Transcript: Council Meeting - 22 Jun 2026

Just checking the audio for the live stream. Thanks. Are we uh is our streaming working already or are we still waiting? Okay.

Good evening everyone and welcome to our regular council meeting for June 22nd 2026. As we call the meeting to order, we just like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the traditional territories of the coast and straight Salish people. Specifically, we recognize lungan speaking people known today as the sons and the esquyalt nations and how their connect historic connections to these lands and adjoining waters continue to this day. Uh first order of business is approval of the agenda. Moved, seconded. Any uh the only piece is we do have uh one piece under new business that's going to be coming up, but that doesn't change the agenda package. Uh and there will be a rising report which will just read into the record uh today. Um so moved and seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We have many minutes. So we have five sets of minutes. I'll allow people to move all five. moved. Is there a seconder?

Seconded. Are there changes, corrections, or amendments on any of those five? I just want to welcome councilors Watson and Smart who are not available to come into the chamber today, which is probably a good thing because it's rather warm in here um this evening, but are joining us online. Uh seeing no hands for amendments, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh then motion to receive those three minutes from other bodies moved and seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh we do have a rise in report uh from the INC camera today. I'm going to turn to Ms.

Anderson to read that into the record if that's all right. Yes. Thank you, mayor. Uh the risen report from the EN camera council meeting held June 22nd, 2026 is council has considered the proponents written responses to the marina operator request for expressions of interest and after directed staff to seek additional information from Oak Bay Marine Group and Hammers Holdings. Thank you for that. Um we now move to Mayor's remarks. Uh first up and probably the least pleasant uh is the reminder that property taxes are due on July 2nd. Uh so make sure that those get in. Um I did have the pleasure of attending the Oak Bay High graduation ceremony. Uh which was quite fabulous.

Uh it's my kids are of that age although they didn't none of them graduated this year. Um but it was just nice to see all those uh all those uh young adults and the is hearing about all their plans uh moving into the future. Uh we are really blessed with some pretty amazing kids around here. Uh it is uh uh we also celebrated National Indigenous People's Day, excuse me. And uh I want to just recognize the spring nosh was held last weekend on Saturday. So this is the inaugural event for the business improvement association uh Oak Bay Avenue event. So it's a a celebration of food uh from up and down the avenue. Uh if you haven't been before, it's worth going to. Um also just uh of the era uh there's an actually other thing probably worth mentioning is today there was an all day uh transportation planning session which most of council was able to attend. uh there was about 90 people attending from across the region

including staff and elected officials looking at uh uh and it's an expansive look at how uh transportation planning might be improved everything from pedestrian through transit uh cars uh commercial etc. So it was a very interesting and well facilitated uh session and very well attended. Um and then this is also uh now that the the house is out at the province we seem to be having a bunch of feedback sessions. So there's been quite a large number um multiple areas related to policing and modernization of policing. Um BC road safety, heritage conservation act and healthcare professional recruitment and retention are all some of the ones that are happening in this oneweek period. Um that concludes my remarks. Just a little update for folks.

Uh moving now to our public comment and question period. So if members of the public either online or in person wish to speak to council about items not on the agenda. So, we'll get to items on the agenda, open for public input. Um, but with that, I'll um anything else is open uh for respectful discussion. You can ask questions or make comments. Uh we have uh a hand raised online. Mr. Zulka, if you could uh show us how it's done. Just state your name and municipality of resident. Then you have up to three minutes. Well, thank you. First of all, can you hear me? We can.

Lovely. Well, thank you very much. Uh uh appreciate the opportunity for public uh participation. Uh let me start by saying God saved the king. Let me also uh welcome everyone to uh the first or second day of summer since we're past summer solstice um solstice, excuse me. And I also want want to um uh be say that I'm grateful to live work and play on the traditional and seated lands of the Lungian speaking people known as Songis and Scrobald. I acknowledge the Douglas treaties of 1850 to 1854 and I also acknowledge the affirmation of these by the Supreme Court of Canada as treaties in 1965. And now I'll begin my my remarks. Uh I do uh note uh in the minutes today that unfortunately for the comments that I provided uh with respect to uh the annual plan uh at the last council meeting. Unfortunately, none of my comments were captured in the minutes uh with respect to section 98.99 of the community charter. So, I'm going to

repeat them so that they will at least get into these minutes. Uh so, allow me to uh to share a brief summary then of what I spoke with in the past that as I said was not captured. Um if it helps, [clears throat] we do record these and they are available. So, people wishing to see the full remarks are they are available and archived. Excuse me. According to the community charter, these comments are for staff and and uh and council. There's not for not for the public. But I wanted to basically uh uh talk to uh the uh recreation facility performance. I noted that that is not mentioned in the community in the annual plan. 10 years ago, we had 85% coverage by the gate in terms of uh but today it's only about 55% coverage uh of the expenses total expenses of of parks, recreck, and culture. Please uh if that could be in the minutes uh and ideally added to a measure for next year's annual plan. I

also noted that public access to information is not particularly available for the FOI requests. I noted that there were 19 FOY requests two years ago to uh most recently there were 49 requests which is a terrible trending indicating that you're not doing a great job with public participation or at least public access to transparency and information. Ideally, those those public FOIs, so those FOY should be made public and available so that we don't have repetition of people asking for the same thing over and over again, wasting the staff's time and my money. I also asked uh and unfortunately the question wasn't very clear about the state of emergency declaration. You and I got into a back and forth about the declared state of emergency. I am not talking about a solar which has um uh a a uh uh an expiry date after 14 days when a council declares a state of local emergency. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the question that I brought up had to do with what is quoted within the

official community plan Objective 7 and I will quote from the official community plan. The district of Oak Bay has declared a climate emergency etc etc. So here's the question that I tried to ask two weeks ago. What is the criteria for ending this state of emergency? Obviously, it won't fall under the SOLA, which which expires after 14 days. Um, this state of emergency uh was declared in 2019. And I do note that uh going back to 2006, 2007, previous councils, previous mayors, and and for the former counselor known as Murdoch, uh I I want to uh say that shout out to you, um former counselor Murdoch, now mayor. uh the wonderful work that you did with respect to helping to get Oak Bay's greenhouse gas emissions down with respect to um some of the initiatives you brought forward. In the last uh report, your time is up. If I could just ask you to to wrap up your comments.

I will I will wrap up. In the last report I saw, we are greenhouse gas negative already. We have already achieved our 2050 standards. I'd like to see that in the annual plan and I'd like to see the Oak Bay uh declared emergency finished. I don't want an anxiety amongst our children. They don't need to have that anxiety and we should also celebrate the incredible work done by previous councils and by you. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Thank you very much, Mr. Zelka. Does anybody else wish to speak to council on matters related to municipal business? Pretty broad subject of things. I don't see hands in the room or online. So I will come back to this table and we will uh move to section 8. Uh section 8 is our committee of the whole recommendations from the meeting held on June 15th. Um this is really just the a motion to receive the report provided there. So to receive yeah we'll just we just move the committee of the whole recommendation is

probably the cleanest language. So moved seconded any discussion? All those in favor? Uh actually I think I procedurally got that wrong. It's not to receive this. It's just to move the recommendation as provided at the committee of the whole. Correct. Yes. Yeah. So we're moving receipt. You're you were correct in the piece. Just think that was the recommendation coming forward. So moved and seconded. Uh all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Um and then we have our bylaws and permits. Uh so this error section is subject to public input. We will uh seek uh any public comments. Uh just procedurally here uh for those not familiar uh we typically have staff do an introduction. Council has an opportunity to ask questions of staff.

We then go to the public and seek any comments, input or questions. It comes back to this table and council can can continue with questions or uh and we would seek a motion and get direction uh for next steps. So that's the process. So we'll have staff questions of council then an opportunity for public input. Uh we have Mr. Green, our deputy director of community building and planning with us tonight. Welcome. There we go. There we go. Needed turning on. Uh good evening worship members of council. This next item relates to a heritage revitalization agreement amendment application for the property located at 1587 your place. The application is to amend a previously approved HA application that was approved by council on March the 13th of 2025 where council adopted heritage revitalization agreement by law number 4885 and which authorized the revitalization of the Anandale House, its relocation to the northeast corner of the site and the subdivision of the lot into four parcels and was which and which was subsequently approved and the lots registered in late 2025.

The applicant subsequently submitted an amendment application to revise the HRA and on April the 27th of this year, council directed staff to bring back an amendment bylaw for council's consideration that would include the following changes to the main uh original heritage revitalization agreement bylaw number 4885. Those changes include a revised design for the Anandale House, including removal of the rear wing, reducing the number of dwelling units from four to two, designation of certain interior features, and waving the requirement for development cost charges and amenity cost charges as per the council's direction from December the 8th of last year. The applicants and the heritage consultant are here to answer any questions that council may have on the application. And I'm also from staff's perspective happy to answer any questions that council may have on the application.

Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Green. We have the applicants here in the room, both the uh the applicants and the and the heritage consultant. Um, is there anything that the applicant wishes to add to the the report that's in front of us? Nope. Okay. Thank you. Um, any questions? I have councelor Braithweight and then did I see just councelor Braithweight at this time? Uh, thanks so much, Mayor and through you to um staff. Um, I noticed that uh the part of the house that in question that was cut off has already been removed and and demolished and and at least that of what that's what it looks like to me. And I was a little bit surprised because I would have thought that we would have had to wait until this first, second, third reading and um had had gone forward and and had been approved and adopted. Is that not correct that they didn't have to wait until that h this happened before they were able to remove that piece of the house? Mr. Green.

Thank you worship through you to council braithweight. Obviously council adopted a HR application in 2025 that authorized it the relocation of the Anandale house and through that work whilst the building is in two pieces. The original intent was to move the given the size of the house and its relocation, it had to be moved in two pieces. And perhaps the applicant may wish to comment further on how that construction or move was underway, but that agreement already authorized that building to be essentially moved to that northeast part of the site. in it was only when they then started to essentially try and reconstruct that building that they came forward with an amendment application given uh a number of changes that were identified or a number of issues that were found when they were relocating that building to the northeast corner of the site.

