Transcript: Regular Council - 25 May 2026

It's not true. Good evening. I would like to call our regular council meeting on Monday, May 25th to order at 6 PM. Uh I'm Mayor Cliff McNeel Smith. Uh colleagues on council. To my far left, councelor Richard Novik, councelor Terry O'Keefe, councelor Chad Renul. to my far right, Councelor Steve Duck, Councelor Sarah Duncan, and Councelor Scott Kernette. Good evening to members of staff both in the chamber and those who may be participating online. We do introduce staff uh before uh before they speak. Uh and good evening to members of the public and our presenters this evening and to those who may be watching the live webstream or a recording of the meeting at a later date. um like to respectfully acknowledge that uh we are gathered to have our meeting on the territory of the Wasenich people uh the Seyote nation the Sartup nation the Pakuchin nation and this and the Sikum nation and turning to approval of the agenda we have four additional items of

correspondence since the agenda was published last Thursday and we have three changes um sorry two changes and then one comment uh about a section of the agenda. So, first, uh, the four items of correspondence received since last Thursday. I'll just note them and who they were from. Uh, we received a letter from Drew Irwin of Phil Brooks Boatyard. Uh, that will go, sorry, [clears throat] all four of these items will go to item 8A, the Harbor Road applications. Uh, we had a letter from a Quadrant Marine Institute. We've had a letter from, uh, Campbell Black. And, uh, we've had a supple supplemental information from Mark Holland. uh to accompany the information that is in our agenda package. Uh regarding the two changes, um I'd first like to comment just very briefly on correspondence for information. This is correspondence that is received that is placed on the agenda to be received by council uh but not necessarily discussed by council. Uh I just want to note that uh under item

15.1, there are three emails regarding the proposed development at 99723rd Street. Uh we have been receiving uh correspondents at different meetings uh at each of those meetings and tonight I'm I'm reassuring uh those people that are corresponding that all of their correspondents will go to the council meeting where that application comes back to council. Uh secondly, um item 15.3 is a copy of the town's letter from myself to Victoria Regional Transit regarding the proposed changes uh for direct service to the airport. uh that uh I would like to raise that item and that will become under correspondence item 14A just to provide an update of what occurred at the May 12th commission meeting. Uh councelor Gett has requested that item 15.7 uh 15.7 a correspondence from B Fellet regarding the tactile walking surfaces uh be raised and so that item will go to become 14B and discussed by council. Uh and lastly, uh councelor uh O'Keefe, I believe you wanted to withdraw one of your two

council reports, that being the one from uh from Remind me. Uh yes, from from Artsy. Uh just because I I did attend their meeting uh this Saturday and I anticipated I might give a report tonight, but they advise that they will be coming to council in the near future to present their annual report. So, I'll leave it to them to uh report. So, with those additions and those changes, I would look for a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Moved by councelor Duck, second by councelor Novik. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the call to question. Those in favor? Uh, thank you. That carries unanimous. So, we're next turning to approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes. We have those from our special council meeting of May 11th and those from our regular council meeting of May regular council meeting on May 11th. I think I got a motion to uh to approve.

Councelor Duck and Novik, any corrections to uh to those minutes? Seeing none, those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed? That carries. The next [clears throat] item on our business is our regular public participation period where we provide an opportunity for members of the public to come forward. U you have up to four minutes to uh to make your remarks. We ask that if you do come forward, please provide your name uh and the municipality that you reside in or the organization that you represent. Uh there's a little button at the bottom of the microphone just to tap to uh to turn the uh to the microphone live so that it can be recorded uh in the meeting. And I'll call for the first time. Please come forward. Good evening.

Good evening, mayor and councel. My name is Barbara Fallout and I reside in Sydney. This evening, I wish to provide some framework for my letter 157, which you've um pulled out of receipt for correspondence on the agenda and to appeal to council for your support and added advocacy for a very real safety matter that warrants soonest correction. In late March, I became aware that three of the six newly installed tactile walking sensor panels or indicators or tactile walking pads at Highway 17 and Beacon Avenue were installed at angles that rather than guiding the sight impaired person safely across the roadway actually leads them instead into the middle of the highway intersection directly into harm's way.

completely opposite to the actual design purpose of the pads. When the matter was raised with town staff, they indicated they were aware of the situation and that it was a jurisdictional matter as this was not a town of Sydney project but rather one of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. Hearing that, I reached out to MOOTT in particular, the roads area manager as well as the Vancouver Island District Technician. They both indicated that safety was important and that within a couple of weeks they would fix any and all pads that may lead users into traffic. That was on April 8th, almost seven weeks ago. On April 30th, I requested Update from the ministry. Nothing. Silence.

Everyone agrees that the plates were incorrectly installed and that it is a safety concern. Yet still, the ministry has done nothing to ensure that the repair happens swiftly and before anyone is put into danger. How can any reasonable society espouse accessibility and inclusiveness while doing nothing as the ponderous wheels of bureaucracy slowly grind through whatever red tape hinders action? Surely a life does not have to be sacrificed before doing the right thing. I have contacted town staff, the ministry responsible, the CNIB, and this evening, if you feel the same urgency as I do, then I ask you to join me by using your position and authority to cut through this artificial stonewall.

do what we must to ensure our town remains a safe place for all, including those members of our society with limited or no vision, for they too have a right and an expectation of independence and of safety. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming forward this evening. I'll call for a second time for any speakers. Please come forward. [clears throat] Good evening. And that adjust as as you wish. I think that should be good. My name is Ben Gartside. I actually live in North Sanish, but my business is on Harbor Road. Guide Marine Engines. Apologize for the state of my dress. I've just come from work. Um I have sent a letter to the council regarding this application for the amendment 2270.

And I just wanted to be here tonight to give you a bit more general background on the marine industry. So I' I've been in business here for 30 odd years, somewhat more actually. I'd always thought little old Sydney, we're doing our thing. We're on the periphery of all where the real action is. But it turns out that the scope and quality of marine services in Sydney is better than anything anywhere else in the north coast, northwest coast. Even when I go to Toronto, it's terrible. Sydney is a it's a real gem. It really is. You guys should know that. And the big issue is that not all marine businesses need to be waterfront.

Some really do. And you have one side of Harbor Road as marine commercial. That's it. If you lose it or any of it, it's not coming back. No one's going to knock down a waterfront residential development to put in a marine business. It's not going to happen. So, this is all we've got. We really should preserve it. That's that's just the thrust of what I got to say. Now, the marine industry brings in huge dollars to the town without a doubt. attracts people from mainland, Washington state, from around the world. It's a it's a look, it's a ending point and a jumping off point. Um, I don't know how many of you folks are involved in the industry at all, but it's it flies completely under the radar. You don't realize what's going on. Not seem significant, but it really is.

I really think we should just keep the zone the way it is because that's it. What you got? Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. Good evening. You worship council. My name is Mark Holland. I live in Sanage, but I'm here on behalf of the owner of uh the property at 2270 Harbor Road to speak to the same topic as our previous speaker. Um thank you for the opportunity to address you on this one. Uh in our last, uh we're here just to encourage you to move that application forward to public hearing. During the last two times we were here with you in chambers, the discussion was really clear, at least the messages we took away was that you wanted more engagement with the neighbors, more engagement with the surrounding community and the businesses along Harbor Road. Uh we took that to heart and worked with staff to get a few extra weeks. Uh what we did was looked through the list of issues that had been raised. We drafted a discussion paper on those to make sure the facts were clear

and some perspectives. We sent that to you. We sent that to the Chamber of Commerce. We sent it to the marine committee associated with the chamber of commerce and printed it and handd delivered it to all the businesses along Harbor Road. We then hosted an open house with a 300 meter radius for delivery, handd delivered um invitations for everyone to come. We held that open house and uh wrote a detailed report the next morning of what we had received. That report got to you a little bit late because we were hoping for more comment cards to come in. A lot of people took them and they didn't end up um actually uh sending them back to us. So we hang on to we hung on maybe a little bit longer than ideal uh for you to get a chance to read it. Uh but uh but you have that report now along with the draft of all the boards that were part of that discussion. Um just before I close then um the reason why we'd like

to move forward a public hearing is as we discovered from the discussions robust discussions with both residents as well as some of the industry and other businesses during that process nobody agrees on anything related to this application. The residents that we talked to initially and they came to the open house were 100% in favor of the application. Subsequently, others have come forward to say that they don't want it primarily because of a risk of parking. The industrial businesses in the area don't have enough parking for their staff. Their parking in all the residential areas and the residents were mostly concerned about addition any any more businesses operating would bring more traffic even though we provide all the parking on the site for this one.

The industry was interesting. We got a lot of positive feedback from the businesses along Harbor Road that were uh on both sides, but um then there were a few that were very much against it. The reasons why they were against it weren't the same in either case. Um and in fact uh some of the discussion was quite oppositional even to the OCP because the OCP and the zoning have permitted a whole raft of uses from residential over the last 20 years through all many pubs, retail, office, etc. onto Harbor Road. All of which are tackling this issue of the belief that water land interface on the north side of Harbor Road where you can literally pull a boat out of the water into a marine shed to work on it. That is the role of that place. There are only a few there are only a few properties where that actually can occur. Um and so this is the fear that we heard from the

industry is that anything that affects that the current property in place obviously has an operating marina and an industrial storage location uh as well as the uses because we couldn't find any sense of consensus or agreement on anything. We would encourage you to send this to public hearing where all of the feedback can be gathered at one point and that would be all displayed for you then as you make a determination on the application. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. Please come forward. Am I supposed to push something here? No, you're all you're live. Good. Good evening. So, I just want to follow up. I'm My name is Karen Garside. Um just following up from what my husband was saying earlier. Um as he mentioned, we're opposed to the um the resoning. Um, a couple of points I'd like to make is I noticed at the last council meeting you discussed how there were many businesses on um other away from the waterfront. There

are several um marine businesses that are highly dependent on waterfront access. um as in partic as especially as one um boats come in from all over the place from North America around North America um into our docks to have new engines put in um without the waterfront access that wouldn't be possible for us to be able to do that as easily and as readily as it is. And there's several other businesses that are doing similar things. Um, as as Ben mentioned earlier, once the properties are reszoned, they're not coming back. And reszoning properties, we live next door to a residential area. Our business is next door to a residential area. Um, and that's not always a happy combination.

