Transcript: Regular Council - 10 Aug 2026

Good evening. I would like to call our regular council meeting on Monday, August 10th to order at 6 pm. I'm Mayor Cliff McNeil Smith and colleagues in the chamber this evening. To my far left, councelor Richard Novik, councelor Terry O'Keefe, councelor Chad Renul, to my right, councelor Scott Garnett, councelor Sarah Duncan, and councelor Steve Duck will be absent this evening. Uh good evening to staff and um for joining the meeting this evening. We do introduce all staff as they're introducing the reporter, answering questions. uh and hello to members of the public both here in the chamber tonight and to those who may be watching the live uh webstream. I want to respectfully acknowledge that we are holding our meeting and and gathered this evening and indeed the entire town of Sydney is in the territory of the Wasenish people, the Seot nation, the Slip Nation, the Pakuchin nation, the Seikkum nation and the Malat nation. And we express our gratitude to the nations for their stewardship of these lands and waters from time and memorial that is thousands of years uh and for the

responsibility that we have uh to work together uh for current and and future generations. In terms of to the approval of the agenda, since it was published last Thursday afternoon, we have um some changes. We don't have any additional items this evening. Um but we do have a couple of changes. Uh the first is is that uh this is unusual, but we do have four items of business that was on the agenda from our previous meeting and we weren't able to conclude that business at that meeting. So that business is brought forward under the section business not completed at a previous meeting section six. um which um would shortly which would uh on this this agenda would follow approval of the minutes. However, we normally have public participation at the beginning of our meeting and so we will have that section of our meeting uh prior to uh commencing with that u business not completed.

Um so that's moving uh number six to after uh public participation. Uh the second change is that item 71 which was um uh policing services update from our staff sergeant of the north city north fire uh police department uh will not be occurring on tonight's agenda. So we'll remove that from the agenda. will come forward to an agenda in September. And included on that agenda will be um the policing report. And I believe those are just the two changes. With that, I would look for a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Councelor Novik. Second. Councelor Garnett. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? That carries unanimous.

Thank you. And if I could perhaps have the same movers to approve the minutes of our July 13th regular council meeting. So move. Second. We have the same movers. Thank you. Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, those in favor? Thank you. That motion carries. And so we are now first turning to our regular public participation period. For those who may not have uh come forward to address council before, we ask that you come forward to the to the podium. There is a button to activate the uh the microphone. Uh we ask that you provide your name and the municipality that you reside in or the organization that you're representing. You do have up to four minutes to speak. We ask that you abide that to be fair to all all potential speakers. Uh and with that, I'll call for a first time. Does anyone wish to come forward this evening? Good evening.

Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Barbara Fel and I'm a resident of the town of Sydney. It's been more than four months since safety concerns were first raised regarding the recent changes and improvements made by MOTT at Highway 17 and Beacon Avenue. And today I would like to bring you up to date on things. On Tuesday, August the 4th, there was a site visit with Miss Susan Brandle, senior highway design engineer, and two other persons from MOTT Engineering, along with Mr. Tommy Le Young, BC manager, advocacy and stakeholder operations at CNIB and myself. Prior to the others joining us, Tommy and I took some time to walk through and review the intersection from his perspective as a person who is blind.

That exercise was an eyeopener for me and no pun intended and I could speak for much longer than the four minutes that have been allowed here. So I will cut to the chase. MOTT has indicated that this was their first intersection to receive tactile mats and that given the feedback that they have now received, this intersection will serve as a pilot project. They also note that the improvements they are contemplating are not conventional nor standard for the ministry infrastructure. They go on to say in this instance due to the unusual configuration of the skewed intersection, the presence of a CNIB client with specific concerns and high use by pedestrians and cyclists due to the lockside trail. We will be providing some upgraded features to assist wayfinding.

It should be noted that there will be no further wayfinding once a person has left the intersection system and consequently MOTT jurisdiction. So there is some risk in providing this level of guidance when none exists outside of the two traffic islands. They propose the following improvements. The addition of a tactile mat on the frontage of the Lockside Trail where it crosses the right slip bay in the southeast quadrant. Wayfinding directional tactile indicators on the southeast island. And where they can fit them, they will install tactile direction indicator surfaces to correctly align users with the crossings. Of note here, the northeast island has limited space and there will be constraints in what can be done. In addition, it was clear that the placement of the push buttons for the crossing along with the signage were not aligned with the crossing to provide correct orientation for a safe crossing.

For now, MOTT is co coordinating with Tommy at the CNIB to address some of the wayfinding improvements that were identified at the site. And while there is no immediate timeline on improvements, they have suggested and depending upon staff and contracting scheduling, the additions and improvements would be completed sometime in the fall. Fingers crossed here that this is a case of perseverance paying off. Susan also reminded me that MOT's mandate is to move cars, not people. So, my suggestion that it may be time for a pedestrian cyclist overpass got very little much more than a smile. In conclusion, Tommy has reminded me that he and his office are available to help and consult on accessibility matters, including accessible voting for the upcoming municipal election. He asked that I share his contact information with staff from the Sanish Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you for coming forward uh with that information tonight. Good evening. Good evening. Sorry. Thank you. Uh my name is Charlene F from North Sanage. U I didn't plan on speaking tonight, but I just wanted to follow up on uh Barb Fall's comments with the intersection and the crosswalks. Um, at our last SP back meeting, we had quite a an extensive review done of the crosswalks in Sydney and and how many variables there are to that. So, I just wanted to add to it that along with Tommy and the committee um going forward, I know Sydney is planning to update their crosswalks that um I'm hoping that there will be consistency in what we're doing on those crosswalks and crossings so that uh people with low vision and blind have got some consistency in knowing how they are going to approach these sidewalks and crossings so that there is a a standard um going forward and and allowing them safety in their crossing.