I'm not sure. We'll pass the question on to the applicant probably just for those pieces. Uh same process as we had for the public portion. Just you just state your name and municipality residence and uh you're welcome to answer the question. Yeah. Turn the bus. There you go. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Your worship. Uh Mike Miller 1562 Prospect Place. Um I wasn't paying that close attention. I have to apologize. I was sort of listening. But the question was just the the rationale or or is my understanding being that the the rearwing of the house uh being removed ultimately is contingent upon the approval of these bylaws and and the council braith was just observing that it looks like the that is still that has been removed at this point prior to the completion of this process that we're underway right now which is consideration of the bylaws. Um so just I think that's pretty much it. just if you can explain why that if that's true

if that's why that has proceeded ahead of the uh the actual approval of the bylaws under consideration. [clears throat] Thank you. Thank you your your worship and through yourself to council rate. Um I have to um admit I thought we had approval to to deconstruct the um the wing. So in our previous meeting a few months ago um I can't remember the exact date. Um, I'll defer to um um Brian on that. We had permission to actually because the the the addition was sitting effectively on blocks and um and was deemed by our structural um engineer unsafe. So, we thought we actually had permission to do that by way of of council's endorsement. So, all we had to do was to um remove the um uh dormer, which we did, and we we craned it off the building, and then we thought we had permission to to do so.

So, I have to admit, I'm a little unclear. Um and we didn't need a demo permit because it actually wasn't considered a structural. So, we we did look into do we need a demo permit for that? And we we deemed we didn't, not through Brian specifically, but through the building code. Um, so I guess I'll defer to that, but certainly we certainly didn't come this far by moving it around the property to jump the gun by a few weeks. So again, I I defer to Brian on that from a technical standpoint. Mr. Green, do you have anything else to add? Um, no. Only that's the original heritage revitalization agreement was in place and therefore that did allow the the moving of the Anandale House into that northeast corner site. So perhaps I can seek some clarification from councelor Braithway in terms of what stage and obviously it's a few probably a couple of months since I've been on site and and if there's been any further

changes to the building. Obviously the building yeah the H was approved by council. This the vision was all approved by the approving officer and then during the construction of Anandale House if you like or the relocation of Anandale House that's when the applicant then submitted a revised application and so the question was really just around the timing of we have an existing HR that is in place that includes the extension on the house correct to be retained. Um, we have not yet approved the changes from that HR to a new which does remove it but that is not yet approved and so the question was just tied to the building has that that extension has been removed.

Correct. We have not finished the process of whether or not we're going to approve it. So that was Yes. But it's my understanding from the applicant that you wouldn't be able to move that entire building in one section is as one house and it rear wing all in one go given the logistics of on the side. Yeah, that wasn't the question. The question was just really related to the the the destruction of the of the wing. So it's the option of putting it back on is no right. Sorry I didn't I'm not aware that the rear wing has been destroyed because the last time I visited the site there were two pieces essentially which was authorized by the original H and so perhaps that is a question for the applicant as is the rear wing being destroyed and from staff's perspective we are not aware that that rear wing uh was destroyed and that would be premature given that this HA amendment hasn't been authorized by council.

I miss Mr. Miller. Thank you your worship. I think um in the many times counsel sorry uh Brian Green and myself have spoken clearly we had a misunderstanding about about removal and how we phrased the the removal term but um certainly in no way shape or form we were trying to jump the gun or prematurely do this. We thought we had that permission from council and it was simply just unsafe [clears throat] sitting on blocks. We did the act of removing the dormer that was meant to be kept in the new I guess technically unapproved document that is not technically approved. So we have that piece but not the main part of the quotequote lumber of the bu of the wing.

Thank you for answering the question. Yeah I with questions. Yeah through you mayor. I well I I'd like to make a comment on that because the question now then would be because it hasn't been approved yet to be demolished now that it has been we know that it has been demolished in normal circumstances for other proponents there would probably be a fine attached to that and I'm wondering if that's the case in in in this particular situation because this has been removed without the um actual approval and adoption of this bylaw. Sure. Um, I'll walk a fine line here because council's not involved in enforcement. Uh, however, I think perhaps in a generalized terms, staff look at these things and and evaluate fines, etc. based on they'll look at they would in course of action look at that. I just I don't want to get involved. We we cannot comment on enforcement of of bylaw pieces particularly in a public meeting. Um, but procedurally here staff's responsibility is essentially to look at those things. Correct, Mr. Green?

Yes. Abs. Absolutely. Yes. Um yeah, either if it's brought to our attention, I've not received any complaints or not seen any emails that uh that would have raised a complaint that would have then triggered a bylaw enforcement officer to then do a site visit and start a file and start an investigation and to understand uh what led to that u that part of the building's uh uh destruction or removal. Uh and then staff would um um yeah essentially start to work with the land owner and the applicant to rectify the issue and seek compliance. Okay. Anything else? Councelor Briweight. Any other questions? Yeah. Councelor Appleton. Uh thank you.

Mr. Miller to turn off the microphone when you're not just so you don't make funny noises in the background. No, you just stay here for a moment in case there's other questions. Please go ahead. Thank you your worship. So, I guess I'll just build on that and I know that we can't speak to enforcement specifically, but I guess I would ask a procedural question from the perspective of this is I think clearly new information in front of council and as staff have described is new information to staff. Does it affect our consideration of this matter at this time? And should the matter be deferred until such time as staff have had to have had an opportunity to review the facts of the matter?

Um I'm going to give that over to [laughter] probably an easy question Mr. green. But uh ultimately that is possibly the you know the the will of council if council wishes to defer that to receive a further staff report from staff on the um yeah potentially unauthorized construction or removal then that could be obviously the will of council to to do that. Uh if council wishes to proceed with the h that would also be a possibility as well. Okay. Um, okay. Thank you. Yeah, councelor Britwe. So, so then that would be a motion from council that would have to come forward for that. Is that correct?

I think the motion from council would be, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it would be probably a motion to defer the matter uh and just get clarification on the new information being provided before we consider the the matter. I'm always going to ask that we get through as much of questions and answers and clarification tonight as we possibly can. So, we're not deferring everything, but if that's the will of council, that would be I think procedurally the best piece way to go with I'm getting nods from administrative staff. So, yeah. So, for now, we'll we'll we'll deal with this with the questions, public input, and then come when it comes back to council, we can consider possible directions.

Uh I don't see hands online. So I am uh Thank you, Mr. Miller. Uh I think we have a couple of people. Thank you. Thank you. Um we have people from the public. I think you wish to uh speak to council. Yep. Come forward. We know who you are. Mr. Stark is a one of the better known authors. And uh but uh if I might ask that you just for the record write read your name, just tell us your name for the record. and municipality of residents. Uh, and you had reached out earlier and asked if you could have a bit of flexibility on your speaking time and I'm happy to give you, it's normally about 3 minutes, but I'll give you a little bit more than that if you need it. Thank you very much. Oh, there we go.

Thank you very much. That's great. Um, my name is Stuart Stark. I'm a heritage consultant now retired, but since 2010 I've lived in Sanage. Mr. Star, can I ask that you just move the microphone slightly further away from you? Okay. Yeah. Just Does that work? Yes. Perfect. Good. Thank you. So, since 2010, I've lived in Sanage, but I was born and brought up in Oak Bay, where my family lived on Prospect Blaze for 35 years about a 100 yards from Anandale. I've worked with Oak Bay on several projects. I've served on Oak Bay's Heritage Advisory Committee. I've had a contract to write statements of significance for 15 heritage buildings.

And I also wrote the 1986 heritage inventory called Oak Bay's Heritage Buildings, More Than Bricks and Boards, funded by the BC Heritage Trust. I updated that book for free three times in various reprints and it was used for over 20 years as Oak Bay's heritage inventory. In that book, I stated in 1986 that Anandale and its carriage house should be retained. I state the following information as I believe that council needs to have correct information in order to make thoughtful decisions. Some of it you know already. In late April of this year, I was notified that my name had appeared in a report as being in support of proposed work at Anandale at 1587 York Place. To be clear, I did not do not have not supported that work as I do not believe it conforms with either the property statement of significance or the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada. That report written by Miss Katie CR stated incorrectly that I had

written a heritage evaluation for MJA Consulting Services Limited for the Oak Bay Residents Group in April of 1986. I found Miss Kumer and after discussion she agreed a mistake had been made and she issued a retraction and correction to council and staff and that was appreciated. I followed up with my own emails to council and staff also correcting the inaccuracies clearing my name and my professional reputation. I then was away for over a month on a long planned holiday. On my return I was again notified that Anandale was again on your agenda. I read the report, provided accounts, and saw that my name had been removed. All good. But I've never heard of this MJA Consulting Services or the Oak Bay Residence Group still being quoted in Miss Summer's schedule B letter of support, talking about Anandale's quote, integrity being screwed, but in good shape, unquote, and quote, additions and dormers badly added. Missker states, "It is with this in mind I reluctantly accept the proposed loss of this section of the

building." As NJA's report supposedly was written in 1986, at the same time I was writing the extensive Oakbay inventory, I wanted to find out who these unknown heritage consultants were. Earlier today, I made some phone calls and I found out there were no earlier heritage consultants from 1986. That quoted evaluation found in the Hallmark Society's archives was a student project on heritage from a week-long course at UIC in April of 1986. There was no MJA Consulting Services or Oak Bay Residence Group. They were both made up for this student project. I have an email from one of the participants verifying herself as one of the authors. The other has since passed away.

So any quote expert heritage evaluation unquote that has been quoted to you supporting planned work at Anandale or the possibility that the kitchen wing was not original is mythical. The information is Katiekumer's report went to staff. Staff members then cited it back to council with other information of course to form justification for the changes planned to be rireed upon Anendelle. I did further research in my own book from 1986. I found the Tupper family connection to Anandale that a father of Confederation had visited his son at Anandale and being entertained there several times. Greater Victoria has no other connection of this kind represented in its heritage buildings.