Mixing residences with um with commercial and industrial property isn't isn't always comfortable. You know, there's smells, there's noise, there's other things that are going on. Um, so we have issues with that with with reszoning where things can then move and not be comfortable. Um, we actually own uh we recently purchased um a second property on Harbor Road um which has been had a historical old residential house on it which we're hoping to not well we're hoping to have be able to knock down fairly soon. And then that property will then be used in the marine industrial commercial um world. And we bought that property partly to protect ourselves as well because if we lost that property to somebody else buying it, it could have severely restricted the access to our docks. Um so we have concerns not only just from the property side but actually what happens in the water as well. Um so just to reinforce what my husband said, that's And I'm sorry we're not terribly well prepared for this because we've both been working for long hours this weekend and today as well. So thank you.

Thank you for coming forward. I'll call for a final time if there's anyone wishing to come forward, please. [clears throat] Good evening. Good evening. My name is Rob Simon from Sydney. Um, on April 22nd, I sent an email to councelor O'Keefe. I want to thank her for presenting that to the Sanage Peninsula Accessory Advisory Committee. The justice of the email was that this is accessibility week this week and there's only one day at the Panoramic Rec Center where there's complimentary access for people with disabilities to try it out. In my email to councelor O'Keefe, I explained to her that I've been a trained personal trainer and fitness instructor.

my spouse is disabled and that's when I learned that finding someone to be an attendant or an assistant is probably the biggest barrier for someone who has an accessibility issue. I would argue that that one visit for someone who's trying to get into the fitness regime that may not be enough visits to have someone go with that person to try it out. I think that accessibility week in the spirit of being called a week should be complimentary access for the whole week for that particular audience. That would let that person bring in a person each day and maybe find someone who will help them throughout the year. I'd also argue that the accessibility day says they provide access to the fitness room and to the pool, but someone who's got physical physical challenges may find that too much to do all those activities in one day. So to compress that into just one simple day I think is not enough. I also want to quickly speak to the regular council meeting from last

week and the loan provision for the fitness center that had come up. I had just finished a workout tonight at the Green Blade fitness center. There were eight users in that fitness room. Now that doesn't sound like a lot but that fitness room is about one quarter to 16 the side of Panama Rec Center. That means the mayor is right. There's a lot of demand out there and the metrics probably would say we need more resources out here. That ship is sailed. Maybe it'll come back. But when you look at even tonight's proposals for the Sydney um civic center, I hope there could be a use in there for fitness facility. But the biggest message today is I know it's too late to talk about this year's accessibility week, but I wanted to clarify what that email meant and looking for support going forward to expand that for the whole week. Thank you. Thank you for coming this evening.

Please come forward. Hello, my name is Jamie Welbborn. I'm chair of Capital Bank's Peninsula Local Advocacy Committee and I also live in Sydney. I'm speaking to the letter in regards to the new crossing at Beacon and the Highway. Uh first I'd just like to agree with the letter writer that the tactile pad should definitely be changed to avoid directing vision impaired people into harm's way. Uh I want to mention another issue there that wasn't mentioned uh in that same crossing. Um there is a lack of bike signals for the bike crossing. So, uh, when, uh, I contacted town staff and I was forwarded to the province, which is what I expected, um, and the province claimed that there was no issue there. But there's actually no way for a cyclist, especially southbound, to know when it's safe to cross. And so I replied outlining the concerns that Capital Bike had along with the solution, and I've yet to hear back. That was about mid April that I contacted them.

Uh this is relevant now because this past Friday uh about three days ago a cyclist was hit in that crossing. Now I don't know all the details um but I'm afraid the issue with the signals may have led to someone getting hurt. If you do choose to advocate to the province in regards to the tactile pads I would urge you to include a request for a solution to the bike crossing signals as well. Thank you. Thank you for coming this evening. Not seeing any other speakers. Thank you to everyone who did come forward. I'll close the public participation period. We're moving to presentations and we're pleased to welcome um Denny Warner, the executive director of the Mary Winsper Center to present the 2025 annual report and uh welcome to board members uh in attendance as well.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm very pleased to be here tonight to provide an annual report for our activities. And you've already mentioned our board members. I just want to acknowledge that we have Katherine Kryser, Sheila Fay, and Ryan Trurt here. Good evening. Good evening. I'm pleased to highlight that we continue to operate on solid financial footing. We've achieved an average net income before interest in amortization of over se or $278,000 for the past three years. That net income has been allocated to address capital deficiencies and fixed asset upgrades that have been necessary due to the age of our building 25 years this year. The funding we received from the town of Sydney is essential for our sustainability and we're grateful to have an agreement in place for annualbased funding to support our operations until the year 2032.

The two major capital issues that we've been unable to fund to date are replacing the roof and the HVAC system. We don't have heating in all areas of the building. Currently, we have air conditioning. I use air quotes with that. Only in room two in the theater. As our earth is warmed, so have the temperatures in the center. When Canadian blood services operate in the Bodin in the warmer months, they need to rent and set up a whole aircon system in there that takes a few hours to regulate the temperature. Um, that's not ideal for them. I asked our facilities manager to describe our HVAC units and this is what he said. End of life, barely functional. They're requiring more and more maintenance and material replacement. They're not sustainable or green. They have a large carbon footprint, nor are they high efficiency. They cost us more than they should for what we get. Also, there is essentially no air conditioning in the majority of the building, creating discomfort for staff, clients, and patrons. So, you'll understand in hearing that why it is one of our top priorities.

As for the roof, we had a fairly catastrophic failure in November of this year. I'm almost to the point where I can find this humorous. We had high winds and a downpour of rain during the matinea. The roof failed and people in the audience started getting really wet. I'm going to read to you the description of the show that was on stage at the time. When catastrophe strikes at James and Jamesy's Christmas Tea Party, flooding the world with tea, the duo conjure wildly funny solutions to stay afloat and sweep the audience out to sea in a jolly aquatic escapade brimming with whimsy, action, and ingenuity in a celebration of friendship at Christmas.

Now, while this was happening on the stage, some people in the audience thought that they were enjoying an immersive experience for real. And the artists on stage realized what was happening and they really leaned into this interpretation. Ultimately, we had to move people to new dry seats, but it was sold out, so there weren't many. Some people were too wet and cold to stay for the remainder of the show. Our staff had to go out in that horrible weather on the roof with a tarp and sandbags to stop the leaking. We ended up having to give many people refunds and it was an embarrassing situation. The tarp is still there.

Anyway, um it is kind of funny, but it is a real need. So, we're hopeful that we can secure funding for the roof and the HVAC. We're exploring options for fundraising for those items and some other things that are on our wish list. Currently, there are consultants conducting a fundraising feasibility study to see how much support there is in the community for a fundraising campaign. Our goal is to ensure the Mary Whins Center is able to serve this growing community for the next 25 years. Obviously, when you think back to the building being opened in 20 2001, this community, the peninsula looked quite a bit different. population has increased, things have changed. So, it's important that we continue to offer a place for people to come that meets the needs of the community.

Also of note this year was the passing of the CRD's performing arts facility service bylaw for the purpose of operating and funding regional performing arts facilities, of which we're pleased to be one of three. We will be receiving capital and operational funding starting in the CRD's fiscal year 2027. This bylaw also allows for groups to access rental space subsidies for using our theater. We are looking forward to receiving our agreement so that we can begin planning to incorporate those activities and funding into our operations. Well, not in Sydney. It will be a project of interest to Sydney residents. We've been working with a donor who came to us through Peninsula Soccer who donated $200,000 to install a playground next to the soccer fields in Blue Heron Park. The equipment has been ordered and will be installed in early July. There will also be some picnic tables and things um benches and things uh set up around the park. Uh the next project we're looking at also is to widen the road, the access road. We've had I know that um probably you counselors have received some

feedback about that road not being sufficient for the traffic that's there. and we also have plans to work with them to expand the parking area. We are looking forward to our 25th anniversary party that will be held on Saturday, September 19th. It's going to be a real community celebration including entertainment for kids and adults, food trucks, and participation by many local organizations. So, I hope you'll be able to join us that day. And I'd like to close by expressing my sincere appreciation to the staff and council for their support of our organization, but also my personal thanks for the speedy professional responses that I get to my many questions that I call and ask of your staff. And I look forward to our continued collaboration and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Danny Warner, for your uh for your presentation this year. Uh I'll turn to colleagues if there are any questions or comments. Council O'Keefe, please. Thanks. Uh, thanks for the presentation. It's great to see things going mostly well [laughter] except for the roof and the HVAC. But, uh, yeah, Mary Windspear Center really is is is a gem and we're really um, fortunate to have it. Um, one question I often get asked by different community groups is I recall that we used to have a reduced rate for community groups and I'm wondering if we still have that in in place. We do. Yes. There are there's a whole um rate kind of differential. So, commercial at the highest end and then we've got local nonprofits that benefit from the various lower rates.

Okay, great. Thanks. And um you mentioned in your comments in regards to the CRD bylaw. Um I thought you mentioned something about we'll allow subsidies to community groups. So is that kind of in the same vein as as what we're just talking about or is that in addition to what's already pro provided in production of rates? So this would be for us to provide additional space whether it's for rehearsals or whatever kind of um whatever the groups might want to do for the theater specifically that they will be able to obtain subsidies through the CRD that will be additionally available to them for use of our space.

