Speaker R · So this Just to be clear, this

Speaker I · bylaw establishes the minimum mandatory service for the eligible locations identified in this bylaw. This bylaw does not and will not contain all the details that will be contained in the resultant contract that has not been awarded. More details will be provided to the public as more information becomes available. But the service establishment bylaw does need to come first. It is our understanding that no contractor will enter into a contract for a municipal service that has not been established by by bylaw. Therefore, bringing forward this bylaw for council consideration is the next step in this process to deliver on council's direction for municipally contracted residential curbside waste collection service.

Speaker I · So while this item on the agenda is not about the details of the contract to try to be helpful, I can say that the majority of the answers to the public's questions regarding the city's expectations and requirements for the future potential contract can be found in previous staff reports and the publicly posted NRFP documents.

Speaker I · And NRFP stands for that negotiated request for proposal. Like any service contract, the nrfp, the addenda and the proposal of the successful proponent will be attached to and form part of the contract. So again, if anybody is interested, please go read that. So, so I'll provide a couple examples here. So, as indicated in the NRFP documents, this is not a one size fits all service. The city does intend to provide a menu of carb options for folks, different size and types of options. Also as stated in the nrfp, components are to service non conforming locations. So that might be long, steep or narrow driveway. So they have to tell us how they're going to do that and assist those with disabilities getting their carts to the curb.

Speaker I · But those are all details that will be in a potential future contract that again has not yet been awarded. We encourage the public to listen to the previous public presentation and or read the public staff report and details of the NRFP documents for more information and staff are happy to answer any questions.

Speaker A · All right, so before we entertain any motions, let's get some questions out of the way. Anyone have any questions?

Speaker R · I do, thank you. Through the chair, where can we see the nrfp? I did peek at it earlier but I haven't read. I believe it's maybe over 600 pages. It's a highly technical, detailed document and I remember skimming it. I do read the staff reports, but this one I was going to take a look because people had asked so many questions and were quite concerned about everything from bears and attractants and accessibility features. And this one size fits all approach really unpopular. So we wanted to, I wanted to know what was in there and so can you point me to where that is?

Speaker I · So through the chair it's still posted on the city's website. So any residents or councillors that would like help finding that information on the city's website. Please reach out to EngineeringAngford CA and we will send you the links to those documents.

Speaker R · Okay, thank you. Yeah, the. I did try to search for it, so always pushing for website updates. So I did have a couple other questions, but I could see if other counselors come up with similar questions and where I could add another one now.

Speaker A · Well, Councilor Harder, Councillor Harder had her light on. Let her ask a question and then we'll see others and come back to you.

Speaker B · Thank you through the chair. Thank you to the director of Engineering for providing that that opening in context. My question is just with regards to the frequency of pickup and I recognize that you sort of just alluded that there would be a menu of options for cart sizes. Would that extend potentially to pick up frequency and would that also extend to cart options in terms of. I think a few brought up the fact that there are certain neighborhoods that have more bears than others. So I'm just wondering if you could speak to that comment as well.

Speaker I · So through the chair, as indicated in the nrfp, the frequency is set at biweekly and that was supported by the public survey that went out. So the public indicated that they would be supportive of a.

Speaker A · Guys, I'm hearing you over by Director. No, you had the chance to speak, we listened to you. Now we're trying to get questions answered. Please continue.

Speaker I · Thank you, chair. So the frequency with the public survey, we heard from the public that they would be supportive of a bi weekly frequency if it resulted in cost savings. And then also to get the advantage of the reduced GHG emissions and all those efficiencies with regards to the less wear and tear on the roads and less impact to the public. Bi weekly frequency was also recommended for those reasons. And then with regards to the types of carts and bins. So we did ask for, and I believe it was appendix A of the nrfp, we asked for a menu of cart options. So different cart types and sizes and some of the different cart types included barriers approved bins.

Speaker A · All right. Do you have a follow up? Yes, go ahead.

Speaker B · Thank you. A separate question just with regards to collections, it's 62A and it just refers to the time that residents would be able to put their garbage out on the curbside. I do see that it's if they the bylaw says here by no earlier than 5am and no later than 7am and then to remove the bin by 9pm And I just wanted to ask if there was any review done for what's common practice in other municipalities. I just recognize that it does seem a little bit short and you know, folks have different work schedules and other life obligations to manage as well.