Back in 1997, knowing its historic significance, Oak Bay Council was becoming alarmed about the future of Anandale. The owner, Mrs. Cocaine had put in an illegal suite and there were issues with noise. The owner was threatening to tear off the original kitchen wing which faced York Place. Oak Bay Council wanted to ensure the preservation of the entire building and so designated the entire building heritage against the owner's wishes. A very rare move now or at the time. On June 9th, 1997, Oak Bay Council passed the bylaw to protect the house for the future, facing the original way east in its original configuration, including the original kitchen wing and its original glazed porch.

The bylaw is 3940 Anondale Heritage Designation bylaw 1997. The weekend edition of the Times or Collins newspaper stated, "The exter exterior of the home is now protected according to provincial heritage legislation. Any alterations or renovations to the exterior must receive council approval. Mrs. Cocaine did not ask for heritage designation and was not present for the adoption." Oak Bay Council of 1997 felt strongly enough to designate Anandale Heritage over the owner's wishes. Their intent was to preserve this significant house in as original state as possible, facing east on its original location and including the totally repable original kitchen wing, which they have been so worried about, and the original glazed porch. Even a brand new heritage conservation area wrapping around this property has not been enough to save it.

If this work proceeds, we'll be faced with a truncated turned 180°ree house with the original kitchen wing missing and much of its heritage significance denigrated. This is not progress. This is bad conservation. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Stark. Does anybody else from the public wish to speak to council on the matter in front of us? This is the uh proposed heritage vitalization agreement amendment application HA17. Not seeing any hands here. Any no hands online either as far as I can see. Last chance for public input before I call we move back to this table. Am I allowed to respond or no? You can. It's public input. You're welcome to come forward. I'll we probably have a question for you anyway after this perhaps. Perhaps uh Katie CR, City of Victoria, but does work in Oak Bay. Um I just want to again reiterate as I emailed to you all my apologies for the misattribution and of course to to dear Stuart Stark who I respect incredibly um for all of his contributions to the field here. Um and I'm very pleased. I

want to say well done on figuring out the MJA consulting. This was quite I I have talked to multiple people trying to figure out who these individuals were. So I do love that you have figured it out. At least that's one thing I can tick off. Um I'm going to ask you just stress your comments. Sure. Sure. Sure. I just I you know I I like a good research mystery. So it's always fun when one gets uncovered. Um but I do I just want to apologize and obviously um what was uh commented back to him. I was not saying that Stuart Stark was in support nor was I saying that these individuals support what's being done. Um throughout my reporting I accept this very reluctantly. I I you know cutting a building in half is not ideal. Um but I think genuinely what I simply try to do is just to find a a compromise and a way to move forward.

But I understand how this is perceived and the challenges of the field and um yeah I'm just doing the best I can. So my apologies to everyone, my apologies to Mr. Stark and thank you for your time. Thank you. Can I just if you don't mind uh just in terms of the appreciate your recommendations come as a with a full sum of different inputs to to to the piece. Um does your does your do your recommendations change based on the new information that's been provided here today? Truthfully not really. I mean so even the MJA consultant I mean the point I was simply trying to make with that is that this building has been a little bit perplexing and confusing for many years to many individuals and so um it's not just that group of students but there have been other conversations and discussions with people about is that an original part of the building was it not is you know and I went back to the source in terms of that newspaper

article from 1897 that gives us the dimensions and the description you know that that those back areas were actually bedrooms and things like that. that. So, I try my best with any of my suggestions and recommendations to make sure I'm basing it on the historical record, the the things that I can find to say that this is what it is and I I try my best to make sure that I go through it all thoroughly and use that to inform my recommendations. Does that answer your question? Yeah, thank you very much. Uh any other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay, back to this table then. Um we have uh recommendations here in front of us in terms of reading the bylaws. Um go ahead councelor Braithweight.

Uh yeah mayor. Um, based on the information that has I I've brought forward tonight, I'd like that the consider I'd like to move that the consideration of 1587 York Place 1562 Prospect Place Heritage Vitalization Agreement Authorization bylaw number 48852025 amendment bylaw number 49752026 be deferred and that staff be directed to inspect the subject property and report back to council regarding whether demolition or removal of any portion of the heritage structure has occurred and if so, whether such work is consistent with applicable permits approval and the proposed heritage vitalization agreement amendment. Thank you. Um I may have to have you read that back again. I just want to make sure that we're walking a very clear line here. Motion to defer is is in order. Um, procedurally, I'm I just want to make sure that in the language that you're using, it's uh I think I think my first blush of it, it was fine, but just to make sure that we're not crossing a line into consideration of uh bylaw enforcement as part of our

consideration. So, can I just get you to read it aloud again if I can ask Mr. Anderson to listen carefully to this to make sure that uh or Mr. Green to make sure that we're not crossing that line. I'll skip the first part about all the numbers and everything. Uh just I'll go to the be deferred and that staff be directed to inspect the subject property and report back to council regarding whether demolition or removal of any portion of the heritage structure has occurred and if so whether such work is consistent with applicable permits approvals and the proposed heritage revitalization agreement amendment. So my read of that that's in order but I just yeah was not asking for any bylaw enforcement or anything else.

I don't have any concerns with that uh wording of that motion. Okay. So I've ruled that the motion is viable. Now we'll just see if there's a second or for seconded. Thank you. U motion's on the floor. Uh go ahead councelor Braithweight. Uh thank you very much and thank you Mr. Stark for coming forward with uh with your information. I think it's really timely that we had that tonight as well. Um, again, that information that came to me to my attention suggesting that the portion of the building may have been demolished um has has it's basically going against the rules and regulations and it's almost like the the applicant is now asking for um uh for forgiveness rather than permission. I think it's prudent that staff really verify the facts on site and report back to council so that we can make an informed decision based on accurate and current information.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Councelor Appleton. Thank you, worship. Yeah, I'm I'm in support of this because I feel that I I I feel like this is important information for council's decision-m at this time because the heritage revitalization agreement is focused on the preservation of certain components of the existing structure and in fact as was referenced in comments here uh potentially the the retention of certain components of what we now understand to be demolished for use in the in the in the finalized dwelling. So I think it behooves council before considering this HA, considering first and second readings of this HR to understand what is the current status of the building which we have heard tonight uh now differs from what we were expecting to consider as part of the HR. So I think it's reasonable for us to have the wholesome information in front of us while we make consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, councelor Watson online on the motion to Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I I won't support the motion. It's not that I don't think that um in some circumstances these issues and further exploration would be important, but I think that all I've heard is that under a a proposal that we had discussed and at least supported to the point we asked for bylaws, which got strong support, that the the the effective portion of the building that would no longer be part of the project under the revised bylaw has had some alterations to it. And I don't I'm I'm not I'm not satisfied that that's enough to further further extend this process which has already taken a long time. I think it's unfortunate if the applicant misunderstood what his permissions were. But at the end of the day, I don't think a deferral is um is necessary in this particular situation. So I won't support the motion.

Thank you, Councelor Watson. Go ahead, Councelor Smart online. Yeah, thank you. Um, this a hard situation, but I I do um feel similarly to Council uh Councelor Watson and that I don't feel at this um stage, as unfortunate as this was, and that I appreciate staff hearing that they will be um that it will be in their court to um look into this. Uh I I don't feel that this additional information is is going to change um uh at least my decision-m at at this point towards um delaying this application any any further having heard from the consultant that it doesn't change their recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you councelor Smart. Uh any other discussion? Go ahead, Councelor Green. Yes, thank you. Um through you two staff. Mr. Green, when would a report come back to us? Is there a timeline involved here? Um, just thinking about um when this might happen. Thank you. Um, so say with um Yeah, I'm sure we can get a report back to council probably by um April 27th possibly. Yeah. Yeah. July July 27th. Sorry. This went to April 27th. The last council meeting is July 27th. It is now June the 23rd. 22nd in fact. Okay. Time flies when you're having fun, you know. Yes. June 22. Okay. July. Yes. Um Okay. Councelor Patterson on the motion to defer.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And I will not support the motion to defer. I I don't think that um deferring it even by a month will would ch would give me information that would change the the ultimate decision that we knew was coming before council and some of the um some of the lag in timing with this building was also um dependent upon provision of community services that weren't defined till the end of the process either. But nevertheless, it will it wouldn't change my decision for the for the outcome in any way. It might provide further for further clarity of the existing site today. Um I walk by it on a regular basis so I I have already witnessed the site and um so this won't change my decision so I won't support it.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead councelor Green. Thank you. Um, as heritage liaison to the the Heritage Commission, I I will support the motion. Um, I think it's important to um re-examine and revisit periodically our processes and I think this will provide a a review of those processes. Um, it may or may not change the outcome, but I think it would be an important reminder for everyone. And so, as the liaison, I will support the motion. This is a very interesting question. Uh I I tend to agree. I mean I I think what I've heard is that it's unlikely that deferring it and having the report back would change the direction of council which was ultimately uh to support the direction that this uh this go forward which I tend to agree with. I think the other part of this is and and written into the motion was deferral just to make to confirm based on the fact that uh there were aspects of that building uh there's a number of aspects that are

required to complete the the obligations of the HCA uh and so deferral to have that sort of validated to make sure that those components are all in place and and um before we sign off on the bylaws seems would not normally be a thing that we would require but I think given just the situation here might might make a certain amount of sense. Um, so I'm torn on this one because I think that I don't imagine it's going to much change the at the end of the day um the direction, but I think some validation of this in this case may make sense. Um, I do think we need to make sure that we're given that I don't think we're looking for a major report. We're looking for sort of validation of where things are at. I'm hoping this can come back to the first meeting in July and consideration uh there. But I appreciate that staff capacity is a is an issue and we have a lot of land use things coming back to council at the next meeting. Uh, so I