Okay. And would that be available to any community group or just ones who are part of the CRD kind of arts? Part of the CRD. So they have so local groups. Local groups. Yes. If they're not. So even though there's local groups here that are um performance groups, they would have to be part of the CRD in order to access those. That's my understanding. But we don't have our agreement yet. No, I don't have all the details. Okay, thanks for that. Yes, thank you uh councelor Keef and and and thank you Denny for that. If if I could uh perhaps expand very very briefly is is I've provided some updates in the past is the CRD uh board has approved the establishment of of the new performing arts service. It will come into effect in 2027.

uh the current CRD board in in September at the end of September will approve uh the provisional budget for 2027 which will include the overall funding that will go to that service and will be requisitioned and then uh colleagues you you likely recall that uh within the service there are uh four different streams of funding. Uh three of the streams are by way of agreement with each of the three uh regional facilities. There's a operating grant uh uh operating grant, a small cap grant, and a um expansion planning and expansion grant. The fourth, uh bucket, if you will, is uh doesn't go through the regional arts facilities. As as Denny Warner indicated, it's it's a it's a program set up for uh performing arts groups to receive grants to rent theaters. This is completely separate from the other CRD service that's been in place since about 2000 called the CRD performing arts uh support support service where performing arts groups can can apply for grants uh to uh to conduct their performances. Um

and there is a provision within that other CRD service that uh the only groups that can apply are from uh municipalities that are participating in that performing arts support service. Sydney is not currently there are nine or 10 municipalities that are I'm not sure it's been determined yet whether um in the new performing arts facility service uh groups applying for grants for rentals uh whether or not they will have to be in a municipality that is part of uh the service because it's it's a different service. All 13 municip or sorry all 13 municipalities in one uh one electoral area are part of the regional performing arts service. So just just a little nuance there.

Thank you. I'll turn back to colleagues. I had councelor Novik next and councelor Gernette. Uh thank you mayor and thank you Miss Warner. Um I'm a big fan of Mary Winspear. I spend far more time there than I ought to but I am there. Um couple of questions uh about your capital improvements. Um the first one is uh the grant that the mayor just spoke about and and I'm not sure if that small cap facility would would be sufficient to uh address some of your AC or roofing issues. Do you know whether or not that uh part of the grant would help you with that problem?

So my understanding is at this point as I mentioned we don't have any agreement yet. So I'm not entirely sure what it will look like that there is some flexibility in uh how we're going to be able to uh arrange the portion of capital versus operating, you know, in each year. But the Mary Windspear Center is a little bit of a different animal than the other two theaters that are involved because it has the conference center like the room rental side of it and this is specific to the theater. So, I'm guessing that some of that funding, if we decided, could be earmarked for upgrading the roof of the theater. Um, but I don't know how much of that we would be able to allocate to, for instance, an HVAC system that would serve the entire building. So, Okay. Thank you. Um, and and you you mentioned the HVAC system that it presently only serves the theater and I think one meeting room. You said room

two. Air conditioning. Yes, there's air conditioning in room two and that the air Yes. Is is the ducting in place for servicing the entire facility or I mean is is is the capital required just to change your HVAC air handling unit or do you have to reduct or add ducting to the whole building that isn't already covered by AC? That is an excellent question for our facilities manager. Yes. I'm just saying because that's that the latter part of that question I know is a is a big capital nut to crack. It's it's an expensive process putting new and that will be my first question for him tomorrow morning.

Okay. [clears throat] Yeah, I can email you with the answer to that. I'm I'm just trying to understand how you're going to address this. It sounds like it's um a challenging program to try and get all these things done. Um but but that's that's all for me. Uh thank you chair and thank you for the excellent work you do. Thank you councelor councelor Gette. Thank you mayor and thank you Miss Warner for your presentation and for board members for being present. It's great to see support behind the the leader. Um just looking at the revenues um for 2025 in comparison to 2024 and looking at the rentals and going to note 11 um the the activity room rental revenue is down about 105,000. Is there is there do you know if there's any kind of reason why that would be in that situation too that exact amount is what VHA paid us for the clinics.

Perfect. Thank you very much. That's a great straightforward answer. Thank you mayor. Thank you councelor. Councelor Duncan, please. Thank you. Uh, and I'm the liaison to the Mary Winspair and to Arts Seas. I should have asked this probably in a meeting, but it just occurred to me when I was there at the donating blood clinic. Um, you sell artwork, like there there are artists that sell artwork in those displays. Is that affiliated? Like does Artsy have anything to do with that or is this a totally separate stream of artists that get their work put up there that are somehow affiliated with Mary Windspear programs or do they just rent space through something separate?

Um, few months ago, Carrie, our operations manager, had put a call for artists out on Facebook and it was one of the most read, shared, commented on posts that we had had in some time and I think now she's booked artists for those cases for the next 12 years. I believe there was just a lot of interest in it. So some of them are earmarked, you know, for spack for certain times of year, the large case that's that's set aside for them, but for the most part, all so there's one case that we have that's dedicated for First Nations artists. And then the other two, the smaller one that's by the kitchen and the larger one on the other side, those are um anyone from the public can request to have their and then Yeah, it's just kind of open.

Okay, that's interest. It's interesting to know that there's a huge demand. I know we've heard it from Artsy before that their galleries, you know, people want to book that up. Yes. And you've got another gallery and it gets booked up. So, thanks. That's good to know. Thank you, counselor. Seeing no further discussion, uh, thank you very much for the presentation to your volunteer board. Uh, congratulations on your operating results. Thank you. I know we f you focused and then we asked questions a little bit on the capital program, but we appreciate plans you have for the capital program and hopeful that the CRD performing arts facility grants will at least assist uh for part of that uh part of those capital improvements. Let's do Thank you.

Thank you much. Okay, so we're now turning to our next agenda item under bylaws. We have item 8A. Uh that is the uh bylaw number 2316 the zoning amendment number four. Um uh it's regarding zoning amendment application number RZ1000115 at 2270 Harbor Road to amend conditions of use for retail and office use in the marine uh industrial W1 zone to allow non-marine related uses in four commercial units. uh council, we did receive presentation from the applicant at our April 7th committee of the whole meeting. We then went to our council meeting uh the following week. Uh at that council meeting um sorry at the committee the whole meeting we received a six-page report from staff uh and then we uh we u moved the item forward uh to this evening uh for staff to bring forward the zoning amendment bylaw and for us to give consideration uh as to whether to proceed with a uh public hearing as the next step. Uh we have received correspondence along the way uh and additional uh correspondence in tonight's agenda and as I indicated during approval of the agenda some

additional correspondence since the agenda was published. So I would turn to uh to a council member if they would seek to uh to make a recommendation uh uh that is in the uh that is in the u on the agenda or if you have any questions that you wish to ask of uh staff at this time. Councelor Duncan, please. I'm happy to move the recommendation unless I councelor Novak has that. Are there any questions uh prior to that? Councelor Novc, please. Thank you, Chair. Um I guess my only question through to staff is in looking at the um the [clears throat] draft of the bylaw.

There's been a lot of discussion about, you know, what exactly we're making a zoning amendment on or for. and the way the bylaw is written, we're talking strictly about medical office. Um, can I just be assured that when we say medical office, it's strictly medical office and that it's not opening up the zoning to other types of commercial establishments, retail stores, whatever else could be thought of. But but that when we say medical office, it's it's severely limited. I'll turn to uh our director of development services, Mr. Bhagen. Good evening. Good evening. Through the mayor to councelor Novc. Um first of all, just to clarify, the bylaw contains three changes to the uses in the zone. I know it's hard to interpret the way that the formal language of the bylaw is written.

Um number one of the bylaw is talking about conditional uses for offices. what the wording there in that property is legal legally described as. It goes on to list the four stratalots which are the small commercial units in the building facing Harbor Road. The change here is that it would take away the conditional use regulations that the uses for offices are restricted to marine related offices only. So that's one of the changes. The second one is similar but about retail uses. would take away the restriction that retail uses in those spaces could be re marine related only. And then the third change at the bottom as you're seeing is adding the medical office use and saying that it would only be permitted on these four strata lots in the W1 zone not on all the properties. So just to clarify that first your question though about medical offices and what exactly is that? So I'm just pulling up the zoning bylaw to look at that definition.

So the zoning bylaw if you'd like I can read the definition. So you can hear what's covered by medical office. The use of a building or part thereof for the provision of medical services including but not limited to medical clinic, veterinary clinic, dentist, chiropractor, massage therapist, acupuncturist, holistic medical practitioner, optometrist or opthalmologist and medical lab. So those are all of the things that the zoning bylaw would consider a medical office. Thank you. Okay. So that means then the way you've described it and I I didn't fully understand that from my first look at the bylaw that we are taking away those conditional restrictions and opening it up to general retail. Is is that accurate?

That was the applicant's request. Yes. General retail, general office and adding medical office as well without any restrictions without restricting it to be marine related. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councelor, if there's no further questions, I'll turn to councelor Duncan. Move that the bylaw be given first reading. Second. All in favor. Motion carries. I'll move that the bylaw be given second reading. Second. Moved and seconded. This is where we have discussion on the bylaw. I'll turn to the mover. Yeah, thank you. Uh I was happy to move this forward partly because I know we need to have a discussion about it. Um but partly because I myself support it.

Um I think that the applicant did their work. They uh collected um information from the surrounding uh businesses and their town, their discussion of how this was impacting them, the um conditions on the site, the type of businesses in the area, the restrictions that were on just kind of the general community. And they showed to me a very good understanding of both, you know, why people were against it, um, the OCP as it stood and why it was kind of an impossible situation to redevelop this site in in a way um, that would would have satisfied the people who are against it. I think full stop.

um that there there is no I think to me this is not a problem with necessarily what the applicant wanted to put in so much as a as a problem with just the mechanics of this harbor the the shape of the site what's already been built there and um kind of a problem for for town planning overall that the way the OCP went through what I've understood from the feedback we've received is that the people who are already building the boats and kind of the heavy industry people there did not like the OCP as it was. And so the idea that this was a thing where we had to stick to the OCP and the existing bylaw was not actually what was going to help them maintain this business in this area or protect their businesses in the way that they necessarily would have ever needed. Um because fundamentally none of these sites here could have been developed to another business like theirs. They were

all too small unless we actually had very large assemblies. And this I I may be mistaken, but this seems to be what I got from the discussions that Mr. Holland was having with people there and what they've presented to us. And so the factor which has come in is what we've learned is the only thing that could be rebuilt in this area on these small lots was something that is would have to be something that that was that was totally new. And while there are many things that could be marine related businesses that were there and there was a very extensive list, none of them bit.