Speaker I · Through the chair. Yes, there was comparison done to other municipalities bylaws for service establishment for this regard and there was other types of engagement and recommendations from other municipalities. So the decision to not allow these bins to be put out overnight is related to wildlife getting into the bin. So it is recommended that the bins be put out the morning of the service and not let out for as long as possible. So that's why we put in the time frame of 5am to 7am and then also considering shift workers, the service could run between 7am and 7pm and so we provided a larger window before and after, a two hour window before and after to accommodate for those different needs.

Speaker A · Let me tell you, Councilor Gary, I see you reaching for your microphone.

Speaker D · Thank you. Through you, Mayor, there's a lot of municipalities have approached this in several different ways and we look to our neighbors as some of the challenges that they are dealing with. And we've heard during public participation a lot of concerns over public versus contracted out service. And we're going with contracted out service. And perhaps if you could just explain maybe some of the things that wouldn't be involved, that would be involved with the public service, for instance, striking the cost of volume that would be borne by the city pricing and what we're locked into.

Speaker I · So through the chair, the previous couple staff reports really get into detail to this. I don't want to necessarily get into all the details that were previously presented in those previous staff reports as to why there was it was recommended to have a municipally contracted service as opposed to the other options. However, we are looking to have a fully contracted service, meaning that the contractor would do all the procurement, all the billing and reduce the impact to the city as much as possible by doing that. So it's all contained within the prices that they're that are being proposed.

Speaker A · Do you have a follow up, Councillor Wagner?

Speaker R · Thank you. Yeah, process question now if I might. So I believe there was a notice of motion that came in 2025. There was some public engagement, There has been a couple of staff reports. But what's going to happen next? I mean this isn't exactly being rushed because we're at this stage in a process that has taken this long, but is there, Will we see the contract at a public meeting? Will we have another vote on this at a council meeting for the public to be able to speak to it? Just. I understand you're saying the bylaw has to come first or we won't get a contract.

Speaker R · It's unfortunately the way that I believe that's how it is. There's no way to have it the other way around. So could you just let me know what the next steps would be Very clearly.

Speaker I · So through the chair, the current step is this bylaw. We are still, as I mentioned in my preamble, staff are currently reviewing the potential collection contractors from the submissions that we've received and a contract has not yet been awarded. But that could be a potential.

Speaker R · So just to be clear, this is the bylaw step and then at a future meeting the bylaw would come back for adoption and that may still happen before the contract is clearly laid out. But if we want to know what the details are, we go look at the NRFP because those are what is required. Is that a way to make sure. I feel like I've had a lot of information. I don't want to ask my 20 questions that I have here in this meeting. So just want to check about the process.

Speaker I · So through the chair, if first, second and third readings are provided tonight, then adoption would be brought forward to the next council meeting. And as previously mentioned the that this service needs to be established prior to any entering into any future potential contract.

Speaker R · Thank you for being clear. I know putting on the spot there that's helpful.

Speaker A · Okay. Councilor Couture, is that your late?

Speaker AA · Yes, thank you. Just some questions if we may around potential costs. It does bring up. We had the resident bring up the concerns around the potential for 3% annual increases and how that potential for the inflationary increases built into this. Do we have any comparison as to what we've been seeing as annual increases on private market through the current existing service? Just as a understanding for a comparable rate of increase because we know that the existing service will increase annually as well. Just to have be able to make that comparison

Speaker I · through the chair. While I don't have those numbers in front of me today, what I do know, as previously stated in the previous staff reports, our consultant did do a feasibility analysis in comparison to what could be the price coming out of a public service versus a private.

Speaker I · And there's a significant cost savings potential for the public municipally contracted service. And so that's what the previous staff reports had indicated. And this is why we're proceeding in this direction today. I can provide an example though of a comparison to other municipally contracted services here at the city of Lankford. A lot of our contracts are have increases based on CPI which is Variable and it could be anywhere. You know the. I don't know exactly what the average CPI is, but in some years you see it around 2%, other years you see it around 7%. So it is, it is variable.

Speaker A · Do you have a follow up?