So, I just wanted to add that to Barb's comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking the time to come forward. I'll call for a second time. Does anyone else wish to come forward this evening? And calling for a third time and seeing none, I'll close the public participation period. And we'll now move on to the first of the four items under business not completed at a previous meeting. Uh the first is uh item 6A, the financial feasibility analysis and stakeholder consultation on zoning bylaw number 2275 uh density bonus provisions. And I'll turn to Mr. Nukem, our director of community planning to provide an introduction, please.

Thank you very much. Uh so in the spring of 2024, the provincial government updated the local government act to require municipalities uh with zoning bylaws uh that include a density bonusing provision. um either a new bylaw or an amending bylaw or a sight specific bylaw. Uh that these bylaws with the density bonusing provision undergo an analysis. Um the analysis is intended to ensure that the the density bonusing provisions are economically viable for uh development projects. Um there's also a one-time requirement uh as part of this change that uh existing zoning bylaws that a municipality might have also be uh analyzed to ensure that any density bonusing provisions uh are also um economically viable.

So uh a couple of months ago the uh staff uh contracted with a uh qualified consultant to undergo this analysis uh for the town's current zoning bylaw. Uh the results from that were that the current density bon uh density bonusing provisions are economically viable. Uh there's a second requirement associated with this and that's to uh undergo a round of consultation with uh individuals, organizations etc that council feels uh should be consulted as part of this process and staff have made some recommendations around that and uh happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nukem. I'll turn to colleagues if there are any questions on this item. Councelor O'Keefe, please.

Uh, thank you. Um, so [clears throat] I did send some questions to staff. So, thanks for that, but I'm still uh needing some help with uh an understanding. Um, so when we're talking about the financial viability, so I presume that means looking at the [clears throat] zoning bylaw, which has uh base or base kind of density that's permitted and then the bonus density. So I presume that's one element of it and then is the other element also looking at are that policy DVO 113 that then outlines you know if you have this amount of density you're going to pay this amount. So, just wanting to clarify that when we're talking about financial viability that I'm understanding exactly what that is and what we're looking at.

Counselor, could you maybe just move your microphone a little closer? Oh, sorry. Okay. Uh uh thank you. Through the mayor to councelor Keefe. Um yes. So, what the legislation says is that uh we need to do an economic analysis of the zoning bylaw. Um but of course the zoning bylaw doesn't exist in isolation. Uh there's construction costs, there's land costs, there's all sorts of inputs that go into uh a development happening. Um all of those things are just costs and the density bonusing provision if it's uh if a developer chooses to use it is just one of those costs that might be uh considered. And so the analysis took into account just a a very broad range of inputs, density bonusing being one of them. Um Our proposed DCC rates were another thing. Land costs, construction costs, any inputs into a development that cost a development money were analyzed and uh and the out of that analysis, the density bonus provisions were found to be viable overall, right, for the total cost of development. Yeah.

Good. So that I I think I'm clear on that. Um, and so the report had also mentioned the staff report mentioned the Urbanex report which we hadn't seen but thank you for sending that this afternoon and I didn't have a chance. It's 70 pages. So, I didn't go through all of it, but I just looked at some of the highlights. And so the questions I had were um when I looked at the staff report, the staff report seemed to suggest that we're okay to leave the bonus density amounts as they are, which are 50 $50 per square meter for the RM7WS and 200 for everything else. So is am I understanding it's somewhat misstating it. So okay there there's sort of two parts to this project. The first part was that the provincial government requires us to analyze the existing zoning bylaw as it is and determine its economic viability.

So that's essentially what this staff report is speaking to that we've we've analyzed the current state of affairs uh as far as density bonusing is considered and yes we believe based on this analysis that it's viable. So we also had the consultant Urbanics do some additional work about um what some other policy considerations from the OCP's housing section might look like from an economic standpoint. And so that was sort of a second part of the project looking ahead. What might we want to consider in the future in terms of um additional policy options changing the bonus uh density amounts that are currently in the policy. Um so that's the second part of the project that in the coming months staff will be looking at that and developing a policy approach that we can bring back to council uh with some potential changes um at which council does want to move some of those ahead or all of them ahead. Uh we do need to do

another round of consultation if it changes the current economic uh structure in the zoning bylaw as far as development is concerned if that makes sense. So it's a two-part thing. Yeah. Yeah. So, so I think um [clears throat] when I was uh what I had understood about other policy considerations, I'm thinking about there's things in there about inclusionary zoning and um you know whether pay and loo and a number of different things. The thing that I was wondering most about was um the the urbanics came out with what they thought the bonus density rate structure should be which is quite different. So those amounts of you know $50 and 200 and they came out with quite a different range of amounts. And so what I what I'm wondering is I know there's those other policy things, but in term in terms of the financial viability and if we're going out to the development community to ask about financial viability, why we wouldn't go with these amounts that have

been recommended by the uh consultant right now rather than uh waiting because it if we paid them to do this and if they're experts on it, it looks like we're missing out on money um if we don't increase our rates. So, why not do that now rather than later, I guess? Yeah, I guess it's a good question. So the as I said the the current uh intent is just to find out the economic viability of the current zoning bylaw and then what the if if council does choose to consult with the development community on this what the development community's perspective on that current density bonusing structure is including the rates. Um, at the moment, Urbanics has just done an analysis of what might be possible, but there's significant implications of going to something to a different rate.