And so as a town, what we are having to decide is we can't have an OCP or a regulatory environment that says nothing new can be built here at all because our ideal um can't, you know, no longer has space for it and so nothing new can be built. Our job is always to facilitate potential new businesses coming in when buildings age out having something new be built. So we had to figure out how do we allow that in a way that doesn't detract from the existing neighborhood. And what I understood from this package was nobody said this business as built and the potential businesses that may go in will definitely negatively impact our business. What they're concerned about is that it may impact future councils, future decisions by saying they set a precedent, which is always a concern with everything we do, that there will be a precedent that this was approved and this was improved and this was improved. And so while it's very

difficult to trust that the next people are going to look at things reasonably um and are going to read the full packages and and look at the history and that staff will know the history and there will be other businesses who remember the history. Um, unfortunately, I think that's the only situation we're left in. And that to say no to this business because of what somebody in the future might do and something else redevelops 10 years from now would be kind of a gross unfairness to the existing developer. And I feel based on the work that's been done and the understanding of this community, sending a very negative, cooling um message to a developer like Mr. Holland uh who was willing to to speak to the other businesses in the area would be um would be bad. Uh I I like the exist the businesses that are already there have been there a long time. They're good members of our community. I've heard from you know people who they always go with their logos on their shirts when they go out for meals and I know that they're good to staff and they're good

tippers is what I've heard. [laughter] And so these are businesses that um are good for for everyone. And uh I don't think we want to I think we want to encourage developers who are willing to put in a network who and uh and and have any kind of business that's willing to appreciate these businesses that are there and gear gear themselves towards supporting these businesses and their staff um being able to stay here. Thank you, Councelor Duncan. I'll turn to the secondary councilman Tulle. Uh thank you, mayor, uh and and thank you for coming forward with thoughts on on Harbor Road and and uh all the perspectives that were received from businesses and residents along Harbor Road. And there's a diverse array of opinions. I certainly uh value and appreciate the the contributions the business community along Harbor Road makes to the marine sector. It is a very important sector in our local economy. U and as a boater I appreciate certainly um that business environment and how important it is um to the community.

Sydney is the gateway uh if nothing else to the Gulf Islands and uh and well beyond in in my opinion. So I get that it's an important piece of u our business environment here. Uh I would say that um this particular property uh and what this um bylaw in specifically is looking at is four small strata units in a larger complex ranging from 800 square ft to 1,600 square f feet. Uh and so um I'm not as uh convinced that those four small units are um of of uh extreme significance with regard to the overall sector that's there. I get it's a piece in the puzzle.

There's still nothing preventing a yacht broker or someone from going into that space and using that space. Um, but I I feel like the diversity of um businesses in that area have great potential to benefit Boers, visitors to our community who may well be uh bringing their vessel in for service uh morage uh or storage in in a boatyard uh in the area repair. So I I I feel like this still provides an opportunity to the marine sector even if it's serving you know cross purposes in terms of u the intended purpose initially. I I think it's important to see this move to a public hearing. Um as the applicant noted uh it provides an opportunity to get some further perspective on this. Uh but for the time being I will continue to support this. Thank you mayor.

Thank you. I have councelor Garnett next on the speaking list and councelor O'Keefe and councelor Novik. Thank you mayor. Um I just want to first of all address a couple of points that came up on our last discussion around this item and there was discussion around the fact that there's two dwelling units in the building and how that impacts the the marine use. And just to say that it was at the time that this application went through was permitted in the zoning and in 2024 when we updated the zoning we went to one dwelling per unit, one dwelling unit per per lot. So that has changed. And also the um the other point I want to make is that um I went back and reviewed the committee of the whole presentation from June 5th, 2023. Uh the architect, Miss Ponet, and the applicant, Miss Mr.

Davies were present. Uh the architect indicated that the four marina the four units for um commercial spaces for marina use and that they would be supportive of the area. Um subsequent to that um when talking about the warehouse as she referred to it or the storage units they would be smaller in size she went into discussion about the in-depth of it because they be used by people having boats and at this point council at asked what the intent of the storage lockers were because there was some comment last meeting about they could be available for anybody and what was presented at that time by Mr. Davies was that he had done research um and that these were needed in the area for marine uses on boats and that for people to store items close to marinas and boats.

A feasibility study was done and and there's not much marine storage in the area and on the island. So there is a need for it. So that that was presented to council at the time and that's part of the reason why we went along or part of the reason I went along with it was this was the indication these would be marine uses. It wouldn't be just regular stores. That's the way it was presented to us. And I I did I didn't also note that and for my recollection and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but uh during the zoning bylaw process and actually during the public hearing which we had we held on this area um several that we could talk about, there was no communication from the applicant, no concerns expressed at the time while they were going through the process. And they they knew what they were getting into. This was basically a was a parking lot because the blue peter had burnt down. So there was just basically a

blank slate and they designed the building. So is is the fact one of these units has sold. There's a sign above it. Somebody's going in that's using a marine use. So there's only three that are vacant. So the question becomes is this one of economics because of the conditions that just exist right now in the global economy and and ours as well or is this an impact of maybe the size of the units and the way they're constructed? I don't know. But I don't think it's I think it's fair to say that when you when you start off and the u the individuals that were with the applicant last time I think from collier said mentioned that this kind of use wasn't used by a lot of marine industries for these kind of size offices but that was seemed to be has indicated was that was known before the building was built. So if you go in with a design and you and you it doesn't work out the way you want, is it then

council's purview to to suddenly come in and say, "Well, we need to make it right for them because it didn't work out from what they planned." And that that's a bit it's like for me I was trying to think of an example an alternative example like in the C1 downtown commercial if somebody built a business on the bottom and residential above and the business didn't sell or lease and then they said well we have somebody interested in living in it as a residence can you change the zoning I don't think we'd agree to that. I mean it may be a bit of a stretch for an example. I was trying to find an analogy of some sort as to to what I could compare it to. And as far as the public hearing goes, I I definitely don't support that because our staff time is very valuable. And to to conduct another public hearing on something we already had a public hearing on essentially and when we did our zoning bylaw review that and we heard from the public and many of the letters that we've received and the

comments tonight echo what we heard during the zoning bylaw process and these were the concerns that people had about continuing to preserve this area. It's special. It's rare just as our westside industrial area is and you want to keep those uses to those areas and that's what we heard re resoundingly during the zoning bylaw process. And so I I I I definitely don't want to put more on our staff because we've already had that feedback and we're hearing the same thing again even through just public participation and and correspondence. So, I I still consider um considering to not support this motion because I I I just don't think that we should be venturing into this this at this time and we need to protect it. We do. It's really important. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, councelor Grenette. I'm turning next to councelor O'Keefe. Uh thank you, mayor. Uh just echo a couple uh comments from my colleague in terms of going to a public hearing. I agree that we had significant discussion about Harbor Road and the vision for that during the OCP, during the zoning bylaw, and during our economic development strategy to the point that we included in our economic development strategy, a blue economy strategy that was to focus on supporting supporting that sector. And what we've heard over and over again is the importance of um preserving that area. Um, a couple of the things that I want to touch on is um, concerns about, you know, these units are too small uh, for marine related use. And when I looked at the recent uh information provided by the applicant in their submission, they mentioned that a small amount of research provides a long list of marinely related businesses. And they note that none of those would have uh be good use for a standalone retail

or office space of 800 square feet. So it seems to me that they have some awareness of what the needs of the sector are. They've identified a whole list of businesses. They've identified that these units are too small. So I'm just puzzled as to why they would buy the land and build the units they did knowing that those small units would not be a fit for the marine sector. Um they did they had a fair amount of space there to deal with. Uh 6,000 square feet of it went to residential units and presumably that's because you know that was permitted. Um but presumably there's more cash in that. I I don't I don't know. I'm just speculating. Um, but the the the ultimate result is that because they did that, they had less space for marine related purposes. So, it just seems to me that they could have done uh things differently if if they wanted. um they knew as councelor uh Garnett mentioned what the rules were for harbor

road and um if there's some talk about uh misunderstanding or confusion about marine related they seem to have an understanding of marine related based on the list of businesses they they they provided in regards to the issue of precedent um I I there's a sense that when council allows variances or does a resoning, it doesn't uh set a precedent. And I don't hold that view. Um just in my eight years being here on council, we have had developers come to us and part of their justification for running variances on different things is that we've allowed similar developments in the past. And in the interest of fairness, once we relax the rules, there's often the um uh it's hard to to not provide the same consideration. We had a discussion recently about uh a four-unit townhouse that came to us and they wanted uh variances on the the setbacks on the lock coverage. And the reason the count one of the reasons council didn't approve that is what we are concerned

about. the president if we allow additional lot coverage or setbacks another developer is going to want to come along and uh request the same thing. So I think I think it is an issue. Um and at the time with that particular development we although we're sympathetic to the concerns of the developer which were mainly financial. there's been a downturn in the real estate market and it's harder to sell things and so that that is unfortunate for them but I don't know that it's our problem to solve. Um in terms of evaluating the input that we've received um I put a lot of stock in what we've heard from the uh the big players in the marine industry. Vanile Marina has been around for 70 years. Phil Brook 70 years, Gartside Marine Engines and the two other businesses 38 years, Quadrant Marine Training Facility and others. And so they're significant stakeholders in our marine sector. They were involved in the engagement on Harbor Road all the way along and they continue to have

concerns about this and although you know there's been some talk about well what's the difference that three or four units are going to make anyways and if it's just restricted to that but I agree with the concerns of the existing businesses on Harbor Road that it is a slippery slope that once we start to allow that others will want to do that. Um it's it's unfortunate that the the the uh applicant on Harbor Road is in the position that they can't um to sell these, but I don't think that that's that we should be changing our direction and changing our zoning bylaw just on the basis of one one business, one property owner that is wanting this.

when we have engaged uh heard from so many long-term businesses on Harbor Road that they don't agree with this. So, it doesn't make sense to me to move this forward and to invest extra staff time in something that we've heard uh a lot of from the community. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Kee. I'll turn to Councelor Novik next. Thank you, Mayor. I'm quite upset because my two colleagues who just spoken have basically said everything I wanted to say and and and then some. Uh but I'll try and summarize and and be brief. Um the marine use bylaws were in place when the developer purchased the property, before he purchased the property, when he purchased the property, after he purchased the property, during the design phase, and during the build phase.