Speaker AA · Yes, if I could. Kind of on similar train of thought around costs as we have this chicken and egg problem where the bylaw needs to be adopted in order for us to get serious consideration from for this RFP to be accepted. It was brought up what would happen if we have these as outlined here and then all of the RFPs are not acceptable based off of what the bylaw is, what we have expressed in this bylaw on this side, what is our mechanism, what is our safeguards for the community? So it's not. Not that feeling of bait and switch.

Speaker I · So through the chair, the bylaw itself is contingent on a contract being awarded. So if no contract ends up being awarded, and as you mentioned, this is an rfp, so these proposals may be withdrawn at any time. Maybe none of them are acceptable. But again, in order to even get to that next step, we do need to establish a service and any amendments can be made at a later date as as well to align with any potential future contract, if there is one.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker R · Councilor Wagner, I did want to ask a couple of specific questions about this report in front of us. It mentions the ability of the Director of Engineering and Public Works to exempt a dwelling unit from the service if it's unserviceable or if it's going to provide undue hardship. So I just wondered if you could comment on that part of the report. Would a resident approach the city and say I have this long term contract or a house that doesn't make sense for me, wondering what types of exemptions would be reasonable.

Speaker I · So through the chair, the details of how to apply for an exemption and when will be communicated to the public at a later date for all those that are eligible for the service.

Speaker A · Councilor Harder.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker D · Threeu.

Speaker B · Thank you. My question is with regards to the opt in process, we had a question during public participation for bare land stratas and I was wondering if you could clarify what the mechanism would be. Would it require a unanimous vote from a strata to opt in or would it be a majority for the strata? Would it be a simple resolution from the property manager expressing that they want to enter into the service? What's the formality required?

Speaker I · So through the chair, as indicated in the bylaw, just trying to find the exact section. Okay. The this is three subsection two so part one, section three, subsection two. The owners of the following dwelling units may opt into this municipal collection service at the discretion of the director of Engineering. A, townhouses containing more than six dwelling units and B, dwelling units that have bare land strata plans and are regulated by a strata corporation that governs more than six residential strata lots of. Provided, however, that all owners within the townhouse complex or strata corporation as set out in subsection 2, must agree to opt in. So while that is very clear, it's still at the discretion of the Director of engineering for a reason.

Speaker I · And the reason why it's stated that way is yes, more details will come in as to how Stratas can apply for townhouses or bare land. Stratas can apply to opt in, but it's at the discretion of the city. Plus we of course would be engaging the contractor to see if when they would be able to take on those opt in units. That's something else that I would take into consideration.

Speaker B · Thank you. If I may, on the other end of the spectrum, opting out, I do note that the bylaw refers to the ability to opt out if you're, and this isn't the exact wording, but essentially if your property is unserviceable. So I'm thinking of certain areas around the municipality, the Walford area, some of our larger rural residential lots that may have long driveways or inaccessible grades. Could you comment on what the process would look like for a homeowner to initiate the opt out process?

Speaker I · So, through the chair, as per section 4, subsection 2, the Director of Engineering may exempt the owner of a dwelling unit that would otherwise be required to use a municipal collection service if the director of engineering or the collection contractor is satisfied that the dwelling unit is unserviceable.

Speaker I · So the details of how to apply for an exemption and when to apply for an exemption will be provided in that information package that goes out to those eligible locations. May or may not require, you know, a site visit or more information from those that are applying for the exemption. But there's more information to follow on that.

Speaker B · Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

Speaker A · Okay, anyone else?

Speaker R · Councilor Wagner, thank you. Through the chair, just looking through some of the. Probably an easy question. I think yard waste and compost is commingled, so that's okay. But can you opt into different levels of service? According to the nrfp, is it possible to say, okay, for six months of the year? I have lots of yard waste, I'm doing all my gardening and the other six months a year, I don't Want that? Is there options? Is it that level of detail?

Speaker I · So through the chair, two parts to that I believe yes. Organic waste means food waste, which includes discarded animal and vegetable matter from food or food preparation. Pardon me, including paper products that are food soiled and yard waste, which means vegetative matter for residential source resulting from gardening, horticultural, cultural, landscaping and does not include prohibited items, recyclable material or garbage, which is those are separately defined terms there. So this, the intention of the organic waste is to be co mingled. And to the second part of that question through the chair, even though some of these organic wastes may be seasonal, there is the base minimum level of service is what is being proposed to be established in this bylaw today, which is those 120 liter bins bi weekly.