And so those implications might be something like if the market changes, there's now, you know, no longer any freeboard to absorb say a 10% market drop or something like that, which has implications for um the pace of development in the community. So staff haven't had a chance to look at those uh potential numbers that are bananex analyzed and think deeply about you know what are the implications of implementing these numbers in Sydney. Um that's the work that we're going to be doing over the next few months to look at do we want to change if we do want to change what's a reasonable number and then bringing forward uh a recommendation to council that we think makes sense in terms of um striking that very fine balance between development viability having Sydney as an attractive place to do business in terms of development and so on and so forth. So until I think we have council's blessing to move forward with some of those potential future numbers, I don't think we'd want to be consulting with the development community on them given that they're not proposed uh in a zoning bylaw.

Okay. I I I understand that. I I'm still kind of uh yeah wondering about if if the experts have come forward and said this is viable, why wouldn't we do that? I guess my question would be I understand staff would want to you know we just got the report I think on Friday um and that you know you might need some time to think that over you know is it an option to give staff a bit more time to at least not look at all of those other policy recommendations but just look at these specific the bonus density rate structure that they've been proposed and come back to council, you know, in early September with that. I guess what I'm worried about is I understand that the next time we're going to look at this is maybe during strategic planning, you know, in the new term and um it seems that the rate structure proposed by Orban Orbanics is quite a bit different and I guess I'm I'm worried about the town uh losing out on being able to um collect on um some

of these things. So whether that might be an option. Yeah, I mean I I think we're doing both essentially. So we we do need to assess the current zoning bylaw and consult on the current zoning bylaw. Um that needs to be done essentially right now. And so that's why the the staff recommendation is there to move ahead with that. We are 100% looking at what are the options going forward and we're actively working on that. We're just not ready to say, you know, this is what we'd recommend in terms of a change right now. Um I think there's there's more work that needs to be done and Urbanics report is also written from the perspective of um the town should be taking 100% of any uh monetary amount over and above a standard level of profit for development. Um there's merits to that argument. There's also negatives to that argument. And again, I don't think we've had time to fully kind of work through what those might be on either side. And so I I would want to be cautious about

um you know, if we are going to move forward with a change to the bonus density amount that we have currently that we fully understand the implications of that and I I don't think we do at this point, but we do need to consult on the current zoning bylaws current density bonus rates. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you, councelor O'Keefe. Councelor Novin, I'll turn to CEO Edwards, please. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to add too that um I understand where council keeps coming from and and and recognize the uh desire to move in that direction. It's important to also note that any instream applications will adhere to the current rates and so um you we we're not aware of any large projects advancing in in the immediate future. And so, you know, we there still is time to make some amendments in the near future on this that hopefully will capture any opportunities that we might feel like um are coming our way.

Thank you. I'll turn back to you counselor. And sorry, just to follow up on that. So, is near future like September or is that like in the next term? No, next term. It's council has already um discussed this in the current strategic plan that this would be next term work. Okay. Thank you. Thank you councelor Novik please. Uh thank you mayor through you to staff. Uh I'm I'm I have a couple of questions about the uh engagement with the development community and uh f my first question is h how wide a net uh do you cast with this? Like what is the development community? Is it just a couple of big developers? Is the people that build duplexes here and there? How do you decide who the development community is?

Yeah. Thank the mayor to councelor Novik. Uh good question. So what we're planning to do is use largely the same list that we used for the DCC bylaw consultation uh which does include uh the Urban Development Institute uh Victoria chapter and then a list of uh developers who have essentially done business in Sydney over the last couple of years I think was it uh maybe with a couple of additions or subtractions uh where we have some specific knowledge about that that uh developer but we do have a a list of people who would beffect affected by this in terms of uh potential development projects and so we'd reach out to them.

So it it would be a broad net. Yes. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um my second question is um following this engagement, you're going to get some feedback. It's unlikely that the development community is going to ask for higher DCC's. what what what would you expect to do with the results of this engagement and how will that help to form your ultimate table of rates? So the province doesn't actually require any action out of the engagement. They require that we do the analysis and they require that we engage where we consult with whoever council thinks will be affected. Um based on the numbers in the report uh as councelor O'Keefe alluded to um currently I would say the the density bonusing rates are quite affordable um and have been in place for a significant amount of time and I don't think we've heard a lot of push back from the development community about the current rates and so my expectations would be of course that you know the development community would say something like well gee any costs make it difficult to do projects which is

true. Um, however, I think these rates in and of themselves aren't sort of a dealiller level. And so I think you know we'll we'll hear a typical sort of we need to be wary of cost but given what the report says and I think given that the development community has been working with these numbers over the last several years um if the feedback from the development community is like you know gee it's a cost but you know we can make it work. Uh no more action is necessary. we've fulfilled our obligations under the legislation and we can move on and and start working on um different policy choices that we can bring back to council around things like inclusionary zoning and and other uh considerations.

So, we have to reach out to the development community, listen to them, file it away in a drawer, and not necessarily do anything with the results of that engagement. Is is that correct? or the the government doesn't oblige us to but we may incorporate that into our work to to a degree it's correct. I think if the development community came back with significant and serious concerns about the current bylaw, uh I think staff would report back to council and say, "Look, this is what we've heard. Um some action might be necessary here." And certainly if we hear that, we'll be we'll be coming back to council with the staff report. Um I think again given what the report says about the rates, uh if we get the response we're expecting to, I think yes, it's sort of filed away. we've fulfilled our provincial obligation and then look ahead and if we do decide to make some changes at that point that next stage of consultation on

any different rates might be more uh telling in terms of you know how far might the town want to push in terms of um more challenging uh requests of developments like inclusionary zoning that might have a bit of a higher ask. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, counselor. Are there any other questions uh from staff? Seeing none, we do have staff recommendation. If somebody consider moving council. Uh thank you, mayor. I'll move the recommendation that staff proceed with stakeholder engagement with the development community regarding the bonus density amenity fee provisions and zoning bylaw number 2275. Second. Moved by councelor Gennad, seconded by councelor Novik. Alternative movers.