There was never any request to council at that early stage of development come to us and say, "Hey, we need a change." Instead, they went ahead with their plan and built what they built and decided that it's not working. And as my colleague said, it's not our responsibility to fix the private sector's errors, concerns, whatever, or to deal with changing economic times, which may or may not be temporary. I don't know. Things may change soon enough or not. But either way, that's not our concern. I think we've heard by email, by letter, and by presentation here tonight that the marine industry here is concerned about any changes. I too am concerned. I think it's the thin edge of the wedge. The minute one property ceases being marine specific, the next property that gets sold, we're going to be confronted with the same problem, and it's going to be much harder for us to say no. I feel badly that the developer chose to wait until this point in time to come to us and ask for a bylaw change. I understand that

might be difficult to rent under the current economic conditions, but again that's that's not something that that we have any power over and we shouldn't be changing our bylaws in consequence. I won't be supporting this now or uh or in the future. And I I too don't believe that we should be using valuable staff time to hold another public uh inquiry or rather hearing on on this bylaw change which in my view is unnecessary. Thank you. Uh thank you councelor councelor Doug. Yeah I will not be supporting this moving forward. um the developer and in their work to bring this forward to council did their due diligence and demonstrated the need for this type of property and as such um the resultant was that that changed and as my colleagues have said that's not our responsibility. We have a vision for Harbor Road. there's a diversity of business on there and we want to maintain the marine ex uh potential on the harbor on the north side of the harbor road and I think that's important to do in our community when we have so little uh industrial and commercial

space that we designate some of it for a marine industry which is very very uh successful in our on the peninsula and I think it's important to continue that. Thank you. Uh thank you councelor Duck. Uh I won't be supporting the motion on the floor. I I won't reiterate u what has been said by those who who are also opposed to the motion. Uh I want to re reiterate all of it, but um but I do want to speak to uh as has been touched on. There is a long history of uh of developing the W1 zone. Um and we heard from four of the longest four or five of the longest uh operating businesses uh on Harbor Road in the marine industrial sector and they have they have been advocating for uh 30 to 40 years for uh the marine industrial zone. Uh and there have been concerns at many points along the way with the introduction of of residential. Uh that has changed and been reduced uh as of as of our most recent amendments. um and of other

concerns. And while I did speak during uh the initial presentation uh that um while there was non-marine industrial uses on the uh south side of Harbor Road uh and there were some uh non-marine industrial uses on the north side, for example, a restaurant at Van Marina, for example, um uh the Blue Peter uh when it operated on the on the on the current site. um the marine industrial sector in Sydney was able to flourish, was able to um develop uh an outstanding reputation in the Pacific Northwest. And would this have a significant implication by allowing three uh relatively small um strata units go to uh to non marine industrial use. But it but it speaks to um it speaks to the intent uh within the OC the long work over many years on the OCP for protecting that marine industrial zone. Um and uh we've we've heard from those long-standing businesses.

So that is opposed the the concern uh from those long-standing businesses in the marine industrial sector opposed to the applicant who is experiencing economic disadvantage or not economic disadvantage economic uncertainty um and um and economic pain if you will in the fact that these units are not uh are not rent are not uh able to be leased or to be sold. Um, as councelor Ganette indicated, if we were to go to any other zone um, within the municipality, particularly into our different commercial zones uh, in the downtown or into uh, into West Sydney, and people were experiencing economic challenges, whether it was uncertainty or or economic challenges. Um uh I doubt for example on Beacon Avenue we would start allowing ground ground floor residential because a particular uh retail space that sat vacant for any number of years. Um so uh I appreciate that um if this does not proceed forward that it um it's unlikely that the that the applicant is going to demolish the building and build a new building and

try to try to do something try to do something different. But again the applicant uh originally applied for the development on that site which has different components. It does have a marine component. It does have the uh the the storage. It does have a residential and then it has these four units. Um and uh and I don't believe we should be uh we should be making uh amendments to the zone uh because of the economic uh situation at the present time. I'll leave my comments there. I'll turn if there are any second time speakers. Not seeing any. I'll call the question. Those in favor? Uh those opposed? Councelor Novik, Councelor O'Keefe, myself, Councelor Garnett, and Councelor Duck. The motion is defeated. Thank you.

Continuing with the agenda, we're turning to uh council reports. Uh the first under 11A is a report, a verbal report from councelor O'Keefe, who is our council leazison to the city museum and archives. Councelor. Uh thank you, mayor. Um I uh won't go into a lot of detail on attendance and things as I think um we got a lot of information from the museum when they uh reported out to us not too long ago. But some new things since then. They did have their AGM uh a few weeks ago. They elected a few new board members which is always good to have some new uh fresh ideas and energy to the board. and Susan Mercer is now the new chair. Um, at their board meeting this past Saturday, um, they talked about they've been successful on, uh, receiving a number of grants that will cover their costs for their student interns for the summer.

And they also received a grant for $8,500 that will cover the costs of the current exhibit, Seat at the Table, about the history and contributions of the Chinese community in BC. And um and then one thing I think council will be most interested in is a waterfront signage project. So that's something that we've been waiting for a while and there was some ups and downs over the last couple years in uh getting those completed, but 11 of the 13 signs are now completed and displayed around town. Um it might be 13 now. I'm not sure. There was two more. I'm just not sure where town staff are at in terms of whether they've had a chance to situate those, but if not, I'm I know they will be uh installed soon. Um, another thing is the uh the board received a very complimentary letter from the Wasanich Leadership Council uh expressing their appreciation for being included in in the project and being treated respectfully and um appreciation for the deeper understanding that that the signs

will now convey about the history of the Wasanich people in this area. Um and To that end, the museum is working with uh the Wasanich Leadership Council on a uh formal unveiling ceremony. Uh probably at the end of June and I believe they'll be liazing with the town staff to coordinate that as well. So sometime the end of June, we'll see those uh officially uh unveiled. That's all for me. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor O'Keefe. I appreciate the update. Are there any questions or comments? Councelor D. just like to comment that I've had the opportunity to go around and visit the signage and and very well done and extreme and and I congratulations to the museum for bringing it together. It's nice to see the the new signage up versus the old which were well past their best before date. Um and I think it offers a a great opportunity to learn more about uh Sydney and its environments and its history. So well done. Thank you. Thank you councelor.

Seeing no further comment, we'll turn next to to councelor Duncan who has a verbal report as our representative on the CRD regional water supply commission. Yeah, thank you. Just wanted to give a brief report on the May 20th meeting even though I was not able to actually attend uh because my team's meeting invite didn't work. I did watch it and take notes so I could report back. Um [laughter] hopefully next time it'll work. But, uh, the staff were able to report out on, um, the electrical upgrades that were done for our UV plant. Uh, and they were happy to say that part of our the cost-saving measures that we're always looking for, there was a 23% reduction in the power use um through the the upgrades that we did, which is very substantial, but saves us about $140,000 a year on our uh, water um, UV treatments. And so it's good to hear that we're always kind of looking for those kind of things when we're looking at our upgrades as part of

the operational uh approach. Uh and that we were managing to find things that still allowed that kind of efficiencies to be found is is good to know. Um and so on that line with you know looking at at budgets going forward um we were given the update that there's been kind of deferments in some staff positions that were in the five-year plan. uh uh they've been pushed back to 2028 uh as they kind of looked at financial needs and trying to keep budgets low. Everybody hears from the taxpayers and so one new position was added, a technician position. Um so and that was brought forward to 2027 so that other ones could be pushed back um hire engineers and managers that were that were more expensive um in the hopes that we could kind of get by and uh add staff more slowly to the budget. Um most of the people being hired in the last few years are part of our our dam safety program. Uh because the CRD has a large

number or the water um management has a has a large number of of dams and uh we've been trying to make sure those are upgraded to the most modern earthquake proof standards and safety standards. And so that's required more dam safety engineering staff. Um BC has been changing its regulations over the past 10 years for dams um in part due to you [clears throat] know mining safety issues that don't really apply to us. We don't have icky things behind our dams. It's just water. But um nevertheless it's it's just one of the things we have to deal with. Um we also heard about uh the water conservation bylaws and so we have found that um we're very efficient. Again, people in the CRD seem to have very high knowledge about water conservation and uh so our needs to actually implement water conservation to to make sure that we remain in a healthy state even as people are starting to be more concerned about um droughts and longer droughts.

Uh that we're only kind of really budgeting to have a 3 to 6% reduction by 2035, which is very very doable based on the past few years. Um and uh the new builds that we've had particularly out say like Royal Bay uh where they built a large number of residential housing and looking at the average consumption rates, they're much much lower. Uh and that was also really good to hear. So we're looking at um going forward being able to reduce it to about 200 liters a day for residential use. So that's a drop of about 5 to 9% over where we are right now, which again it's not very much and all very doable. Uh and then that was approved to kind of make that the target for the the 10-year plan going forward to 2035.

Um and the last thing was that as part of the kind of ecological management of the forest around where the res reservoir is um as many people may know maybe some people watching uh we're one of the I think only places now in North America where we don't have preiltration of our water because we have such actually a healthy ecosystem surrounding our water that serves as a filtration. And the one thing that then worries everybody is that there could be a fire one day and then um the soil and debris ash can end up in our water reservoir and then we'd have to increase our uh uh chloromine additions to kind of make sure it was clean again and we'd probably have some not very tasty water for a little while. And so we've been looking at ways to kind of uh make our our the ecosystem around it more fire resistant. And we've been looking at doing prescribed burns, which is a very small amount of prescribed burns so far,

but they've all gone really well. Uh, and um, First Nations groups or OPC have been very highly involved in prescribed burning uh, for obvious reasons as a cultural practice for tens of thousands of years for many of them. And so there have been opportunities to work with uh, local First Nations um, and getting people back into that area doing a traditional practice. And um we also uh looked at at changes to our bylaws to allow traditional use practices from First Nations um in that area. Right now it's very closed because we don't want people lighting fires, you know, having campfires or uh damaging those ecosystems there, but um it's been acknowledged that, you know, a lot of traditional uses would still be compatible with the reservoir. And uh a lot of people uh are looking at guardianship programs with other First Nations and so getting people back to that area um and able to conduct traditional uses was was approved by us as well. So that's all good news from the the water. Anybody has any questions free to answer.