Speaker I · Residents or owners may apply to increase the size of that bin or request a different type of bin, such as a bear proof bin. But the mandatory service means that you can't just have the organic spin for six months of the year.

Speaker B · Okay, thanks.

Speaker R · I do have another question about a different question. Well, some of them are a little bit philosophical almost. I just wondered if we could think about contracting out. So we have the Victoria contracting as our boulevards and work maintenance and that kind of thing that people were talking about the dangers of a monopoly or the lack of competition. I'm just relating to other services that the city does contract out. It is a normal thing for the city to have a pretty high value contract sitting with a provider. And if someone else could provide a more competitive price, then when it came up for contract renewal, then we'd be looking for a different service. I know the CRD just changed the blue bins, right?

Speaker R · So it's not that there would not be competition, it's that we would have a contract for a certain amount of time like we do with other contracts, is that right?

Speaker I · That's correct. So the term of this contract which is stated in the NRFP is a seven year plus a potential to extend for one year twice. So a potential for a total nine years. So we call it a seven plus one plus one type contract. And that's based on the life expectancy of the vehicles, the trucks that are being procured for this contract. And yes, municipally contracted service is no stranger to the city of Frankfurt and to the CRD as mentioned. And there's very detailed analysis of municipal comparisons for the different types of services in the previous staff report because the consultant went and did a detailed analysis of that.

Speaker I · So again, encourage anybody that's curious about how we Got to this point to go back and read those previous staff reports and listen to the public presentation from the consultant.

Speaker R · Yeah, thank you. I guess we don't want to re hash all that stuff, but I was thinking about the cost savings that we saw and that kind of thing.

Speaker I · So through the chair, you know, municipally contracted service versus like a publicly run in house service. The publicly run in house service requires large upfront capital investment by the city and the municipally contracted service. That's all included in the price.

Speaker A · Anyone else? Councilor Harder.

Speaker B · Thank you. I do have one more question just with regards to clarification around section 17, which is commencement. And so I'm noting that there is a 60 day period between of a bylaw and potential establishment of a service. But I do note further to that if there are any residents that are already locked into an existing contract with another provider that they're working, there wouldn't necessarily be or how I'm reading it at least and looking for your clarification for is that there wouldn't be a duplicate bill being handed over to these residents. Would you be able to clarify that?

Speaker I · So through the chair, the bylaw says that the municipal collection service service shall not commence until at least 60 days notice has been provided to the homeowner by the collection contractor or the city. So it's key there that that's the minimum. Again we're setting the minimum requirements in this bylaw today. We fully intend to work with the contractor to do a comprehensive communications plan that will give people more than one notice. So you know, if this contract is established, we expect there to be multiple notifications that are sent out to these residents and. But that is again yet to be determined and sorry. And with regards to the exemption process, again clause around exemptions does speak to hardship.

Speaker I · So while we encourage residents during this period of time not to enter into any long term contracts, we understand that there may be some that are in long term contracts. And to ensure that there's no undue hardship, we may allow those contracts to run their course before they sign on to the city's contract.

Speaker B · Thank you for explaining that fairness component to that. I appreciate hearing it.

Speaker A · Not seeing a lot of hands for questions. So at this point I'm only going to entertain a motion if anyone is interested.

Speaker B · Thank you Mayor. I'm going to move that council give first, second and third readings to solid waste collection bylaw number 2299 2026. Thanks.

Speaker A · You have a second?

Speaker AA · I'll second that.

Speaker A · Okay. Any motivation?

Speaker B · Thank you. I don't have prepared comments for this. I really did want to give the opportunity to hear from the public because I do recognize the very awkward timing of this discussion. I want to provide some context around why I'm putting this motion forward and why I support it and sorry, can you hear me better now? I want to provide some context around why I'm able to support it at this point in the term. And for me, I ran on a platform of providing proper municipal services. I appreciate that the survey identified that a lot of residents are happy with their existing service, but they are not happy with the cost. And year after year we are seeing increasing costs.