I'm actually quite torn on this one. I think that there's I I I understand the rationale. Um, and I'll probably support the motion, but I uh I think that this one is a it is tricky. You don't want to delay things for no reason, but I think in this case, there's a in the wording of the motion, there is actually some validation for for consideration. So, I'll uh I'll wait and decide how I'm going to vote. And I've got about five seconds to make up my mind. Um, all right. So the motion on the floor is to defer and have a report come back to have this matter come back to the next or a future meeting of council which is probably the next one. Um with that I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion and those opposed I have councelor Patterson myself sorry no Patterson Watson and Smart uh opposed. So that will pass uh and so we'll seek a report back hopefully uh the first meeting in July which I think

is the 13th. Um but if it's the 27th then it's the 27th. Um okay that is not moving forward today. I do anticipate it'll reasonable consideration come next month. U moving then to item number 10 reports and memorandums. Um this is not subject to public input. people who are here for that matter can y can go 10.1 is outstanding and this is such exciting stuff though this is all of our council resolutions anyway uh with that we have a status update Miss Hunt uh our CEO will provide the introduction and we have a number of staff members here to talk to the specifics of the matter go ahead Miss Hunt thank you very much your worship uh yeah from time to time council makes resolutions to seek additional information or direct staff to undertake a piece of work staff track and action these resolutions either as part of their regular operational duties uh perhaps as part of existing council priority projects um that are already

underway or as new individual work items. Staff present the list of outstanding resolutions to council twice per year in conjunction with council's review of the council priority pro priority projects and the last time that we prepared this list of outstanding resolutions was in November 2025. The report this evening provides three attachments. The first is a list of items completed since that last update in November. Uh I note that some of these items uh staff have deemed complete as they are included either in the council priority project or have been operationalized. The second list are those items that are still in progress and staff have provided a short progress update on them. And the third list are those items that are currently uh considered on hold for various reasons uh either staff capacity uh dependency on other work um or that they're going to be operationalized at a future date. And at the last meeting, council asked for staff to facilitate a council discussion on th those items that are considered inactive or on hold um in order to be able to remove some of them as that list

was growing rather long. Uh so staff have included recommendations for removal um of onh hold items and we provided sort of some justification. Uh and I will just clarify that any items on that list that we haven't included a recommendation for removal would stay on the on hold list until such time that staff can action them. And lastly, I just want to note that in future uh staff will be seeking to ensure that resolutions that are related to an existing council priority project uh be referred to and then tracked as part of that the scope or progress of those projects. This will help ensure that we maintain clarity on the council priority projects uh and that this list of resolutions is truly those extraordinary ones that are not related to to a piece of work that is already underway. And I'll leave it at that. And yes, I want to thank staff for all their work uh in uh updating this list and and obviously completing a number of items since the last update and thank corporate services for pulling this together for me.

Uh thank you very much uh Miss Hunt. Obviously these are all genesis of uh moments in time and uh and projects that were uh important and some of them have been operationalized uh and some of them I think probably have a few questions. know uh though we have no public input on this portion. I think logically we have a whole report that could be directed as laid out or we can make changes to it. So I think procedurally easiest just to go if there's questions if anybody has any concerns or thoughts on any one of these items in the list um we take those and walk through them fairly quickly. Uh just given there's seven of us and a good 25 or so of these uh projects. I think we probably just want to make sure that we're not uh we're not spending time on things we agree to but really focusing on things where we need some more clarification uh or disagree with and we can have some discussion about those. So with that I'll turn to members of council. Go ahead councelor I'll start our speaking list. Go ahead councelor Braithweight.

Uh thanks very much mayor and through you um to staff. Um, for the Derelch Properties one, um, if I'm wondering if staff expect work to begin in late 2026, why would we remove it from the tracking now rather than keep it as an active outstanding resolution, please? And thank you, Miss Hunt. Uh, council breathweed, if you could just point me to the um perhaps staff and the public to the the number. Sorry, it's uh number 2023-139 on the uh on hold list or the uh that is on the on hold list. Yeah, sorry. It's the second item in the list. Sorry. Just so what was the question? It's it's it's currently not dropped. It's just being held on hold until other work is completed.

But we've removed it from the tracking um right now. Have we not? No. Yeah. There's things that have a blank to be removed from tracker is means through the chair to council braithweight. If we are not if there's no removal uh and it's just blank in that column where it will stay on the tracker as on hold. We're not recommending to remove it. I should have been clear that if there's no if that if the box next to uh recommendation for removal is blank then we're saying let's keep it. So if I may then that would be the same about the council code of conduct review as well. Yes. No.

Which which number is that council? uh 2023-129. So through the chair uh to council braithweight. Yes. If you look at the far call on that one is recommendation to remove because of bill 17. So so if I may then my question on that one um would be would removal prevent council from receiving a future report once the province fi finalizes the new code of conduct requirements. Would we get a future report on that or no? Yes, absolutely. In order to comply with that legislation, we will be bringing forward uh staff report on that. And then my last question would be um when an item is removed because it's being tracked under a council priority project, how will we be able to verify that the original resolution and its specific direction remain within the scope of that project? Miss Hunt.

Yeah. Thank you very much uh to the chair, to you, councelor Braithweight. Uh in the next report you will see that uh in the council priority projects we've updated those to refer to the resolutions that have been moved over and uh so that as staff are continuing to work on those projects that they're keeping in mind those resolutions that were moved over and yeah Sarah can speak to that as part of the next report. Yeah, thank you for that. I just wanted to make sure that the public was aware of that too. Thank you. Thank you councelor Brie. Moved to then to councelor Smart. Oh, thank you. Um, I just had a few questions. I'll I'll give you the resolution numbers first. So, my first question was just with regards to 2025-333, the tenant protection policy. Just acknowledging that the options analysis is complete, but we have set aside this work. I just wanted to confirm is is the tenant protection um bylaw project now on the long list. Um, how will it be tracked going forward?

Okay, I'll uh go to go ahead, Miss Morton. Thank you, your worship. Yes, I can confirm uh that project is on the long list for council priorities. Please continue. Councelor Smart. Thank you. My next question is with regards to 2021 018, the small equipment greenhouse gas strategy. Um, seeing that this project is um complete, I wonder is this a strategy that um uh that is available to council to review? Yeah, through the chair um councelor Smart and maybe I'll let Thomas chime in. I think we spoke about this um when we were talking about the gas powered equipment. This is something that uh has been operationalized in terms of staff looking at it um as different pieces of equipment come up for replacement uh and considering whether or not uh it should continue to be a gas powered piece of equipment or or some other form of equipment.

Councelor Smart. Uh thank you. I appreciate the clarification. And I guess um it seemed this was a um uh from before my my time, but I guess I was just surprised that that didn't come to council. I'm just quickly looking up to see if that was part of the resolution. Um okay. Um I'll just go on to my next uh question. So um 2023-576 the correspondence policy. I just wondered was it um uh you know seeing that we're close to the end of this council term I just wondered if staff could comment on whether it was um you know best practice for us to review that new correspondence policy just prior to the next council knowing that they will have to abide by it. Was it purposeful that it it is actually a good idea for us, you know, having um you know, lived the last few years to have more perspective on it or would it actually be a good thing to have that pushed off to the future council? I just wondered if St could comment.

Yeah, thank you very much. Uh yeah, this was a policy that came forward to council uh a few years ago. Um and um council had made a number of comments on it. Uh when staff uh new staff, myself and uh Miss Anderson looked at that policy, we decided that it needed a sort of a refresh and a and a bit of a rewrite. And that will be coming forward to council in July uh for council's commentary. Uh obviously at that time council can decide whether to um to refer that to the new council but I think uh from my perspective you know it's an operational policy that has been simplified down to to really help the public understand what happens with the correspondence that comes in and and how that is being handled by staff. So, I'm not sure that there's um that it I think you know council can obviously um I think a lot of the pieces that had to do with council have actually been removed out of that and it's become more of an operational policy for staff. So, but

council can obviously make the uh the decision to to uh direct that to the new council if they wish. Thank you, Miss Hunt. Please continue. Councelor Smart. Uh thank you. uh with regards to and I appreciate that clarification with regards to um 2021 uh 162 the end of trip facilities at um uh Estan Applanod um were were end of trip facilities um at Willows Park and installed I just wondered with that one was it was that actually completed because I know that this has come up a few times and I just wondered if we're if we're going to get rid of it and potentially um not be tracking that anymore. I guess I just um it it just concerned me a little bit. I just wanted to confirm that we actually did install editor facilities before we we lose the tracking on on that item.

Sure. Sorry. It's on page 14 of Sorry. 1406. Yeah. At the bottom of there. Uh Mr. Director Renick is online. Uh perhaps we'll hand this over to Mr. Renick. Welcome. Uh thank you very much. How's my volume, Mr. Mayor? It's good. Thank you. Uh through Mr. Mayor to councelor Smart, additional bike racks will be installed at Willows Beach at the end of the Estavan um Avenue and they will be done as part of the new viewing platform that is anticipated to be installed this year um that council was briefed about at a meeting back in April. Uh and so I do feel comfortable removing that section of the resolution although they have not been installed yet. Uh they will be just give us a couple more months.

Thank you for that councelor Smart. Anything else? Um thank you. I just had one last question. It was with regards to 2023 666 um the um community gardens and I just um I just wondered if there was any more information that staff um uh could just provide around I understand there wasn't capacity for this but just to clarify. So that is actually a project that is still being um pursued and included. Just want a clarification. Uh this is the I think right now the recommendation is for removal as the there's a temporary use permit being considered but Mr. Sullier that's correct. Um staff will be bring excuse me bringing forward a temporary use permit for that property. Um and so this is uh being considered for removal.