Thank you councelor Duncan. Are there any questions from colleagues or comments? Councelor Duck, please. If I may, I just wondered if the water commission's um approached or give any thought to what may happen if they put a road through from Souk through to the other side. Is that addressed? We discussed that recently, but that was when uh that was being proposed. That was a big contentious issue and I think everyone in the commission was really against the idea of having more road works in there. Um most of the decommissioning being done in the leech uh has been road decommissioning because having any road that was in there would allow more off-road use as well. So I think everyone was still quite against it. Thank you.

Great. Thanks for the question and thank you counselor. We're turning on now to committee reports under section 12 under 12A. We have the minutes of our committee the whole meeting of May 19th. I'm going to now turn to councelor Duncan who chaired that meeting to take us through the two recommendations. Please. Committee recommends and I so move that development permit application number DP1000859 for the property at 96166 Street to form and character of a 4-unit residential development be forwarded to the advisory planning commission for review and comment. Second move and seconded any motiv any motivation or discussion? No, this was very straightforward. Um this is purely form and character.

They're not asking for for any variances and uh this is all neat and tight. Happy to see it go forward. Thanks. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed? Carries. The second recommendation that the development permit application number DP1000857 to permit the form and character of a 4-unit residential building and development variance permit application number DV1000389 to increase the lot coverage from 45% to 57% and to reduce the front yard setback from 4.5 meters to 1.7 meters for the property at 2384 Orchard Avenue be redesigned by the applicant to better comply with zoning requirements and present revised plans to future committee. the whole meeting second moved and seconded. Any discussion?

Uh we had quite a bit of discussion about this. Um since this is I guess one of those those development applications where uh precedence was brought forward that there was a similar uh this design was used um that was was used on a similar site nearby and I feel that many committee members went through that point by point to explain why this specific application in its location and and as done um was different from from that application. uh even though they were asking for something fairly similar, this one's much bigger uh in terms of the lot coverage and the front yard setback was much uh greater um and it was just harder to justify in this location. And so I I do think uh I'm happy to move this forward because I did think it it required a redesign.

Thank you, Councelor Duck. Yeah, I I agree with my comments and and I want to um give an appreciation to staff for their due diligence on this and and giving us some good rationale around why this didn't fit the the uh property that's there, especially uh line sight lines and uh restrictions on traffic because that lane does get used by a number of people to access the backs of their houses and I think it would just create a a safety issue there and so I think redesigning to look at that in specific and see how it can be uh better to the property. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll look to call a question. Those in favor? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Uh returning staff reports and under 13A, we have results of the initial engagement on replacement of town hall. We have a report from um um from Miss Judson and Mr. Edwards uh dated May 25th. Uh I will turn to our manager of communications M. Judson to provide an introduction please. Thank you very much. So today we're presenting the results from the initial phase of community engagement on the future replacement of town hall. And the purpose of this engagement was twofold. One was to share the findings of the recent building condition assessment which recommended full replacement of the building rather than undertaking ma major renovations and also to gather early community input on some of the key considerations which can help guide future planning for town hall. And just to give you an overview of what was involved in this engagement period, there were two open houses held at the

Mary Windspear Center. one during the day on March 30th, one in the evening on April 9th and in total about a hundred people attended. There was an online survey which really got into those key considerations and the rationale behind them. We add 522 responses to that and we were also open to written submissions and we received 12 letters of correspondence. And so that is a fair amount of engagement for an early um uh the the beginning of a project. And as we drill down to more details as um the public in the future has the opportunity to look at concept plans, we would expect much higher engagement at that point. uh the feedback that we did receive provided uh quite valuable indications of community sentiment at this time. So the numbers that I'm sharing come directly from the survey and uh the key themes that are outlined in the staff report those reflect both survey comments also uh post-it notes that people put on the uh comment boards at the open houses and also those 12 written submissions that we got. So when

it came to cost, there was strong overall support for keeping costs low, minimizing costs and limiting borrowing. Uh so when we asked uh how important it was for people that we keep costs as low as possible, 56 said it was important, 37% said it was somewhat important and only 7% said it wasn't important. In terms of location, uh there was general openness to relocating town hall, particularly if it remains within the downtown core. However, it was a sensitive issue. Uh people who prefer we stay on the current site uh expressed pretty strong views in that way. And so 49% said it wasn't important that we stay in the current location and 26% said it was important and 25% sat in that somewhat important area.

When it came to whether the next town hall would be a standalone building like we have now or mixed use, um, keeping it a standalone building didn't emerge as a high priority issue for most respondents. 65% of respondents said that wasn't important. Um, 18% said it was important and 17% said somewhat. Um, building height ended up being the most polarizing of the issues. And so by that I mean that there wasn't much in the middle and it was almost equal the uh people who thought that it needed to stay four stories or below or that it could go four stories or more and and so that that's kind of worrisome because you can't win in terms of public support. Um and the people who wanted it to stay four or below they did seem to feel that strongly. So um 44% said it was important that a future building was four stories or less and then 39% said it wasn't important and there were just

16% who didn't go either way. In terms of ownership, municipal ownership was seen as important, but there were some mixed opinions there. Uh this was also a fairly sensitive topic. People who wanted the town to retain ownership uh seemed to feel that quite strongly. Um then and I say that because of the language and comments that were showing up. So when asked 46% of people said it was important we retained ownership and uh 29% said it was somewhat important and a quarter 25% said it wasn't important. And so for two other questions we were saying um this would raise the cost of the project but how important is this to you? And so the first one was this idea of community space. And while there were generally positive views around how that community space could be, it wasn't a high priority for people. And so 41% of people said it was not important that we create a community space within a future town hall. 37 32% said it was somewhat

important and only 27% said that that was an important thing to do. And then the results were uh stronger when it came to affordable housing. 67% said it was not important that we created affordable housing as part of this town hall development. Only 14% of people felt that that was an important thing to do uh with the future construction of a town hall. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much for the introduction. I'll turn to colleagues. Councelor Duncan, please. Yeah, thank you. I'm wondering, do we have any we had kind of identifying information a bit about like where people lived when they answered it and did we have Can you refresh age distribution? Did we have any way of seeing like how um answers broke down between people from different demographics? How we didn't go into that level of detail.

So we had 95% of the respondents identified as either living in Sydney or owning business in Sydney. But um so basically they're taxpayer. But u it's tricky when you're collecting that kind of personal information. uh each time you drill down in that way, you have to be a bit more careful. Uh so we didn't go into that level of detail. Uh there were certainly at the open houses more of a senior demographic that turned out sometimes when you hold something in the evening, you have a better chance of catching people who work during the day, but that wasn't the case this time around. Thanks for the question, Councelor Keefe, please. Uh thanks. Um first I get just comment.

Um, I thought it was uh I I I attended both open houses and the people that that I talked to there seemed to they appreciated the the overview that staff presented and the opportunity to engage. Um, I also think it was good to help. I think most people understand why a renovation, you know, wouldn't work. So, I I thought that staff did a good job on that. Um like councelor Duncan I was also thinking about the demographics of and how people answered these and and I'm thinking even about the terminology in terms of affordable housing and and I think it like in retro I don't know how we would do it different next time but [clears throat] I think people have different perceptions of if you call something affordable housing and then if you called it seniors housing and so you You know, I just wonder when I, you know, it was a bit of a shock for me to see that 67% of people didn't think affordable housing was a good thing to to do as part of the town hall, but I can't help

but think, would they have a different view if we had said seniors housing? So, just just just a comment. Um, yeah. Um but um anyways I think I guess I don't really have a lot of questions just comment that appreciation for the information and I think this really gives us a lot to dig into and absorb and percolate on as we move forward in the process. So uh thank you for that. And one piece that might be relevant to that observation you made is when we asked about the standalone building or mixed use um one key theme was people but not residential. So they were okay with this idea of having other uses but they preferred that it would be other government offices, other types of community space. So um I think there is a resistance in some ways of condos going in places that people think should be uh more of a public use.

Thank you. Council, see no other comments or questions. I'll I'll just offer a comment or two. Um this is uh this is a very significant project uh in Sydney, you know, for our future, for the future of the community. Uh and I just want to thank staff and and you know, council has has helped move this along um for the uh for the information that's been provided to uh the community prior to this public engagement session. We've used uh uh town issues of town talk. uh we've had a significant project page uh that's had some engagement and then I think this was an excellent uh first engagement uh for the community combining open houses, combining the survey uh receiving correspondents. So I I think we're off to a good start in the community engagement and the information that we're providing the community. I think the community understands this process is going to take a couple of years to work its way to work its way through and the options. Uh and we certainly

appreciate the the level of input we have at this stage to consider uh as we go to our next steps. So, thank you to everyone on staff who uh who helped get us to this to this point. Councelor Gette, please. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Just a thought that came to me and I want to address there there some some of the comments in the U package we received from the survey and also on our Facebook page as well as a local Facebook page. Just want to assure residents that this there was comments around decisions already being made and this is really early in the process and this was council's wish to make sure we actually communicated with the with the public and the residents really really early. There's no decisions that have been made on anything. This is strictly an exercise in having the community come along in the process and I think uh that will lead to a much better result but just be be assured that this is this this is really early in the stages and

there's no concrete decisions that have been made at all. I just want to make sure that everybody's aware of that. Thank you mayor. Thank you councelor Gide. I'll turn to councelor Duncan. Yeah I think I was going to move the recommendation because I figured we'd have further comments. Please go ahead that on the floor. Uh, I'll move that rec council receive the results of the initial public engagement regarding the replacement of town hall and consider them as part of future inc camera deliberations should matters involving private property be discussed. Second moved and seconded by councelor Novik. I'll turn to the movers. Yeah, thanks. I guess I'll just reiterate that this is very early in the process. So, while this was a very large package, uh, we're simply receiving it, referring it, we won't be discussing tonight what we think about how this will affect what actually happens or how, you know, our own individual feelings about it. It's just being referred to m, you know, much further um, uh, meetings and and so people might

might feel that it was again just being pushed on, but that's not the case. Um, and I know I at least I read all of those comments, so I know I can already promise that 18 foot copper octopus. That's definitely that's a good one. Um, but [laughter] in all seriousness, um, I I also wanted to take the opportunity to uh to thank all of those who wrote in regarding the Senate and that little that bit of history. Um that was something you know uh personally I had wondered why we had a memorial on the Merry Windspear which was dedicated that had been created for that memorial and why the Senate wasn't there and it turns out that was a perfectly legitimate connection that had had in fact been there um and that it had been donated or had that the funding for that land purchased for it and the facility itself had been done by the women's institute after the first world war and each of

those stones was collected on a farm um in the area and put together to build that senotaph. That is a really powerful thing. So, um I'm glad that that came forward and that's now part of the official package and that um as further discussions go forward about the site um how to to deal with that appropriately and maybe just putting it out there actually including that history more prominently so that the people who kind of made that happen um I know a lot of women's institutes and entire wings of large government buildings that acknowledge women's history and it to uh to such things are kind of being demolished right now and uh that would maybe happy I'd be happy to see that.