Speaker B · And I recognize that by council initiating this discussion, the intent really was to explore if there is a way to provide better waste management for the municipality. And I think that was an important question to ask. We heard a lot about overflowing public bins, of course being the reason why this was spurred. But over the past several months as I've been getting out to the door talking to residents, I've been seeing a lot of excitement for the potential to have a new service which is yard waste pickup. I have heard from residents in neighborhoods of all different incomes where residents are managing their garbage in different means.

Speaker B · And I've picked up on a lot of neighborhood tension and frustration, specifically from residents who see their neighbors choose to manage their yard waste by dumping it over their fence into their neighbor's yard or by dumping it into the forest. And over time there is a growing impact that we're seeing in these neighborhoods as we continue to urbanize and move away from that smaller town rural characteristic where I think it did work for a lot of residents to manage their garbage. I'm focused on the future and I think of how fast our city is growing, how fast we've grown this term. And I look forward to the future of how is everybody going to get down to GFL on a Saturday to dump and manage the garbage all at once.

Speaker B · I think about my own personal circumstances where my father in law or my in laws don't currently pay for household garbage, but they would like to see yard waste service, a yard waste service. They would like like to have an easier way to manage their kitchen scraps. And so they are someone who would be directly impacted by that new bill. They would also be benefited from it in a different or from the other side of the coin. And I also think about the future of our aging demographics and needing to care for aging populations. And I recognize we heard from a lot of folks who can manage their garbage effectively right now.

Speaker B · But we also heard from folks who have had circumstances pop up in their life where, you know, they, they have a mobility challenge and they can't manage their garbage like they did for a certain period of time or heaven forbid, they get sick. And that becomes the long term reality for that household. And I think about the fact that, you know, if that were my situation, that responsibility would then come down onto me and I don't have the time to manage someone else's garbage. So these are all important considerations. I think recognizing that the cost of living is the most important consideration for most residents is how we got to this point.

Speaker B · I just want to finalize my comments on thinking about making sure that we're not losing the long term site in favor of the short term impact. And there was one member of the public who brought up Heartland Landfill. The landfill is quickly filling and I believe right now it, it is expected to last until 2050, until we have to start looking at cutting into some of our park space to accommodate more garbage. And so I'm supportive of finding ways to reduce the waste that we're sending to our landfill. I was surprised to see the Cowichan Valley Regional District implemented curbside collection and they saw a reduction by 27%.

Speaker B · So it is an effective way to divert waste. Kitchen scraps are banned, but I know they're still going to Heartland. And so I think it is really important for our community of our size to take this next step towards improved regulation, recognizing that it's not going to impact everybody equitably, but perhaps this is the best way that we can serve our community.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor Kuta.

Speaker AA · Thank you very much. I really want to address the perception that this, and it was brought up several times during public participation, that this is completely rushed political gamesmanship. And the reality is that this has been close to two years in the process and brought forward this notice of motion almost two years ago and asked staff to work on this. And they've done a tremendous job digging into the details, working in house, working with consultants. To boil down, can we provide this service for a cost savings for a good number of our residents? And it was brought as was brought forward tonight. No, we'll never be able to make any policy that works 100% for everybody.

Speaker AA · But we also heard tonight that there are the potentials for drastic savings for some of the residents out there. So in that sense, this, this has been a long term, a long time coming and clicking this off, leaving this is playing a bit of politics and in many ways disrespectful to the work that has been done by staff so far, given what we've asked them to do. We've had lots of conversations around just rate certainty and the increases I've just heard anecdotally over the last year or so, while we are looking at these 3% annual increases potentially going forward, as we had in this bylaw here, I've heard from many people that they've had extremely volatile garbage price spikes as they've renewed their contracts in these last few years and have been shocked by that change.

Speaker AA · So this does provide a lot more certainty for that side. And we've seen that for some households, this can be drastic. $250 or more a year as potential savings. We had some concerns being raised around, but this isn't just people were concerned. It was just a one size fits all and saying, hey, all our families are different. And we heard that we're setting that minimum standard and that we are asking, as the RFP comes forward to have a menu of options. This means that each household, each family can choose from the menu what works best for them. And my hope, my understanding, if this RFP process is as was brought forward, if it all comes back with unacceptable prices, this bylaw is contingent on the rfp, on us moving forward with this service.