I have nothing to add. There's been fullome discussion. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councelor. Likewise, nothing to add. Any further discussion? Councelor O'Keefe, please. Uh, thank you. Um, I'm not in favor of this uh for a few reasons. Um, we've known for a long time that our current bonus density is not where it should be. It's been I think I don't know maybe decades, but you know, I I it seems that it's been a long time since it's been um updated. Um, and I know that, you know, because the province required us to pre-zone certain parts of the, uh, community, we've missed out on the opportunity to to rec recover the the lift on that. Um, and I recognize that the provincial government has since given us some tools through DCC's and ACC's to help um, get those amenities.

Um, so what I worry about is by delaying the um I would have rather seen these the rates from urbanics if we had to give staff a bit of time to to look at those. I would prefer to be going out to the development community with those um the proposed rates from Urbanex. And I understand, you know, staff's comments that there's not too many uh developments in the in the queue that might uh that this might impact. However, this seems to me something that's going to take a while. If it goes to strategic planning, then we'll discuss it. then we'll have to go through a process and more engagement.

Um I don't know. I'm thinking it might be another year before uh we get these higher rates and then in in the meantime there are other developments that come along and and we miss out on the opportunity to uh to recoup some money for the uh community. So that's those are my reservations. So uh my reasons for uh not moving forward uh as it is. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Uh seeing no councelor Gap, please. Thank you, mayor. Just just to address um from my perspective, why I do support it is we don't necessarily those are proposed rates from from a consultant. Our staff has not had a chance to look at it yet through our zoning bylaw through their eyes and they have more familiarity being the community. They may come to a different conclusion and maybe these rates will be very similar to through what the work they do with us with the council. next council and the work that our staff does, the race may be similar to what's already proposed in our own zoning bylaw. So, do we delay that not knowing? It's it's I think we

should move forward and try to align with provincial legislation. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. I'm now not seeing any further discussion. I'll look to call a question. Those in favor? Opposed? Councelor O'Keefe is opposed. The motion carries. Thank you. Returning to item 6B, uh the housing target order report for second reporting period July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026. Uh we have a report and I'll turn to our director of development services, Mr. Hagen. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. Um as is indicated in the report, uh Sydney received a housing target order in June of 2024. So this is our second reporting period. This report captures the number of occupancy permits, demolition permits issued, number of housing units created and lost through development and demolition for the year from July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026. So, the year that's just ended here. Um, the housing target order gives cumulative totals.

So, here we are at the end of our second year. We're supposed to have created 181 new complete housing units. So that means occupancy permits issued within that time frame for 181 units in the first year as the report says in the background section. Uh we issued 126 occupancy permits or occupancy permits for 126 dwelling units. We lost 36 units through demolition permits and that resulted in a net total of 90. So we were on track for the first year. In the second year the numbers were a little lower. Uh in the last reporting period uh we issued occupancy permits for a total of 28 dwelling units and demolition permits for a total of 19 dwelling units. That results in a net total of nine completed housing units.

So we're at a total of 99 units for the two years and we're supposed to be at 181. So we are a bit low. Uh but if you read on in the report and look through the rest of the the information in the housing target order report, it shows there is a number of dwelling units in the pipeline coming. Um we've issued building permits for there's building permit obligations under review for a total of 261 new dwelling units right now. That's in addition to the number of units that have been approved by development permit which is 235 units. And we also have 58 units approved by building permit out there under construction right now as of today's date. So past the time of this report, there's I think around 45 units under construction.

So things are happening. This just this the stats in this report represents the cycle in the FA kind of construction phase that Sydney was in for the past year. Uh we do need to send this report to the ministry by August 15th which is 45 days maximum of 45 days after the end of the reporting period. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Verhagen. I'll turn to colleagues if there are any questions of the housing report. Not seeing any. It's uh we've had it previously for last year and um thanks staff for bringing it forward as is required. Uh I would look for uh someone to move the recommendation, please.

Thank you, mayor. I'll move the council receive the progress report for July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026 and direct staff to post the report on the town website and submit it to the province. Second. Moved by councilors Garnett and Novik. I'll turn to the movers. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Just just a brief comment and I think when I look through this report and I think central Sanich has had 24 net units in their period and they had to have more than us. It's a there's a flaw in the way they designed this from my perspective and I've always felt this way. When you're looking at occupancy permits, it should be really looking at applications that have been approved, develop approval approval applications from from the way I look at it because as a council, we don't control market conditions, interest rates, construction costs, um supply chain issues, and uh I looked at numbers based on what we've approved in terms of uh developments, whether or