Um that being said, the parks master plan process will include um consideration of community gardens and a as a broader theme um as uh residents are considering potential uses for park spaces. Great. Was that the last question, Councelor Smart? Uh that was my last question. When it does come time um for motions, I do have some that I would like to remove to keep um and I'll bring that up later. Okay. Uh any other questions for members of council? Yeah, please go ahead, councelor Braithway. Uh thank you, mayor. Um there were two um questions that I did have and what the first one was uh number two 2025509, the zoning amendment uh for real estate offices and I I was confused with this one because it says um that it's uh recommended for removal and it'll be tracked as part of uh the prepare of the village plans. I thought that this uh that we had already um put this in place uh for um real estate um offices on the avenue. I thought this was completed already, but obviously not or maybe

staff can explain uh through your worship to council bra. So I guess there was two parts. There was an amendment to the zoning bylaw to specifically prohibit real estate offices on the avenue which was completed. However, this was a second motion to I guess take a broader look at uh the issue of retail service business uses part of either village area planning or the the modernization of the zoning by law. Thank you for that reminder. And then my last question was around um 2023 079 which is the recreation building hours and it says recommended for removal because this item is outdated. Can you just explain that one to me Mr. um solier because I was a little bit confused by it. Thanks to the mayor. Sort of two points um that I would probably make uh relative to that uh question. And the first I think relates to um the fact that there will be a an overall recreation services master plan um exercise that will take place um once we get through the parks master plan. Um that will be an opportunity to look at service provision uh which will include hours of

operations for the facilities. Um and then secondly, um in the year that I've been with the district, um this is something that staff have regularly been evaluating just in terms of our attendance at each of the facilities and making sure that um our hours are aligning with demand. Um and so the hours that we have right now, they are as late as any recreation facility in the region. Um we are matched I think with one other municipality right now and there are a few that are slightly closed slightly earlier. Um but we do see demand um dropping off in those later hours right now. So we we wouldn't suggest at this point there's a need to based on demand to uh increase that but as as I mentioned earlier an overall look will be taking place as part of that long-term plan.

Sorry even for the swimming e anything else counc uh that was my question as well was just that one item. So I'll uh don't see any other questions being raised here. So we have two proposed motions. One is to receive the report which is probably pretty straightforward. moved and seconded. Don't usually debate receipt, but I'm happy to take comments if people wish. Thank you. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh and then I think we'll take the resolution and then I think councelor Smart indicated she had some amendments she'd like to make. Uh so can have perhaps move the recommendation for I'll move the recommendation.

Move and seconded. So this is to remove resolutions as laid out on here. And for clarity, the ones that don't have aren't explicitly recommended for removal will not be removed. they will remain on hold just so the public and and uh is clear about that. Okay, moved and seconded. Uh do the movers and second wish to speak to it otherwise I'll go to councelor Smart online. Please go ahead councelor Smart. Yes, thank you. Um I really um overall appreciate um getting this report down to fewer more impactful resolutions. I really appreciate staff's work on this, but there were four items left that um I believe are slated for removal that I I didn't feel were um completed that we haven't discussed yet. Um and so would you like them one by one so that we could consider them?

I would. Yes, I think that's that's important. So just if you could move that whatever you wish changed either whatever you're directing to make it as a motion and I'll see if there's a second or if there is we can we can you can motivate. I'd like to remove um the following from the motion which means to keep it. So um uh to the accessible parking spaces 2025-517 you don't suppose you know which page that's on do you? Um I sorry did not do page numbers. I I just recorded the title and the um resolution, but I imagine it's under building and planning if that's helpful.

Oh, it's on page 14 apparently. Okay. Oh, second second line on page 14. So, the recommendation is removal. There are no longer any provinially mandated accessible parking requirements. Okay. So, uh it's moved. Anybody see it? Uh, is there a seconder? Movement been seconded. Uh, go ahead, Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um, uh, I I appreciate that there are no provincial regulations, but it's exactly because there are no provincial regulations that this work is now. My understanding is clearly in the court of municipal governments to regulate. Um, and so I don't want us to lose track of this item and our ability to um, regulate this at the local government level. So, I I just don't want this important piece of work um to get lost. Um okay, thank you. I I note that the the note from staff here is that a motion could be abandoned or reporting back could take place at a time of long listed parking facilities bylaw update CPP71. But your your ask is that this

stay on the on the list uh on the on hold list and not not be marked as completed. Is that is that your your request? I'm con I'm concerned about it getting delayed. I I think it's very timely that I I I honestly would hate to see a another multif family, you know, building go forward without us having these um regulations in in place. So, um I I do feel like there's an urgency around um dealing with this issue. Okay. So, just I just for clarification, you're you're going to remove it from the list, which would it's currently on hold. So, it it would essentially just stay on hold as the recommendations. Okay. If that if that is an easier motion, I was um trying to phrase it sort of as per the um motion, but if if um to keep it on the to remove the uh remove that the recommendation is is clear. So the recommendation is currently to remove it uh from the list. So removing it from that removal would leave it as as an on

hold item that's in the in the long list or in the list here. Okay. Uh any other discussion? Miss Hunt. Yeah. Thank you, your worship. Yeah, I just do want to clarify that it would stay on the on hold list. It doesn't mean that it is going to be um uh uh you know actioned anytime soon. It would still be just there as on hold and then staff would get to it um like the other on hold items. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Appleton. Follow-up question then your worship through you to staff. Uh, as indicated in the report, the most likely time that it would be action would be as part of the review of the parking facilities bylaw update. Confirm.

Yeah, that's so the answer to that question was nods from staff. Since that's not very audible online, [laughter] uh, the answer is yes, it would be most likely dealt with as part of the parking broader parking consideration. It does not mean that's the only way it could be dealt with, but that's the that's the most likely. Okay. Any other discussion? I'll speak in favor of that motion. I think this is a uh it's a piece that I think is beneficial uh for consideration. And for clarity, it does not prevent us from requiring accessibility parking in any projects that come forward in the interim. We are not banned from doing that. It's just we don't have a policy uh without this work being done. Okay. So, go ahead, councelor Green.

Thank you for the clarity. I think that should be, you know, well communicated so that the public does understand that we're not moving away from this problem. We're just working through a different uh process. So I that clarity is really important in any messaging that we do to the the community. Thank you. Thank you. So the motion right now is to remove the request for removal so it would stay on the long list or on the on hold list. So a vote in favor of this keeps it as a project. So on the motion to amend. All those in favor and those opposed. None opposed. That carries. Please go ahead. Councelor Smart.

Yeah. Thank you. Um there's just one other item because I see now with the clarification that the ones that have empty boxes will stay on the list. [laughter] Um, so the only other one I wanted to bring forward was um, brought up already and it's 2023- um,79 um, with regards to the hours at recreation um, centers. Um, and I would just u make a a motion to um, uh, keep it on the list as on hold.

So page 15 third from the bottom under parks wreck and culture. So the motion excuse me is to remove it from removal again. So this would be um keep the the question of of uh for yeah of staffing and hours of operations. Is there a seconder for that motion? I'll give it a moment because people need to find it and read it just to see if there's a interest. Not seeing a seconder. So um nope. Uh anything else from any councelor Smart? I think you said that was your indicator as your last amendment. Yep. Uh any other motions to amend? Otherwise, we have a motion on the floor which is to approve the report as laid out with one amendment. Okay, I'm going to call the question.

All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Thank you. We now move to 11.1, which is our midyear council priorities update and review. Ms. Mortyn, over to you. Uh, thank you, mayor. Good evening, members of council. So, we are pleased to be here uh for the midyear check-in on your council priorities, projects. The report before you has three aspects to the analysis section. first and really the main focus is the project status update. Um, attachment one provides that update organized by project status. So, by completed, in progress and so on. Um, and attachment two includes the same information but is organized by project number. Uh, to date uh in this term, council has resourced 39 council priority projects.

19 are complete, 16 are in progress, and four are funded in the financial plan to begin as early as 2027. Uh the second component of the analysis is an update on work that is underway to report back to council on the implementation of the task force recommendations related to t uh derik boats and wage management. Uh third and finally, the report provides an overview of the process that is under development to work with the incoming council as part of their orientation program to develop their council priorities plan. Um as referenced in the report, projects that are currently in progress, those funded to begin as early as 2027, and all long listed projects will be referred to this process for review and prioritization by the incoming council.

So staff are recommending receipt of the report with no changes to projects unless otherwise directed by council. And just finally, a quick thank you to colleagues for being online or in the room tonight to answer questions about projects uh and to corporate services for making sure we uh engineered and reverse engineered all the information related to council resolutions. Thank you, Mayor. Uh thank you, Miss Mortyn. And yes, I think in in normal years we take a bit sometimes some time to go and and look through and see if we're rep prioritizing and and pieces, but obviously as we wind this uh this council term down, we're uh it's here mostly for information at this point. There's a lot of stuff still underway.

Um so uh I'm happy to take any other direction of council, but at this point take some questions from council. All right, you can put the motion on the floor. Oh, sorry, Miss Anderson. Oh, sorry to interrupt you. I think the fan is pointing right at your microphone, so it's Thank you. I can't hear that. So, thank you. Don't want that to be the the background noise. Um uh so before Yeah, obviously before I get to motions, I need to go to public input. Um but I have councelor Smart, I see your hand up. Yes. Thank you. I I just had a question um through you, mayor, to staff, about the um proposed um uh schedule um for strategic planning. And I just wanted to ask um uh because the schedule is is different than I experienced when I came on uh council. And I really um appreciated um when I started council how expedited the process was to include new counselors uh to be able to look at our um uh you know priority themes

around the end of November, December and even have an opportunity to um have a discussion around uh potential projects for the four-year term ahead of the first budget. Um, and I see this is a much more relaxed schedule. And so just I'm wondering if staff could comment on whether they saw problems um with the previous schedule. Um because as far as I was concerned it was 10 out of 10 um from the point of view of a new counselor coming in to feel very seen and included. Miss Bordon. Oh well thank thank you first of all for the 10 out of 10. [laughter] Um we're always just seeking to improve, continuous improvement. Um we are have joined uh community and practice of other municipalities across uh the province. Um and so this process is certainly just under development. It's a draft. We're open to taking feedback and certainly can note uh councelor Smart's uh remarks. I would say there was no problems. It's just a matter of searching for opportunities and ensuring