Thanks. Thank you, councelor Duncan. Councelor Novik. Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm happy to support this. I believe that this has been an excellent initiative by our staff. Uh this council has been subject to some criticism in the past over uh what has been perceived to be a lack of public engagement on on some processes uh or rather insufficient public engagement. And I think this you know as as mayor stated this is a big and significant project. Uh the impacts of this project will be felt for quite some time. Uh regardless of how it ends up being funded, there there is going to be um uh uh an impact on local taxes. Uh people in Sydney will be paying for this one way or another. And so I think it's really critical that we've uh that that we've got this on the rails with a very good start. Uh gratified to see over 500 uh individual different comments coming back especially since in attending those public engagement se sessions I was

there many of many of the colleagues were there. uh it it appeared as though it wasn't that significant yet there were a lot of people that came in after the fact and provided their their input. Um it's gratifying to know that people do care and they care enough to make their uh their feelings known. uh and I dare say we won't be criticized for insufficient or a lack of public engagement on this process. Uh so again, thank thank you to the staff who did a great job of putting it all together and I guess Miss Judson did the number crunching. So [laughter] that that was probably the hardest part of all that and tabulating all those sticky notes. Gosh, your eyes must be Anyway, thanks. Thank you very much. And I I look forward to seeing where this this goes in the coming months.

Thank you. Uh any other speakers on this? I'll look to call the questions in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you again. We're next turning to item 13B, the request for road closures and park use. Uh the Sydney BIA Pride Month. I'll turn to our manager of engineering, Mr. Mr. De Mayor, welcome. Good evening. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the report received a parks use permit application from the Sydney BIA to hold a community event at Beacon Park and Causeway on June 13th in recognition of Pride Month. The event, which will include information booths, local vendors, and live entertainment, is expected to draw over 500 spectators.

This report brings forward a request for council to approve the closure of Beacon Avenue east of the Rainbow Crosswalk and for the use of sound application for this event on June 13th. And I'd be happy to answer any further questions. Thank you, Mr. De May. I'll turn to councelor Gett to begin. Thank you, Mayor. Uh thank you, Mr. Deare. Um just one quick question. U as far as the road closure goes, will will that incorporate a town vehicle? Yes. Yeah, there will be a meeting uh with organizer and our emergency services as we always do that involves a road closure and uh town vehicle will be involved.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, counselor, for the question. Um councelor Duck, do you wish to move the recommendation? I so move that the Sydney BIA be authorized to close Beacon Avenue east of the Rainbow Crosswalk and to use sound map amplification at Beacon Park for their Pride Month event at Beacon Park on Saturday, June 13, 2026. Second. Thank you to the move and second there. Any motivation or discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you again, Mr. De Mayor. Uh we're turning to correspondence. We uh lifted if as you as it were uh two items from correspondence from information to become 14A and 14B. The first was uh the letter from uh from the town uh to the Victoria Regional Transit Commission dated May 8th. That was for the regional transit commission meeting uh that occurred on May the 12th. uh uh council colleagues and the public will recall that the commission at their March uh uh

commission meeting had uh uh received uh options for consideration for direct um uh direct transit service uh from uh from south of the airport to the airport. Um and um that particular option uh that was being considered would have impacted uh service on a number of routes uh through Sydney would have impacted a number of Sydney resident and uh worker uh transit users and uh we have advocated over time uh as a council as a town to uh to the transit commission that we would prefer that an option uh be um approached uh considered that didn't have the impact tax uh that it was um uh that it was um uh wasn't uh equitable uh in terms of reducing uh service to Sydney residents uh for other users uh direct to the airport. I was pleased in attending uh that uh that can uh transit commission meeting on on May the 12th that from the March 12th meeting staff had considered uh brought forward another option. So under consideration at the May 12th meeting was option one which was status

quo that is not introduce any changes in service or any service to the airport. Uh option two uh was the original option uh which would have reduced service and could have impacted as many as 44,000 uh uh riders through the Sydney uh through the Sydney service to bring about 44,000 new users uh directly from south of the airport to the airport. Um and option three was the new option and option three uh was selected and option three to describe it briefly uh will be direct service uh to the airport but will be very limited. Uh the first very positive is that there will be no impacts to current service routes in Sydney. Uh second is that the uh service direct to the airport will be one or two buses leaving at either 600 6:15 or 6:30 in the morning from Victoria and going direct route 72 and going direct to the airport before continuing its route through Sydney and onto um onto the ferry. that potentially has an impact for uh folks who perhaps work in Sydney um and uh coming up from Victoria and

would take that there would be some additional time approximately 10 to 12 minutes that would be added to their service but that's considered to be pretty low impact uh for one or two rides from uh from Victoria in the morning. uh the service would continue as as is presently throughout the day and the early evening and then at either 10 uh or 10 10:15 and 10:30 there would be two or three buses that were leaving Schwarz Bay that would go through its nor uh do its normal route through Sydney but then would go to the airport before going uh down to Victoria. uh and potentially for example uh a potential impact to Sydney. You could have for example a hospital employee working an evening shift who would be leaving Sydney to go to uh one of the uh facilities health facilities in in the um in the core uh and they would have an additional 10 or 12 minutes uh to their uh to their ride u sort of thing. So uh again the very positive is that um a uh there will be no impacts to to to

current service on Sydney routes. Uh and b is is that the limited service it is an introduction of direct service to the airport which was felt positive by the commission and I feel positive about it to some degree because it's long been uh desired to have direct service in some shape or form. Um but the impacts are appear to be minimal in terms of when the service will be direct to the airport. The third and important note was as that commission has resolved to make uh direct uh service to the airport the number one priority for expansion for future expansion of service. As I may have reported out at a previous meeting, I think from the from the March uh commission meeting, is that um Victoria Regional Transit can only introduce new service in the region in the entire region if they have funding support, the funding share from the provincial government. And the provincial government has indicated uh for the 2026 budget uh Victoria Transit

Commission budget that there will be no additional funding for additional service. Um, so the earliest that this could be considered uh earliest direct service as additional new service to the airport could be considered is in 2027 after uh funding agreements are made between the province and and the and BC Transit and Victoria Transit Commission. I'll leave my uh my update there. If there are any questions, happy to answer. Councelor O'Keefe and councelor Duck. Uh thank you and thank you for the uh for for the overall explanation. I think one thing our residents in Sydney will want to know about is in in the plans to make direct service to YJ a number one priority. Will that include service from Sydney to the airport in those early morning hours? I know they're focused on Victoria, downtown Victoria, but Sydney is, you know, a popular tourist hub and we hear a lot from people that staying at hotels and things, but and even local residents the challenges of getting uh

direct service, especially in the early hours to the airport. Yeah. So, the the the nature of what that future expanded direct service to the airport hasn't been fleshed out. they've just indicated and and at such time that they receive funding for the provincial government or they may you know work on something that would be if I could use the term shelf ready so that they could implement it if if funding comes forward but there hasn't been discussion about what the service but uh as we are aware from from other initiatives from transit that's impacted Sydney for example the transit hub is that uh transit does do uh public engagement to receive input and I think there would be opportunities uh for our community and and ourselves to to advocate at that time.

Sorry, did you're good. Sorry, who did I have next? Cancer doc. I'm sorry. Thank you, mayor. Um, I had the opportunity at ABICC to speak with the BC Transit uh community officer there and sort of got a preview of option three. So, I'm glad to see that was called forward. And I think that's, you know, their approach was it would cover early morning and late night shifts at the airport and and help the transportation there. One of the things she indicated at that time was they were going to be coming back to council um to give a report on that decision. Is that not going to happen or is that No, thanks for the question or clarification, councelor Duck. So, they did indicate it. They they provided an update at the transit commission. So, the BC Transit is currently going to all 13 municipalities to to to provide an update on the regional trans regional transit plan. And I think we're scheduled for Sydney's there was a there was a a table up. They've already been to a couple or three municipalities and

they'll be coming to Sydney. I believe it's in June or sometime in the early summer. And it's it's to provide an update. So it doesn't have to do particularly with the service. Uh they may wish to uh you know provide an update or or provide more information other than I've provided with regards to the service. Um just just a note on that new service. Uh the earliest it would be implemented is this September. Um and it u but I hope that's helpful. And yeah, thank you question councelor Dun. Yeah, thank you. And and thank you. I'm glad you actually got counselor duck for me because he just answered some of my questions. [laughter] Um which and because the question you know that I would have had uh especially given your your letter and how you spelled out the you know kind almost onetoone replacement in wrership that they were looking at that I think that was very salty to a lot of people that it was a

bus pass is $6. So, why is the $6 of a tourist or somebody who already has thousands of dollars to spend on vacations on a plane more important than the $6 of somebody who has to go to work and can't afford a car or can't drive a car because they're too elderly or disabled? Why are their $6 worth less than somebody who clearly had enough money to spend on a cab? And I think that still holds. But councelor Duck has just clarified that part of that I think the requests when they say people wanted this and requested it. I what I'm hearing it sounds like they're saying is a large part of that request was due to was workers at the airport because it is such a large concentrated employer that's very easy to serve. And that makes me for one feel a lot better.