not they go forward. And it's combined with what we've already had occupancy permits for, it's over 600 units. So, and I think we'll make our to total in five years if things shape up the way they should. But, as I said, we don't control what happens outside of us. We can only control what we approve. And I was thinking to myself, what about labor shortages? And I thought, I mean, maybe maybe if all seven members of council go back to school and get a red seal and and be electricians and plumbers and contractors, we can go out there and help build. But even then, we're not going to help meet the target. So, I think it's it's important for the community to realize that we can only do so much as a council. and um you know the government set the target, they set the parameters, it's just really difficult to work in them given economic conditions. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, councelor. I'll turn to the secondary. Councelor Novi, uh nothing to add, mayor. Thank you. Not seeing any any other speakers. This is a this is a big topic. gets followed around the region around the province and and I'm in support of the motion and thank staff uh for both the report and the housing target order progress report that uh were required and will submit to the province. I I want to re reiterate some of the points with some perspective. Um while Sydney's annual housing targets are somewhat uniform over the five-year period uh 1991 93 95 uh and then 99 um as councelor uh Garnett just spoke the town does not build housing uh and does not control the changing market variables and conditions uh that the private sector property owners and developers uh must consider you know when they're deciding to submit their applications and ultimately build and and complete their projects. uh this has and and those market variables and those conditions have and and will cause fluctuations in

building activity and and new new home occupancy. I think fluctuations are more likely when there are larger projects proposed and in Sydney we see the larger approved projects are 180 units, 140 units, 60 units, uh 49 and and 48. And in looking at our monthly uh building report that's included on tonight's agenda, we see that the 140 unit project at 2180 Beacon Avenue received its DP development permit from council in May of 2024. Uh the 60unit project at 2060 White Birch received its DP from council in January of 24. Uh and the 49 and 48 um unit projects at 95 9522 Lockside, the former Cedarwoods in site received their DP from council in March of 2024.

So market variables and conditions have certainly changed over the last two years. Um u that those uh that those were approved. Interestingly, the 180 unit purpose-built rental at 2114 um Beacon Avenue West received its DP from council in September 25. uh more recently uh than the others mentioned and and uh it's currently under construction. So, we've set the table for development in our community uh over the long term with comprehensive with the comprehensive update of our OCP and zoning bylaws in recent years. Uh and in addition to the some 500 units of housing approved by council, the report noted as uh Mr. Hagen noted uh that there are development applications under consideration for another 118 uh new dwelling units. So with the 99 uh net new homes completed over the last two years, over 600 housing units approved under or under consideration uh and future applications are likely uh I remain confident we'll achieve and exceed our housing targets of housing target of 448 homes over the 5-year housing target period.

I'll leave my comments there and uh seeing no further speakers, look to call the question. All in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you. So now we're turning to 6T which is that monthly building report that I uh alluded to. Uh there is no recommendation. It's for information. I'll turn to colleagues if there are any questions or comments uh from staff. I'm not seeing any. Uh we will move forward to the next item uh which was the uh under 6D the bio regional planning on the Sanage Peninsula. Councelor O'Keefe you raised this at the last meeting. It was uh an email from uh Bob Per uh from the Sanage Peninsula Peninsula Environmental uh Coalition on their checkup final report. Did you wish to speak to that tonight, please?

Uh thank you, mayor. Um yeah, so I just uh read through the report. Um I think it's important to uh acknowledge I think the significant time and energy that uh the Sanage Peninsula Environmental Coalition SPEC has done along with the support from the action on climate team from Simon Fraser University uh they did community workshops which uh several of us attended and uh they presented to all three peninsula municipalities in May and now this report which focuses on the need for bio-regional planning and how the three Stanach municipalities um are doing in that regard. Uh some of the highlights I found valuable the inventory of all the plans and policies from the local governments that relate to climate environment. Uh they identified a number of instances where there's already some collaboration taking place. Um and uh it's noted that there is significant alignment in our mu the three municipalities intent but uh there's room for improvement when it comes to the execution and collaboration of working together on these things. So I think we would be missing a huge opportunity if we didn't focus some time

figuring out how we can work better together with the three municipalities on this. um not enough time to do that in this term. So um I would move I guess I've motivated before the motion but excuse me for that. Uh I would move that the report from spec titled checkup be referred to the first strategic planning session in the next council term to consider establishment of a senate peninsula bio regional framework. Second. So we have it moved and seconded. Uh I I'll agree with you that you've done some motivation already, but I I'll turn back to you uh to complete. Yeah. Um I I guess I think the if if the the report provided a lot of recommendations what we could do set up a tri municipal committee there's a bunch of other things but I think the first thing is you know council agreeing that this is a strategic priority.

believe this is something important for us and so that's what I would propose that we do at strategic planning and uh as as a first step. Thank you councelor councelor Garnett do you wish to yeah thank you mayor and and thank you councelor ke for raising this and for the for spec for the work uh having attended the forum it was really interesting to sit at at a table two different tables because there were two different segments with people from um other areas in the peninsula and where areas some of them just regular citizens and where they felt councils were failing and where they were succeeding and it was a it was a good eye openener um and I think one of the recommendations they made was to create a sanage peninsula environmental advisory committee and I do think that's a worthwhile goal. Um so hopefully when the strat planning happens on the next council they'll give consideration to that and particularly around uh the bio regional diversity but you you know we we live in a an area that's very interconnected and the environment and

impacts of climate change they don't respect borders so I think we lose we lose focus of that we try to fix things in our own municipality and we don't realize how they they're so interconnected and you don't have to look further than the connection to Ray or Wilson Creek from North Sanage to Sydney and all the years of the industrial work on the airport which led cadmium in Ray Creek Pond and the work that had to be done to remediate that. So there's the connection there that happened between two municipalities and then of course there's the coastal shoreline and so much of it is shared.