that um there's an opportunity for the feedback from the community questionnaire to feed into the prioritization that council will undertake. Go ahead, councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. I think that's really my only question and I'll provide comments after we pass a motion. Okay. I don't see hands up for questions. So, uh, I'll go to the public, uh, at this point. Uh, I see one hand up from a member of the public wishing to address council. Uh, same process. I know you've already spoken to us tonight, Mr. Zulk, but just state your name and municipality for the record, and you can address council. Uh, thank you very much, uh, uh, chair, uh, your honor. I appreciate the opportunity. Um, with respect to this motion, um, uh, I wanted to point out, uh, just a couple of things, uh, related to the climate initiatives. um uh many of them that are appear to be in progress or or are on hold um are I I have to admit uh uh when I when I look u

uh across the website and I look across um uh trying to to gather the information for this question it's very difficult to actually pull out a detailed information with respect to um the meeting of our provincial mandates. uh the the pro as you know the province has has put in provincial mandates in the areas of buildings buildings and uh zoning and those of other other bar are barriers but with the new legislation that has come down with respect to the new emergency and disaster management act that uh took effect July 8th 2024 and has rolling acts uh with specific business continuity and emergency management plans requirements rolling out all the way through 2027. I suggest that many of the climate um plans being uh being suggested by by staff are actually out of date and not in alignment with what the province is is really forcing us to do us the royal us um with respect to the uh provincial mandated requirements. Um so I I would

suggest uh that maybe uh um uh a a a review of this report on in the area of climate with respect to specifically the report that came out on March 16, 2026 at the committee the whole that report presented to you already is called the climate action program annual update. It's one of the few reports where I was actually able to see uh numbers um uh actual reporting out in greenhouse gas uh numbers with respect to our proinciallymandated requirements. this report uh thankfully uh uh rolled up um uh work done since all the way back to 2007 and it says the latest data shows for Oak Bay we've had a 22% decrease in our emissions from 2020 2007 levels we are not just greenhouse gas negative we are well on our way to meeting um provinially mandated requirements um so uh congratulations to previous councils previous mayors. Uh congratulations to all of you. But really in in light of this many of the suggestions in the uh priorities, I know council really wants to say, "Hey, look

at that. This was our priority and look what we did. Please vote for me again." But unfortunately in the area of climate, it's a specific rel related to uh numbers going all the way back to 2007. So to only to show uh things that have happened since uh this council came to uh to office is not helpful um with respect to uh climate aspect. Now why this is so passionate to me is that we have with respect to livability um a lot of climate anxiety out there. You know, I I I I I make reference to people, you know, crazy gluing themselves to uh the Mona Lisa or or or blocking traffic on on on the highway or or god forbid doing something even worse. Um uh you know, a climate strike, for example. These are this is all examples of of what uh um these concerns around uh uh how do I say climate uh in action is is engendering in our young people, our youth. So, I really would uh

would ask that council highlight and amplify and really call out all the incredible work done by staff in particular parks, wreck, and culture um so that we could help reduce the level of anxiety amongst our young people and livability within this within this area and also within the CRD. That's number one. Okay, Mr. you're you're at four and a half four minutes in counting. So, if if you don't mind, just if you can wrap up your I didn't realize that that this one was was limited to three minutes. I do apologize. Uh let me just finish up the last point which was what was it again?

Um uh uh again what is the criteria simply adding adding the criteria for this council to end the uh the state of climate emergency come up with our criteria and get that in place please. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mr. Zelki for your comments. Um I might just uh to turn as a question from the from the public comment. Um because obviously there are we don't tend to have community or council priorities for things that are mandated by the province. They tend to be operationalized and dealt with. So just for our edification if if staff that are in the room know the question answer to the question. um the the changes to the emergency emergency management plan that did happen in 2024 does obviously have have had impacts on our operations in all kinds of areas. I guess probably at a high level just confirmation that that communication happens that our priorities and projects uh do align and and um just yeah maybe just a quick touch point from staff on that. I'm not sure if I give that to Mr. Ms. Morton or to Miss Hunt.

Thank you very much. Yes, I can confirm that our emergency program manager has been uh has reviewed the legislation uh and uh and been incorporating that into our emergency management programs. Uh you know, it it included um really looking at you know, risk assessments and emergency planning. It included uh you know, how we um uh consult and and engage with indigenous nations. Um it uh yeah so just a variety of different but all sort of as you say at that operational level in terms of how we how we assess how we plan and how we would uh mitigate disaster under the under the new legislation and and staff have been incorporating that into our planning.

Okay. And do we have any sort of we again it's kind of one of those things we don't typically see those I mean this is again the 95% of things that happen outside of the public realm because they're just operational but is there is no real reporting on that kind of alignment with mun with provincial regulations or or legislation correct because we it's just something we have to do by law so we do it is there any reporting out as for those kind of alignment pieces miss hunt uh your worship no you're you're correct I don't think there's any so formal reporting that we would do. I mean, there's been a variety of new legislation over the last few years from the province in all kinds of areas that um you know, we've been implementing and unless there's um you know, legislated reports that council has to sign off on such as the those under the housing supply act um we would not be bringing those forward to council. We would just be be doing the work.

Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Braithweight. Um thanks Mayor. There's just a a couple of things I wanted to touch on and they're on page 13 under the advance in 2027 or beyond and it's the or beyond part that I'm I'm um looking at. And the first one I would like to um touch on is the CPP number 82 which is the standards of maintenance bylaw for heritage properties. Um and it does say uh advanced in 2027 or later. And I'm wondering how we perhaps get that to just say advance in 2027. Is there is there a way that we can do that? Because I I worry that we may have um heritage properties that have been identified that uh that where deteriorate deterioration might um become a concern before this project begins.

Yeah, Miss Morton. Uh thank you, Mayor. And I can start and then um perhaps Mr. Green will want to build on um exact or more exact timing that might be anticipated. Um from our perspective when we categorize advance in 2027 or later that's just tied to the financial plan in the year in which it's resourced. So that's the earliest year uh currently that it would start and then Mr. Green may have some additional comment. Mr. Green, do you wish to add anything uh for your worship other than that? that just would be reasonable if we wanted to advance that in 2027 that we think that would probably be feasible to undertake that bylaw. Okay.

And and sorry mayor if I may just uh the same it would be the same for number nine which is the um the prepare the village area plan because I know that we've been pushing that off and pushing that off and so I really hope that that's able to advance in 2027 but again I realize that it's attached to the budget. So thank you. Okay. I think that's more of a comment than a question. So, perfect. Um, okay. I don't see any other questions. So, perhaps we can have a motion as laid out here, which is really just to receive the report. Moved. Proceed. Thank you. Move and seconded. So, additional comments are welcome if people have them. I think uh councelor Smart, you indicated you wish to get a couple of comments.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I would love the chance to make a couple of comments. Um we really appreciate um seeing this report at this stage. Um I I guess my two comments would be with regards to you know potentially keeping a more similar schedule for counselor orientation to what we received. You know what I I appreciate how important um it is to have the community survey as part of that schedule, but most candidates have just gone doortodoor and have a lot of information from the community at their hands. And I just would hate to see a new council come in, you know, potentially with different viewpoints and not have a chance to have some of those important conversations early. Uh, and then my other comment was just with regards to around um operationalized projects. Uh, and just thinking of the next council term, I know as a new um, counselor, I would have appreciated a little bit more um, clarity around when a council priority project will be operationalized and a little bit more touch points with

council um, and the public as far as regular updates of when council priority projects are at the operational level. Um, because that was just a bit of a surprise to me as a as a new counselor that that one of those projects might be totally operationalized and we would be quite um, hands off from it. and I and I'd love to have more interaction going forward. So those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you, Councelor Smart. Go ahead, councelor Green on the motion. Yes, through you. I just want to um thank staff and commend them for the work. It's and the timing is good as well because we're coming into an election term. So, it kind of reminds us what these last four years were about.

And I know it's really easy to lose track for council members to lose track of motions and and resolutions and and and good intentions. So, thank you for putting all that on paper. Appreciate it. Thank you. Uh just one other quick qu question because I think there is sometimes questions from the public is whatever happened to that resolution X um do you know offhand where on the website the public goes to find this? Is it under the council or is it uh what section of the website is it found if people are curious for the public? Oh, sorry your worship for the council priorities plan.

Yeah, for Oh, yes. Um there is an entire page designated or designated for the council priorities plan. It also has um all of the quarterly updates from this term and it has the community questionnaire results as well. Um, I won't read out the URL, but I believe it's um a little bit of an explainer in the report how to get there, but if you go to the website and search council priorities plan, it'll bring it up. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. Uh, and Councelor Watson, thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say just following up on the comment about the the proposal for the slight well it's it's a shift in um uh setting priorities that's proposed and I have to say that because there are other elements to it I think it actually does make sense. I understand I just want to say that I understand counselor um Smart's comment about the new counselors will have been out doortodoor and we'll have very current sort of touch and feel

in the community. However, the process that's being suggested is going to involve those counselors working together to set high priority themes with desired outcomes and mechanisms. And I think that is helpful because we um that is more than what we actually accomplished in November and January on the last um on on this current term of council. and then that can be more uh closely informed by what we hear from the community. So I think it doesn't all our ideas are still going to come into that discussion that's proposed for January um or whoever has our ideas but council's ideas are going to come into the room in January 2027. So I I I would support the new approach. I don't see it as uh um really um leading to in worse out any worse any any difference in the the outcomes. I think we'll still have good um uh priority projects and strategies going forward using what's proposed.

Thank you for that, Councelor Watson. Don't see any other indications of people wishing to speak. We have a motion on the floor to receive. So, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. That carries. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we do have some new business. Um, which is just coming out of our in camera portion. I'm just going to turn to Ms. Anderson. I'm just Oh, it's okay. I think you're just confirming what we're going to bring into this realm. Correct. Uh, thank you, Mayor. We were just talking. Um, I could share I could share what you're about to speak with on the screen if if council wished.

I think that's probably the best. This is essentially a motion um just for allowing council to set the criteria for as we rose and reported. we're going to be asking for additional information. So, this is just we have one more decision point to make which is just how we're going to u measure the criteria. And so, if we can just bring that up, I think that'll be helpful. And what I'll probably do is uh have a motion made to approve these criteria and then we can have a debate and and have motions to amend uh that. And I believe there might be something we may have to step in camera for briefly, but uh if we do that, we'll just probably most simply go into the uh into the anti-chamber here and have that conversation.