[laughter] I I don't know how many people uh on the dispersed on the bus routes, you know, that doesn't help them. That's it's it's always a problem because people who work in different places um and are going to different medical appointments or their different uh recreation needs come from different areas and are going to different areas and having a centralized route that catches all of those people is very difficult. um and an extra 10 to 12 minutes, which may be more in rush hour, it really can make a difference for those of us who are trying to squeeze in and out of our jobs. Um with child care, healthcare workers are definitely one of those groups that's even harder for. So, I'm I'm happy to hear that there the part of the consideration was actually the airport employee needs. Um and that hopefully as discussions go forward looking at at serving our uh high concentrated employers with BC Transit um as a as a a domestic worker uh uh shuttle device. I guess [laughter] I'm going to say um and that that that's

actually a big part of the request that drove that uh does make me feel a lot better and I guess I no longer have a question about that. But um thank you for your continuing advocacy at the commission. Thank you councelor uh Duncan. Not seeing any other discussion while we'll leave that item. A motion is required. Uh and I'll turn to councelor Gernett who raised the item 15.7 on the tactile walking pads at Highway 17 and Beacon Avenue. Thank you, mayor. And uh before I start, I like to thank uh Miss Fella for her letter and her comments and her continued advocacy for this issue. Um it's really important that a community member takes a hold of something and doesn't let go till we get some kind of resolution. Um yeah, I this is of course part of the Ministry of Transportation and Transits uh under their per purview jurisdiction, but I do think it's incumbent upon council uh to advocate for the safety in our community. And I I do have a motion arising and if it passes, I'll speak more to it. Thank you, Mayor.

Please uh well, you raised the item, so please bring forward your motion and we can certainly have discussion while the motion is on the floor. I will after hearing the motion, I will look consider it and then look for a second. Okay. Uh, I move that the mayor on behalf of the of council write a letter to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, that's Mont requesting an immediate remedy to the incorrect alignment of the scoring lines and tactile pads on the northeast and southeast portions of the islands at the Beacon Avenue and Papy Highway intersection. Thank you. Do we have a second, please? Second. Councelor Duck seconded. So, I just I'm going to turn to the movers in a moment and I'm not asking the movers to consider this uh or a mo an immediate motion on this, but we did have a a comment during public participation regarding perhaps another component to this, but I will turn to the movers on the motion that's on the floor.

Thank you, mayor. Yeah. uh on my usual Wednesday walk on March 18th, I first noticed this and uh took some pictures and spoke to our director of engineering who immediately contacted uh the group responsible for the construction and u subsequent to that uh councelor Flet took up the fight uh so to speak uh and I think it's just you know the safety component of it is is large but to me the other component is dignity and it's I I think in This would have been common practice back in 1976, but we live in 2026 and we know better and we should do better. And it it was quite shocking to me. I actually had to do a double take when I first went through to turn around and go, where is this pointing? In the middle of the intersection. And I looked at the other one. I looked across the street. I'm like, oh boy. Like we've dropped the ball here. Um it's unfortunate. Um but I do think it's an issue that is taking too long to

address. And I realize maybe in terms of the way they may they may prioritize things in the ministry um I don't know how under the general construction management plan this got missed but when you do make a mistake you do need to make make the the do the right thing and fix it because we're talking about safety in our community and we're talking about potentially putting residents at risk. So I think it's really important that we that we send a letter to say to the ministry look we we need you to address this a lot quicker than is happening at this point in time. Thank you mayor. If I could just perhaps u take out the we dropped the ball and the ball was dropped.

The ball was dropped. Councelor Duck, please. Yeah, I'm just, if I may, a question through to staff. Um, is there anything we need to do as a town uh that can make this safer in the interim until we get some resolution from the ministry? because I I feel like as was stated in the letter and and in public participation uh tonight that um there's a risk here and and we're leaving that open without doing anything about it and I wonder if there's anything we can do. I'll turn to our CEO, Mr. Edwards. No, there's nothing that the town can legally do in this matter. It's uh 100% uh provincial land and provincial responsibility and it would be outside of our um jurisdictional authority to to do any kind of modification without without their express approval.

I'm I'm not suggesting we make the modifications and certainly I understand that's up to the ministry. But is there any awareness or signage? I we're talking about people that can't know that that problem is there and should we be doing anything to make them aware of it? Again, we can't put any signage up on the land either. Um it's not again, it's not our land. Um if we uh if councils does choose to um support the motion that's on the floor, we certainly can write a letter. Uh and I would recommend the letter go to the minister. um and deputy minister uh and um uh you know and and I think that would be perhaps the most expeditious way to get the attention of the appropriate staff to remedy the situation.

Okay. Um yeah, that's the direction we're moving, but we're now two months into the fact that that problem has existed and you know, how do we make sure nothing happens there that u we regret? I'm sorry, counselor, but I I don't see where you're going with this question, but I I I think I've responded several times saying very clearly that uh this is not an area for us to um make alterations or place signage or or anything to that effect. If you have other ideas that you have in mind, uh I would be open to hearing those. No, I don't. I hope their problem doesn't arise because then we're we've addressed it and not done anything about it. Thank you.

Thank you, counselor. Um, councelor Duncan. Yeah. Well, I was going to for an amendment regarding the bicycle signals and I don't know if we should move with this motion and then add one later or go forward with an amendment now, but I can see that the original move or noted. So maybe I could Yes. If I can make two comments. I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment further to Mr. Edward's comment. And if we could just saying is a change from M to the Minister of Transportation in in the motion. Uh I think that is is clearly what we're what we'll then proceed with. Uh and the second is um just before considering an amendment is while we did hear during public participation a a potential cons concern potentially with the bicycle uh lights at the intersection uh and while I cycle through there I I I I can't visualize it myself and I don't know what the situation actually is. So to commit to advocating for it when I'm not certain of it. So, I wanted to actually turn to

staff and perhaps we could uh we could separate it as a motion arising and and that if staff were able to uh we were able to observe the situation and and perhaps advise uh myself in in terms of the writing of the letter whether we advocate on that point or not. I'm just not sure that we want to pass a motion to do that without further without at least staff having a look. appreciating that staff, the municipality is not responsible for the the bicycle lighting at the intersection. I I'll just turn to Mr. Edwards for a comment. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I'm glad you raised that because um I myself am not clear on what the issue is and um we can certainly discuss it amongst staff. Um, I don't understand the the the lighting configuration that that's of concern. Um, and so if the motion were to include language that u and and may consider raising the um cycling uh infrastructure or cycling uh lighting or or I'm not sure what the appropriate language would be, but um

yeah, if I if I could if I could um offer that we consider it as a motion arising so that we pass this motion and in the motion arising it could be subject to staff reviewing uh the lighting uh that we consider uh uh including advocacy regarding the uh the bicycle sign the bicycle lighting at the intersection something to that effect. But I preferred rather than amending it to this motion is just pass this motion which will direct us and then it will be time to uh to do that second step if through the motion arising if that carries. Uh yeah, thank you. I I actually probably won't have have a motion. This feels more like we need a discussion. I have an idea as a cyclist that has more to do with lighting and more than just lighting, but actual barkings because I have a pretty good idea of how people go wrong at this intersection that I don't think we could actually formally do. Uh right now I feel this might be a conversation for like the cycling

coalition and kind of looking at best practices to direct people at how to cross that intersection where it's unclear whether you're a cyclist. two of us stay on your bike and then you go across and you stay in the bike lane or you're a pedestrian who then comes out of the intersection or out of the crosswalk and into the bike lane and many things can go wrong and having that properly marked and signed about whether cyclists dismount, how they cross, where they remount. I think this is a bigger issue and I don't I don't see a clear way to make a motion and and make it something staff can do formally with council but I I think that we can have discussions probably offline about it.

Okay, let's leave further discussion on this point uh until after this motion is is passes. So with the motion on the floor with regards to the letter with regards to the um tactile pads, uh councelor Gette. Yeah, sorry not to add to the word smithing, but is it possible to either CC or add the minister responsible for accessibility in on the letter as well? I think I think that's an important I think believe the province has a minister of access minister of accessibility. Is there nobody that has that? Sorry, councelor. Councelor O'Keefe. Uh yeah, there's not a minister for accessibility, but there's a um uh parliamentary se I think the terminology is parliamentary or secretary for the accessibility directorate. Do we know do we know what ministry that is under?

Um mayor I believe it's under the minister of social development and poverty reduction. So the if there is a parliamentary secretariat they would report to that minister. So we could copy that uh that minister if that's okay and it would go in the right direction. Yeah. I don't I don't know for sure um who the like if there is a parliamentary secretariat and if there is But we can definitely find that out and and um copy that minister and that uh parliamentary secretariat as needed. Thank you. Thank you. So we don't have we don't have to amend the motion to do that. Councelor Keefe, do you still have the floor?

Uh sure. No, I I was just going to say I I support the the motion. I know it's not our jurisdiction and I'm sympathetic. there's really nothing staff can do as as frustrating as it is knowing that that's a safety issue. It's really something for the provincial government to sort out. And and I think it's it's worthwhile to to lend our voice to this. You know what we hear from persons with disabilities is how exhausting it is for them to be continually having to bring things forward and for them to take on the the provincial government on things. It's tough. So being an advocate for them I think is uh is is a good thing. So I support this. I believe the parliamentary secret secretary is Dana Linz a previous counselor from uh yeah so so yeah I'm supportive thank you thank you councelor Keefe seeing no further discussion I'll call a question those in favor that carries unanimous thank you uh there is a sense of urgency to this so we would look to send this letter out at the earliest opportunity uh with regards to the matter on on

lighting I'm going to suggest further to councelor Dun remarks that we actually leave that item this evening. Uh I appreciate uh member of the public coming forward this evening. I might suggest that you could forward uh forward a letter uh to the town uh if you directed to town staff. Uh that would bring uh the specific concern to the attention. uh perhaps there is Capital Bike or other agencies who uh who might want to offer uh offer input on that as well and and we would try to uh to respond to that in a timely fashion perhaps at the next council meeting. Um that concludes our business on the agenda this evening. Uh we don't have a notice motion a motion to go on camera. I'd seek a motion to adjurnn.

So moved. Moved and Senate. All in favor? All in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you everyone.