So I I do think this is a is something that's kind of something that we we always have in our in our sightelines and we're focused on but we do need to look at it from the perspective of the entire peninsula because it we we do impact each other in decisions we make and I think sometimes that gets a little bit lost in the shuffle. Thank you mayor. Thank you, councelor Councelor Duncan, please. Yeah, thank you. Uh, thank you, Councelor O'Keefe, for the motion. Um, I was disappointed by Spec's report. I I feel this is something that they they they put a lot of work in, but I feel the same people are sitting at the table still representing the community. And I know when they came to present I said you know based on what we've seen I feel the municipalities have kind of reached the lowhanging fruit and we've and probably beyond that and our frameworks are decent and we should have been able to achieve these things even with just

what we have in place like more administration more bureaucracy more paper pushing is not what's necessary. um where we'd run into limitations was actually that when we've tried to implement things um on public land where it bordered private land, the private land owners blocked us. Literally five people were able to block the entire town of Sydney from managing our own parks. So I said the people who actually have the power remaining that we have seen just like with housing right are private land owners and the private land owners are not at the spec table. This is a bunch of community members who say we want other people to do things and we want the municipalities to force people who aren't us to do things with their land.

And until those private land owners are actually at that table, it's not going to happen. And so I I'm okay with this. I'm happy to have this go forward for strategic planning if what it means councils are going to say once this is under our priority and we're going to allocate tax money to doing this. We will do the community engagement and therefore we will make sure that the private land owners who actually control the shorefront property, who control the green space that they own can actually will will be on board and will do what they want because that's currently not being done. And when I asked Beck about it, they didn't even seem to acknowledge that that was what did need to be done and that those were the community people who needed to be engaged. This wasn't a limitation of government just like with housing.

Thank you. Councelor Duncan see uh councelor O'Keefe for a second time. Yeah, sure. I just um comment I I agree with councelor Duncan. There's certainly a role for private land owners to to step in step up on that. What I heard through the workshops is like some tang tangible uh examples of how we could as uh municipal governments uh work better together. One of the examples given was about the tree canopy and that we all do our separate analysis of our tree canopy which involves sending somebody up in an airplane and they they take pictures and that sort of thing. And um I what I found out is that all three of us paid to do that separately. And so that was just one example of if we were all kind of had our uh kind of ducks line duck in a row and we all knew what we were working on, we could that would be an area that we could work on together and save the taxpayers money. So I I think

there are some tangible things in there just as an example. Thank you. Thank you. Uh seeing no further discussion discussion, I'll call the question. Those in favor? Uh, that carries unanimous. Thank you. And so that completes the four items that were brought forward from our last agenda. We'll move to the first item on tonight's agenda. Under bylaws 8A is bylaw number 2302, amenity cost charges, also known as ACC's. I'll turn to our director of finance, Mr. Hick, please. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, ACC's are a new development financing tool introduced around the time that the town embarked on an update of our DCC program. ACC's are intended to help fund certain amenities that are not eligible for DCC's. An amenity is a facility or feature that provides social, cultural, heritage, recreational, or environmental benefits to a community. And they include the following uh common examples.

recreation centers, um, athletic facilities, libraries, public squares. You will notice that many of the services that I just listed are not provided directly by the town. And, um, as a result, we have more work to do in finding a way to maximize the benefit of ACC's through partnerships with other service providers, for example, subregional recreation. For this initial ACC program, we focused on amenities identified through our um ongoing parks planning process. So, the rates proposed in this bylaw have already been approved by council. This bylaw, when adopted, will put them into effect, and these rates are very modest when compared to our DCC rates. Now, I'm pleased to report that we were informed late last week that our DCC bylaw received ministerial approval and it will be brought forward for adoption in September. And the town will also bring forward a waiverss and reductions bylaw in September to complete the package.

If council has any more questions about the report, I'd be pleased to address. Uh thank you, Mr. Hik, and thank you for sharing the good news. Uh I'll turn to councelor O'Keefe with questions. Uh thank you. So in the questions that I sent um this afternoon, my understanding is that so things like say uh new facilities for artsy or their museum or maybe a public square could potentially be uh funded through ACC's but there would be some additional work and analysis and cost specific costing um would be required for that and my understanding is staff would maybe be looking at uh coming up with another list of potential things to add to the list maybe sometime in in the next term if my understanding is correct.

Yeah, that is correct counselor. We we focused in this initial iteration on on plans we already had. Um to create something brand new will take some time and certainly uh we'd be coming to council with some um initial recommendations and uh seeking direction on what you would like to see included and things like um artsy or museum facilities. The council has to make a conscious decision for the town to take on funding for those external agencies and only with that direction would we build them into a future ACC program. Right. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And um yeah, thank you for your comment about panorama recreation because that was another one that I I was uh thinking about and um so my understanding is that the the uh peninsula recreation panorama recreation wouldn't necessarily uh initiate that on their own. So that would need to be initiated by the three local governments to uh I guess instruct or direct the the commission to come up with a uh subreional um ACC then that would have to come from

us. just confirming that's my understanding. Um because essentially the facilities under Panorama Rec are technically owned by um the CRD, they would be the ones who would have to enact a subregional um charge similar to what is in place right now for sewer and and water. And um they would be the ones collecting it for us. And it would require buyin from all three. Right. Okay. And I guess just one more question. So when I looked at what we're charging for AC some of those ACC projects and before ACC's I looked at those and thought oh those are things that we probably in the past would have covered with through our community amenity charges through bonus density or through one of the funding uh uh mechanisms we get from the federal provincial government. So as we start collecting on these, I presume that we'll see like separate separate accounts about what we can what we can use for certain things. I guess when it comes to to budget time for to help council clarify uh what sort of

reserves or uh pockets of funding that we will have to take some of these things out out of because there seems like there could be a bit of crossover perhaps. Does that make sense? I'll take that as a question. And um yeah, as we do now and we will continue to do, we will bring forward our recommendations for funding absolutely everything and give you a fairly complete picture of what is available beyond what we're recommending. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Um seeing no further discussion, uh we could uh we can proceed with separate motions for first, second, and third reading. Councelor Gette, please. Sure.