I'll I'll bring that off my laptop. There we go. Thank you. Um, so I think probably procedurally here, the simplest thing is probably just to move uh that council use the the proposed uh categories and waiting and then and then we can get motions to amend that is probably the simplest thing. So is there a mover and seconder to prove that? Okay, lots of movers and seconders. Uh, so we're not going to call the question yet obviously. Um I just just because what's up here is the categories but just for clarification to people looking this is really the mechanism a just sty do you want to just uh miss bay do you want to provide a a brief um overview of why this is in front of us or do you want me to do that over to me okay uh so uh council as noted in the as the rise in report has directed uh staff to go forward with requests for uh additional information including financial information from uh proponents that that responded to the RFOI.

Uh with that uh by obligation, we have to have a process to assess the responses that we're going to get. And so uh the proposal here is that we use essentially four buckets, financial, operational, community, and environmental. And then we would use a percentage waiting that we will agree to tonight. um that will guide when those responses come back how we're assessing uh those responses and because they're not on the screen here I think just for the interest of the public uh the financial includes includes proposed rent range capital investments life cycle maintenance rent escalators etc. The operational bucket is operator experience operational plans or operations plans risk mitigations etc.

Under a community, it's public amenities, public access, partnerships, benefits to First Nations, etc. And then environmental is dock replacement, fueling, fire protection, etc. And so that's those buckets. Those are the percentages that were provided to us as a suggestion by Collers who is helping us with this process. uh ultimately uh that it's the the percentages will be ultimately up to council to determine and then uh we will use these when they come when the proposals come back. So it's an important piece and I think very critically important that you know we we have this conversation in the public realm just because I think this the public has a right to understand how we're making these decisions on the on these pieces. So that's where we're at.

Um, and with that, so the motion's live on the floor. Uh, and I'm happy to take uh have just a general conversation here. I think being too formal makes it a little bit complicated. Uh, but, uh, I'll probably if there's any after after any comments, um, we can get to there's any motions to change this, we can certainly take those. Uh, go ahead, councelor Smart. Yeah, I I would be interested uh to to make an amendment around adding another category, but it would have to be in in camera because it does um involve other levels of government or First Nations. Okay. Um thank you. You did flag that you might ask want to do that. So, we would have to move in camera and that's fine. So, what I would seek is a motion to move in camera. Uh and Miss Anderson, if you don't mind uh reading aloud the the the rationale for moving in camera under for for th those purposes.

Yes. Thank you. So the the meeting will convene in camera in accordance with section 91E land acquisition disposition or expropriation of land and section 92 B3 the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a first nation or a prescribed indigenous entity or between a first nation or a prescribed indigenous entity and a third party. Okay. So I'll take that as a motion from you councelor Smart. Is there a seconder seconded? Um is there just debate going in camera? Uh just because by the nature of it, the nature of debate is going to have to happen in camera. Uh so I think we will move in camera probably for not too long a period. Um but uh and what I think procedurally we will do just to allow everybody to be comfortable in here, we'll just step into the small room. We'll bring up a a teams meeting with uh councelor Smart and Watson online. Um, and then we can have that

conversation. Then we'll come back into this room for for consideration of changes. Fair. So, I'm going to call the question on the motion to move in camera. All those in favor? Any opposed? Let's see. Any opposed? Um, so I'm going to ask you to turn off your cameras and your microphones, both councelor Smart and Watson. So, the next conversation uh is private and then we'll send you a quick team's invite. uh coming back. Yeah. So, just for could you just clarify how you're going to send the team's invite will be by email. Miss Anderson, thank you for the question of clarification. If you could join the previous team's meeting. Thank you.

Yeah, perfect. Uh and so we're going to go in camera, but uh just for the benefit of the public watching, um we will step into the other room. There are some things we're just not legally allowed to discuss in the public. This is very unusual for us. We very rarely have this opportunity to do this or or have to do this. Um but we can't legally talk about those two aspects in the public realm. So we'll go into the other room, we'll have a quick conversation. Uh if there's changes and so forth, we can rise and report and come back here and make changes, but the conversation itself has to be in camera. So you're welcome to stay in the room here and and wait. Uh and if you're online, please wait for us. Is there any mechanism by which we can put on a screen just saying we've stepped into in camera briefly?

Okay. Okay. Can we actually say that council will reconvene because we actually are coming back to this room. Okay. Thank you. We'll be right back or shortly.

Okay, we have uh we're going to call the open portion of the meeting back to order. I think there's still some people uh yeah, there's still some people online uh with us here. Um uh so we have uh in front of us the uh proposed waiting uh that came uh out of our earlier meeting uh for consideration. Uh the hope tonight is well our goal tonight is to agree to this and and uh and move it forward so that the proponents understand how we're going to be weighing the uh responses. Uh if we can bring that back up on the screen again, then we can have that to talk to. Uh I know we have councelor Smart with us again. Uh I just want to make sure that we have counselor Watson uh joined us back online here as well.

Sometimes switching technology creates a loss. [snorts] I'm just going to wait for councelor Watson to rejoin the meeting. She's officially there, but um I am Can you not see me? I am at I just had to close a curtain because I had so much light on my screen I couldn't see it. Yeah. No. In fact, you're you're pitch black on our screen. So, that's fine. You can stay without the video. Oh, no. No. I Is it working? I I can't see myself either. Something's happened to the settings. Anyway, I am here. I'll let you know if I leave. Sorry. That's all you need. And And you can just raise your hand if you wish to speak.

So, we're back at this meeting here. We have up. Can you see the screen that's in front of us? Both Carrie and Leslie, I think, you can. Uh so basically this is the this is the motion that's been moved and seconded uh to direct to proceed with the following categories and allotted waiting. Um there's been no changes made to that but we're coming back into the public realm. We may want to tweak either the language or the percentages. So, councelor Appleton, your worship, I would propose an amendment to the proposed waiting such that the financial, operational, and community components are weighted equally at 30% each.

Okay. Uh, I will let that come up on screen. Is there a seconder for that motion? I don't see a second there, but I have a hand up from counselor smart. So, I just want to make sure there's not a Yeah, that was a second. Okay. Thank you. And just again ask for online just yet to verbalize if that's the case. So, we have a motion with a seconder. Uh, go ahead, councelor Appleton. Oh, thank you, worship. So this is just to I think reflecting the fact that this matter is coming back into the public eye that we've risen and reported on this and that we're council is taking the initiative to inform the public or taking steps to be transparent with the public as far as the evaluation for these uh submissions. I think we've heard loud and clear and council has has heard loud and clear from the community that community benefit from uh any agreement uh reached around the marina is very is extremely important to the

community. So I would obviously there are mandates to achieve financial return on behalf of the district but I would like to see community benefit be weighted equally with financial component as part of this evaluation. Thank you worship. Thank you. Uh, councelor Smart, did you wish to speak as a seconder? Yes, thank you. Um, I do appreciate this motion. Um, you know, in looking at these categories and and and the waiting. Um, I do think back to our original objectives for the entirety of the site and thinking about how impactful uh this particular um uh part of the site activation is is going to be. I I do really appreciate this uh rebalancing um the community aspects of what are happening on on this site particularly looking at all the different categories that that is including I really particularly feel deserves a much um higher waiting. I believe the success um of the development of this project um is is really around the um community appreciation of of this site. So, um, appreciate this motion.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, anybody else? So, the motion on the floor is to change the percentages. Uh, go ahead, Councelor Briew. Uh, yeah. Thanks, uh, mayor. I I appreciate this coming forward, but I I feel pretty strongly um that, um, we should keep it as it is. Um, the community benefits are important, but they depend on really having a financially sustainable marina with a capable operator. So, if the business model doesn't work, the community benefits won't be sustainable either. So, I would like to see us keep it at the original um uh uh weights and so I'll be voting against the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? Councelor Patterson.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'm [laughter] I'm not I haven't not made a final decision. I will listen to other comments, but I I somewhat agree with Councelor Braithweight. Our problem with the with the existing facility has really been that the investment reinvestment in the in the marina was not sustainable. It it did not sustain it in a in a state that um is is benefiting the community and the community is also you know has expressed dissatisfaction with that. So I do think that the financial um does really carry a lot of of importance in my mind and I don't know I you know I the community and public benefits are are perhaps a little more difficult to gauge than the actual financial and I think that um it council's responsibility is to ensure that on a go forward basis that the invest ment in the marina is is sustainable um for the community. I think there's a lot of community members that um don't understand that it that it

has not been a sustainable um site for the district. And so, but I will listen to what others have to say because I do understand and appreciate um councelor Appleton uh comments about the importance of of the community benefits um in this in the uh assessment. Any other council green? Thank you. Um I will support the motion. Um I think it it does what we had talked about earlier um or that I had thought about and that was to level the playing field as much as possible and I think making um the um the community benefit and public amenities and so on under the third category. I think bringing that up is um is important to both the comm community well to both communities both indigenous and non-indigenous. So I will support it. Thank you.

Um councelor Watson just because I can't see you on there. Did you wish to speak to the motion? No, I'm I'm still thinking about this. I don't have anything to add at the moment. Thank you. Uh yeah, so I'm just going to go to uh Murdoch. do have my hand up, but I I know you probably can't see it. Uh, yeah, I you've you've you've spoken. I'm just going to go to first- time speakers first. So, I have uh um brief you, but I'm going to just speak briefly to the to the motion. Um so, my in inclination here is to not support the motion. And I hearken back to um the sort of the rationale for any of these kind of approaches. And I think just to just to reflect this is a marina operator process. So it's there is some nuance to what that would include but the primary purpose of this is to get a financial response uh to to this. This is not while there's some aspects of

public spaces as noted in the community like public access and so forth. The overwhelming majority of this is a private business operations running a marina and from that for the municipality to receive maximal financial benefit for which we can use for all kinds of other pieces including community benefit. And so there is important to have community in there I think particularly because we need to look at both the benefits to first nations and to Oak Bay residents and even the broader regional community. But I do think that specific for this process, specifically for a marina operator, the financial needs to be high because it is the core piece most of what else we touch on. I would argue that, you know, you know, looking at bumping environmental because that's the only other thing that this really strongly has an impact on uh is uh is the environmental piece. Um so those are the those are the pieces that I would put forward is that the uh given the nature of this if we were talking about the upland portion and we're talking about you know the broader public access

and space 100% community would be way up there probably higher um uh but I don't I think just good to remember what it is we're talking about which is a a agreement lease agreement operation agreement with a commercial enterprise to run a marina and for that we should be seeking the maximum possible revenue and for that we should make sure that awaiting reflects that as as a priority on here. So I'm I'm not supportive um from what I've heard so far, but I'm of course have an open mind as to the points that people raise. I'll go back to the mover by which is councelor Smart and then to councelor Braithweight.