Speaker AA · And so based on the rfp, based on those outcomes, we're not just locking ourselves into this bylaw. So I feel much better knowing that we have that flexibility and that ability to look at the rfp, look at what that outcome is, and then continue on. Finally today, we also talked about our climate action plan and the impacts of traffic congestion, greenhouse gases. Not to mention recently, we've also looked at our asset management plan and the wear and tear on our streets, our roadways and the rest. By bringing this in, we are now avoiding having multiple heavy vehicles go down the same neighborhood within a week. Now it is once every two weeks picking up everybody on that street at the same time.

Speaker AA · That is a tremendous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, tremendous reduction in neighborhood noise disturbance. And with these big vehicles, the risks and wear and tear that come with them. So while I recognize the tension and the difficulty that comes with this potentially large change, I have to balance this on whole for the, for the entire community. And hearing what I've heard tonight and weighing that with, with the feedback that we've received from staff to those questions, I find that on balance, I think this will be a tremendous benefit to our community, although definitely a change that will need to be managed.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Anyone Else. Council Garriott,

Speaker D · thank you.

Speaker T · A lot.

Speaker D · Covered by my colleagues. I am not happy that I'm here right now. I'm not happy because when this came forward, initially, I was concerned that it was going to be right to the finish line. And it is. And I think what the struggle is, and, you know, we had a strategic plan, we had a lot of work that we were trying to get done, and this was a big chunk. Am I confident that our staff did their due diligence? Absolutely am. This isn't a comment on the quality of work or what's come forward. It's the fact that I am now in a position to make a decision where it's questioned whether or not it's what's political. Is it political to do it right now?

Speaker D · Is it political to waste the city resources that have gone into what's forward to get us to today just to put it off for the next term when we have a lot of information from surveys, from staff, reports, from consultants, There's a lot that goes into weighing this decision. And then it's just kind of marred by the fact that we. We have an election coming up, and I've promised to make good decisions for the community and not be performative in my. In my decisions. And so I have to weigh everything and look forward to what future is best for the city as far as, like, what services we are providing. So I'll be supporting the motion. But I do want to.

Speaker D · I want to take a moment to thank all the residents who have been incredibly good stewards of having choice. The folks that have done a lot for reducing their waste and the impact on Heartland Anvil. I think that's amazing that we have residents that are so committed, especially when we had the climate Action Plan really on the agenda tonight.

Speaker K · These are.

Speaker D · It's really incredible, and I'm really grateful for that energy. Unfortunately, as the city gets bigger and we have a higher population, we start feeling the negative impacts bigger. So the residents that are taking opportunities not to participate, which was part of the survey results, and are finding other ways that maybe are not as honorable for reducing waste, are having a greater and greater impact on our city, whether it's through dumping with our. With our public garbage or with, as Councillor Harder was saying in our greenways, which I've seen. I've heard about it and I've seen it as well. So this job is hard decisions. It's hard decisions about trying to figure out what's best for the community.

Speaker D · And I have to support it because I do believe the city of our sides need services to meet the needs of our community that we've grown into. So I'll be supporting it. But I'm really grateful for everything that we've heard, for hearing how complex this issue is, for holding us accountable right to the end, for showing us how complex our community is, and the fact that we need a future with options and a way going forward that kind of honors that.

Speaker E · That.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor Wagner.

Speaker R · Yeah, this is really tough. I guess it's probably our hardest decision. Climate action plan coming at the end of the term. No problem. We had that in the strategic plan from the beginning, and frankly, I thought

Speaker B · it was a little overdue.

Speaker R · So I was really happy that that got done. This kind of came out. It emerged, so that happens. I had to deal with that. I actually didn't support moving ahead with this in the beginning because I was like, oh, this is going to be very contentious. It's going to feel political. We're adding work where we are already, you know, have a very ambitious strategic plan. So I'm still struggling with this. I'm trying to look at the evidence, really have similar feelings to Councillor Guyrie, is that we shouldn't be in this position right now. So I'm sorry to everyone who's feeling the stress. I know I'm feeling the stress.

Speaker H · Yes.

Speaker R · I am trying to look at the evidence and I do feel the burden of, you know, I could just be quiet, but I turn on my mic to try to share my thoughts and think about what were we trying to do here? We're trying to serve all of Lankford and we're trying. For me, looking at the numbers. So even though I didn't support in the beginning, when the numbers came back, I did support that next step to say, okay, well, looks like there's really significant cost savings here. And it's reducing waste to the landfill, which I know is a huge issue. Like the cost coming up for all of us when we need another landfill is going to break people.

Speaker R · So anything we can do to reduce the landfill waste is really important. It's too bad that it's not fair. So some people are doing a great job of managing their waste and other people are not managing it at all.

Speaker J · And.

Speaker R · And I don't know how to reconcile that. So I. I'm struggling. As you can hear.

Speaker B · We.

Speaker R · We did see that the bins were not just overflowing in the city center. So again, going back to the evidence grounding myself, it was across Lankford. There were some bins that were overflowing so many times all across Langford, there was dumping that was illegal. I've seen a lot of illegal dumping throughout the city. I'm wondering if we could have had a better cost analysis of where our staff resources are going. What is it costing us to try to manage the garbage? What are the environmental costs of the garbage that is being dumped or overflowing? Our quality of life. So I know people that came to speak tonight mostly were opposed to this, and I really appreciate you coming and speaking to me. It's definitely giving me a lot of pause.

Speaker R · I'm trying to also think of what I heard throughout the last year. There was excitement about looking at garbage, and there still has been. Over the weekend, I still hear about that. Some people are really interested in the safety aspects of not having as many trucks that are these giant, noisy, smelly trucks. But their biggest concern was that, you know, they can't see around the trucks and there's little kids and they're driving through all of our neighborhoods over and over throughout the week. So there's just really a lot to think about here. So I don't want to keep stalling, but I also am still thinking.

Speaker R · So I really do have an open mind and I appreciate everyone who spoke tonight and what staff shared with us and comments for everyone else. Eventually, I'll just have to make that decision. As we said, we're here to. We're elected to lead. I wish sometimes that we could have a referendum or director on democracy, and that's not how we're set up. So we are set up to have people around this council table make this decision today. And I know there will be another chance with adoption. So this is just for a second and third reading. It does feel like it's a pretty weighty decision today, but that's. Those are my thoughts I wanted to share.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Okay. I guess it's left to me. One of the. The hardest things about being around the table here is that there is no decision that meets everyone. Whatever decision we do, whether it's taxes or a park or garbage service or whatever, there are people that are positively impacted and there is always someone or people who are negatively impacted it. And our job is. Is to figure out where that line is. What. Where most people are positively affected and how many are being negatively affected and is, if that happens, is there ways to mitigate that? We have a complicated process here, but that is the process that is set up. You. You have to have the bylaw come in before you can go. The next step. But it's left people with a lot of questions.

Speaker A · I'm. I'm in favor of municipal service for cities our size because this is sort of one of those evolutions that most cities that gain a size come to. You could argue could have happened many, many years ago.

Speaker A · We wouldn't be having a discussion or it'll happen years from now. It is one of those things that it's not really an if it's likely when and it just happens to be right here right now. But we have to hear also when people are listening and can and confused about what the costs are going to be. And what's unfortunate is that's that is caught in the middle of the process and that is not commentary on staff's work or the people that have spoken to us or that. So I'm, I'm going to take the very unpopular opinion. I know here while I definitely agree with municipal service, just the way this process is gnaws me in the gut that there's so much question coming ahead that isn't answered. Even though we have to make the. The.

Speaker A · We have to make the decision now.

Speaker W · Now.

Speaker A · So I'm not going to vote in favorite and it is rare that the mayor is one against everyone else and I'll take the heat for that. But I just. It is not a question of the service. It's a question of the process for me right now. And I want to clarify this is not a commentary on staff or the work they've done. This is one of those things that we get caught in. So can we keep the talk down, please? I'm going to call the question. All those in favor proposed. We are on to item number eight and that is adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Speaker D · I'll move adjournment.

Speaker B · I will second

Speaker A · any. All those in favor post that passes. Thank you everyone. Hope you have a good night.