Um uh thank you. I I just wanted to ask a clarifying um a question and just to clarify I wasn't the mover but I was a secondary of the motion but I um uh is it possible me to ask a clarifying question to staff I was just curious which of these categories if any of them uh specifically include economic prosperity to first nations um just because it was one of our key goals for the site and I just wondered if it's possible for staff to comment if that is included under the community or financial category or if a amendment motion would be in order to specify it under one of those categories. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh turn that question. I think that the from council it was first nations partnership was our language. Uh economic prosperity was the first nations language of what they were seeking for the site. Um Ms. Baywood, can you answer the question about where that fits? Does that fit under communic under community? Uh thank you your worship. Uh it's really what council directs. uh staff have proposed that um the community piece look at the benefits to um benefits to nations broadly speaking. Um some of that could be financial if that's council's directive, but it could also be uh other types of benefits. That would that seems logical. That's the that's the bucket. Uh councelor Smart um uh thank you, mayor. Just to clarify, was that the community bucket? Correct.

Um would it be appropriate then to make an amendment to modify to say economic and other benefits to First Nations? It is, but I need to deal with the motion that's on the floor first because they're not Okay. Yeah, I need to deal with the percentages as a separate motion. So, we can certainly come back. Thank you. Thank you. So, briefly, thank you, mayor. And I I mean we we hired collers to um who are professionals to come back with uh with um what they would support for the waiting. So so I I really support the collier's recommendation that they've come back with. Again, community benefits are certainly important, but the marina's first challenge is to ensure it remains financially viable and professionally operated over the long term. A successful marina generates community benefits naturally, I think.

Um, and my concern with increasing the community waiting is that it could really place greater emphasis on promises and amenities than on the operator's ability to fund, replace, and maintain critical infrastructure. So, if there are any community services that we feel that are essential as a council, I'd rather make those requirements of the lease than alter the evaluation waiting. So, again, I will be voting against. Okay. Councelor Watson, please go ahead. Thank you. And mayor, I want to thank you for your comments because I'm sitting here listening to everybody and mulling this over. And I think that it was important again to clarify for the public that this is not about a fullsight redevelopment. This exercise we're in right now is about finding a new marina operator uh in in in under a tight and I guess a quite a tight time frame so that we can continue to have a marina operating in Oak Bay which uh the community I think does place high value

in and that we have to get economic return from. So I think I just want to comment that I think that in the public domain there's still quite a lot of confusion about what this exercise is actually about and it is about just this partic particular element of a wider exercise. And so having heard you speak I think that I am not in support of the change in the waiting and that I um and I will not vote uh in support of the motion. I think the the higher um weight on the financial um does make sense given our our obligations and uh and financial situation and our and our aspirations for a successful marina operation. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any other hands. So the motion on the floor is to amend the percentages to 303010. Um, so, uh, I'll call the question. All those in favor of that change and those opposed. I have in favor online. Yeah. Councelor and councelor. Sorry. Council. Sorry, you can't see me, but my hands up. [laughter] I still can't get I can't after I switched between. Yeah. Councelor Watson, Patterson, Braithweight, Murdoch. So, that motion fails. We're back to the 4030 20110 uh percentages. And councelor Smart, you you raised a point unrelated to the percentages about just we have some examples there about um benefit about uh being a little bit more clarity around the community uh bucket.

Yes. to add the word words economic and other benefits just to be um clear about um the interest in economic prosperity to First Nations. Okay. Is there a seconder for that? Move and seconded. Thank you. Um I think you already gave a little motin motivation there, councelor Smart, but you add anything else? Yeah, thank you. I I just wanted um our criteria to be um clear as far as um uh council's um uh interest in in reconciliation and benefits to um the first nations uh including economic um benefits for prosperity. Thank you. Okay, any discussion? Generally speaking, we seek discussion if there's people opposed to those changes. Do I see any? Not seeing any, I'll call the question then on the amendment to include economic and other to bucket under community. All those in favor? Any opposed?

Not hearing any opposed. I'll that that passes. Um so we're here at the 40302010 with these buckets. Is there any other suggestion motions for amendment? I do have another amendment. Um, councelor Smart online. Go ahead, Councelor Smart. I'd like to uh propose that the operational and um the community benefits are equally split. 2525. Okay. Uh it's so moved. Uh is there a seconder for that change? Just give a moment for people to So this would change operational from 30% to 25% and community from 20% to 25%. I don't have any motions or seconders popping up here. So not seeing any. I think that does not uh we won't have a debate on that. So we're back to the original pieces. Um, any other suggestion motions?

I'm going to throw it out there just uh I'm not going to make a motion because I tend not to. Um, I and I don't know where that percentage would come from, but I I kind of wish the environmental was a little higher because I think the long-term environmental benefits of the DOC proposal would is super important. I think it's one of those areas that has the longest ramifications for this for the proposal and I think indicating a higher um maybe that comes under risk mitigation etc a little bit but I think environment is a really critical piece so I I don't know where that might come from but maybe from the operational to environment going 25 and 10 I'm just throwing it out there because I do think that the environmental has a this that really does have a pretty substantive uh piece on the other hand there may not be difference between the the proposals.

So, not see anybody making a motion. So, I'll I'll leave it. I'm willing to make that motion. Uh well, let me make the motion if you think it's a good one. Councelor Smart. I don't need No, I do. I do. I I agree with you. I I just think I I I know this is the Marina portion, but I our community is is so passionate about being a leader in sustainability. Um, so I would like to put forward the motion to have the environmental be 15% and the operational to be 25%. Okay. Uh, I'll see if there's a seconder for that. So the motion is to amend operational from 30 to 25 and from environmental from 10 to 15%. Uh, is there a seconder?

Yes. Councelor Watson, thanks. Yes, I am seconding that motion. Thank you. Uh I kind of mini motivated just because I wanted to out of curiosity to see if there was other interest. I know it was your motion councelor Smart, but if you don't mind, I'll just uh add to that. Actually, I don't really need to add anything to it. My my personal Yeah. take of this one. I I think the uh the operational is obviously very very important. We want to make sure that the experience, their their plans, their risk mitigations are critical. Um but I I to my mind a big part of that success is going to be the environmental. And so, um, I think if we want that to be, uh, prioritized in the proposals, I think we need to bump up the from the 10 to 15%. So, I'll leave it there. Any other discussion? Council Braithweight?

Yeah, I I I hear what you're saying. Um, however, I'm going to use the same arguments I used for keeping the the the um waiting before um and I'll be voting against the motion. Thank you, Council. Thank you, worship. Yeah, and it doesn't I I will not support the motion on the floor and it doesn't bring me any happiness to do so. But I think probably because I focus in on on two things. Both the criticality of having a uh you know competent and and and experienced operator in order to sign on to a long-term lease so that we have uh stability and consistency in the delivery of the marina amenity, which is what the public is really looking for.

Um and and I do I I think you could also make the argument in my mind you could make the argument that you know operational skill and operational experience in a marine environment goes somewhat handinhand with environment. We've seen both uh groups uh in their presentations they're presenting materials uh present their uh you know environmental performance and and how uh they they treat that as a key component of operations as as sort of fundamental to the way that they work. So I I I would understand that a uh a highly skilled operator or a professional operator would certainly have environmental compliance and environmental performance as a key uh performance indicator. So thank you councelor uh Patterson and then I think I sorry I've got a yeah go ahead councelor Patterson.

Yes. While certainly in spirit this is supportable, I I won't in fact support the change because I I do think risk mitigation and the operational component and and and the operator experience and how they manage that is all very closely tied to environmental because of the nature of of it being marina operation. When I look at the environmental um some of the things that are listed there, what I would be looking under environmental would be exceptional or outstanding performance above perhaps base performance for um uh meeting environmental sustainability. So, so my that's my rationalization. I'm looking for the the higher score within the operational component itself.

Okay, any other discussion before I call the question? I I probably just want to make one clarifying piece since I was sort of suggested this uh and and the rationale I had for bumping it is that there is going to be to increase the the environmental benefit. You need to you know move from say creasso to steel pilings. You need to perhaps have transparent or translucent docks as opposed to the opaque. And those all cost capital and so they might impact negatively the financial but they might have additional benefit. And so my my rationale here was really to make sure that where we're seeing those those investments in in preferred or exceptional environmental uh standards that we can recognize that more and that's and that was kind of the rationale. So just just for that help that helps clarification. Um I think this is probably well I'll prejudge where it's going to go. I'll uh but not seeing any other speakers. I'm going to call the question. Uh, all those in favor and those opposed. I have councilors

Patterson, uh, sorry, Braithweight, Appleton, Green opposed. Uh, I didn't record or vote for Councelor Smart or Watson. I was for the motion. I'm for the motion. Okay. So, that's four to three. It fails. So, we're back to the original list. since I was the last gasp effort on that one. I think I'm probably we're ready to call the question on the main motion. Uh I don't see any other hands. So I'll call the question then. Uh so this is to direct staff to proceed with these categories. Uh all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That carries. Uh thank you very much everyone. Uh I now will seek a was there any other notices of motion?

Then uh we will get a motion to adjurnn. Moved seconded. All those in favor? I'm going to assume none opposed. Thank you for those on for councelor Watson and councelor Smart for sticking with us online and uh we will see you all again in a few weeks.