I'll move that by law number 2302 amenity cost charge uh be given first reading. Second. Uh all in favor? Cares unanimous. Move second reading. Second. We have the same movers. Uh this is the time for any discussion. I'll turn to colleagues. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor? Motion carries unanimous and I'll move third reading. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Uh that carries unanimous and as Mr. Hik indicated that will come uh to a future meeting uh and as I understand it from the report Mr. Hik that will come forward at the same time as the DCC final adoption. It should be on the first meeting in September along with um the waiverss and reductions bylaw for three readings.

Excellent. Thank you. So we're now turning to uh section nine, the development permits and development variance permits. Under 9A, we have development variance permit application number DV1000396 at 40498702nd Street to permit a heat pump on the balcony within the front yard. Uh we have a report and I'll turn back to our director of community planning, Mr. Fraen. Thank you. So this is a variance application as you indicated to allow to vary the location of a heat pump in order to allow one on a balcony in what's considered the front yard of this property. As the report says, the zoning bylaw allows heat pumps in interior side yards and rear yards. This location on the resident's balcony is considered within the front yard. Um they've submitted a letter of rationale explaining the reasons for their request. From staff's perspective, it would have minimal impact on the streetscape. It's proposed to be screened with a cover. Uh we do have requirements in our noise bylaw for maximum volume from heat pumps in terms of decibb. So it would comply with that as well. So we are recommending that we

proceed with the variance with with the radius mail out. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions from colleagues? Councelor Gette, please. Thank you, Mayor. Three to staff. Um having read the letter and thank you to the applicants for their letter of rationale. Um noting that and one of my first questions when I saw this on the agenda was, you know, what are the strata rules and it was right there right away answered that it was a they were given a medical accommodation. So very appreciative of that and having walked by a few times and can see that that it's it's definitely not going to be obtrusive from looking at the street or anywhere else for that matter. Um we don't we won't meet till for another four or five four weeks I believe or five weeks this will come back probably at the next regular uh council meeting on the 14th of September. um six weeks left of summer.

Um noting in their letter that temperatures reach more than 26 degrees Celsius and seeing this summer or earlier this spring that medical professionals are now saying that's considered unsafe to be in an in a in a habitable space of that temperature. Um respecting the recommendation, does council have the purview to bypass the mailout notification and just approve the variance? Um I'm not sure where they are in the process of how quickly they want to install it in terms of when the summers, you know, we still may be into some substantial heat uh based on what's been going on. So I'm just curious what what powers we have in that vein.

Sure. Um through the mayor, I will defer to Mr. Edwards on this one, but I do believe the local government act does require the radius mailout. That is a legislative requirement, so I don't believe it's something that can be skipped. Sure. I'm seeing a nod from CO Edwards. Yeah, I would um concur with that. Okay, assessment. Thank you. Just uh I think the applicants are in the audience, so just wanted to let you know that this is the process we have to follow and so I understand your the difficulties you're experiencing, but um the process will have to play out based on what we're allowed to do. So, thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councelor Garnet, for the consideration on this. Councelor Duncan, please. Yeah, thank you. I I sorry I probably should have emailed staff about this earlier so they could have followed up but I was trying to figure out exactly what my question was going to be. Um but the fact that this applicant required, you know, kind of a medical request in order to get around their um strata requirements and I think that as councelor Garnett pointed out, you know, that that could leave a lot of people like in a in a problem for a long time so it no longer becomes a medical problem because they've passed away from the heat. I also would be concerned about the fact that not everybody who could end up in a problem um would know about it with enough notice. I'm thinking of people who didn't know they were going to get pregnant and then they become pregnant and now they're very susceptible to the heat. Probably not going to happen in this building, but there's many other buildings that that's going to be, you know, a problem. Or

people with pets, you know, hate to think of some, you know, dogs and hot apartments. Um, and so I'm just wondering if this is something our staff has started speaking to our kind of like emergency response personnel or PIMO about our bylaw as it stands that if we now have these heat pumps that some of you know our concerns about the noise and being able to fit on the balconies is kind of no longer as much of a problem. that whether we should be looking at making it easier for people to install these without requiring these variances. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Um through you to councelor Duncan. Staff have not uh been having discussions about this. Um it has not been raised as a concern. Um, and for the most part it is a restriction in in most municipalities in terms of placing heat pumps in what's determined front yards. So um yeah, I don't I don't foresee it as being a crucial issue for the town of Sydney um at the moment. Um, but it is something that could be looked into, but

at this time I don't feel that it is something that uh would warrant amending our our bylaw or so I'm not sure if that answers your question. It does, but but it hasn't been raised by, you know, first responders. We It has not been raised in terms of bylaws being barriers to uh installing heat pumps or other cooling mechanisms. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Fagen, did you wish to add? Um, just to add a comment there that the applicant may there may be other cooling options available to them like a portable air conditioner unit that wouldn't necess that wouldn't be in violation of the zoning bylaw. So, they may have another option. I'm not sure.

Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. We just we just don't allow members of the public to speak while we're in in deliberation. So, um, Councilman Tulle, I'm happy to move the recommendation, please. I'll move the recommendation that owners and tenants and occupation of property within 75 m, 246 ft of 98702nd Street be notified regarding development variance application number DB10396 to permit a heat pump on the balcony within the front yard of the subject property and that any written correspondence proceeded before it ded to council and time of consideration approval of variance. Second. We have it moved and seconded. Uh, anything from the movers? Just briefly, like my colleagues, I would have been happy to approve the variance this evening if we had the capacity to do so. I I think I noted in the letter I didn't pull back up that you got portable air conditioners, two of them, that's right, that are um uh helping out but using a lot of electricity and no doubt much noisier

than the new heat pumps. So, I sympathize uh with your position and thank you for your patience with the process that we're going through. I support the motion. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Novi. Um, and likewise, I I feel that a portable air conditioner is a lot more, as councilor men said, noisier and a lot more unsightly in a window than a screened heat pump sitting on the floor of a balcony. But that's the way the the the rules work. So, uh, yeah, I'm happy to move this along and hopefully, uh, hopefully the proponents can get their heat pump installed before the last heat wave of summer. Thank you, councelor O'Keefe.

Uh, thank you. I I'll support this for sure, but going back to councelor Duncan's um comments. I I'm be interested maybe next term if we're still here to investigate that further. I know that some municipalities are making it a requirement in their de development proposals that there has to be at least one room that stays below a certain temperature. So they have people have some sort of reprieve uh from when there's a a heat wave. Um I think in some municipalities it's just a standard rule I I believe but I'm not sure about uh that stratus can't prevent people from um having anyways I think there's a a bunch of things there that' be interested in in looking at to to councelor Duncan's point making it easier for people to install heat pumps rather than having to come to us to ask for a variance something for another day. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll turn to Mr. Fair Hagen, please. Sure. Thank you. Through the mayor to counselor O'Keefe, uh what you're speaking about there in terms of the requirement to have a a cooler room in the dwelling unit, that is a building code requirement for new construction. So, all new developments would have that built into the building. It's harder to retrofit an older building. Thank you. And so, we have it moved and we've had discussion. I'll call the question. All in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. And we're turning to 9B, development variance permit application number DV10397 at 10249 for Cythia Place to retroactively relax the minimum interior side setback along the west lot line to allow the deck addition. Uh we have a report and I'll turn to Mr. Hagen again, please.

Thank you. Um all right, so this is another variance application. and they're looking to retroactively allow a reduction to the interior side lot line set back which is the west lot line of this property uh from a required 2 meter setback to a 1.48 meter setback which is just over half a meter. Um there was construction found to be happening there without a permit and once the information started to come in as they worked to apply for the permit that was required a small corner of the addition that had been built was found to be within the setback area. So the applicant has provided a letter here with the application. Uh there was a deck in this location previously. So adding a structure there may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. Uh staff's recommendation is again to proceed with the ver with the radius mail out. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll turn to colleagues if there are any questions. Uh seeing none, we can proceed with staff recommendation. Council G. Thank you, mayor. I'll move that owners and tenants and occupation of property within 75 meters, that's 246 feet of 102494 Cythia Place be notified regarding development bars application number DV1000397 to retroactively reduce the minimum interior sideyard setback from 2 m to 1.48 m along the west lot line of the subject property and that any written correspondence received before the council at the time of consideration of approval of the variance. second. Second. I'll turn to the movers. Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, yeah, I mean, I I appreciate the fact that the applicant has reached out specifically to um neighbors, but specifically to the one that's most impacted, which is at 10251 uh first right to right next door to them. And uh that would be the people that be most negatively impacted by this. Um, and I I do appreciate looking at the letter of rationale. It mentioned the the previous zoning bylaw. And it it is important to note that you know the

the zoning bylaw was adopted in 2024. So this process started much after that. So that particular point is not that relevant. Um as far as the the u having the rest of the neighborhood and whoever wants to comment on it, I'm fully supportive of it. Um I do I do again have concerns based on past applications where uh permits have not been obtained when they should have been. And in this case, it seems like there was an engineer or somebody involved in the development then. So, I don't know how they didn't manage to measure to what the zoning bylaw allows. But again, this is you hire somebody and you expect they're going to do the work that you that you hire them for. So, and it's one of those things where it's really difficult to hold the owner to account for something. But, um hopefully this will be a lesson for other people out that are watching that, you know, please get your permits there. It's not government overreach. It's there for a reason. It's there to protect your neighbors and the rest of the community. So, thank you, mayor.

Thank you, councelor. Current. Yeah. Thanks. Uh, I'll just say we we get these sort of applications, you know, fairly regular regularly for variances. They're kind of typically what a variance is for that your lot is an odd shape or or something. But, um, I think also the fact that, uh, we get a lot of people who are just building on a footprint that was already built on, and so they assume that it's fine because it wouldn't have been built that way before. Um but in in Sydney a lot of buildings particularly in the older neighborhoods were built even before there was many even Sydney specific building rules. You know in the 1980s I I think my old house was measured with an elbow like it was not uh it was definitely definitely too close to the rear lot line. Um and so I think a lot of contractors and and homeowners think if it was built this way before it's it's legal. So, just we're hoping that contractors in particular will start

re-checking to make sure that the the new bylaws that there are bylaws um are are in place and um maybe save people some grief even though it doesn't really cause a problem to the surrounding neighbors. You're used to what you're used to, but it would certainly probably save homeowner grief and developer grief. Thank you, councelor. Seeing no further discussion, I'll look to call the question. Those in favor? That carries unanimous? Thank you. And so we have no mayor's report or counselor's reports this evening. We're turning to the one committee report that we have. It's come from and we're receiving the minutes from the Sanders Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee on at their June 23rd meeting.

Uh councelor O'Keefe, you are our um representative on that committee and there is a recommendation if you'd like to move that forward, please. Sure. I'll just start if I may with just a couple highlights from the meeting. Um, in regards to um there's several members of the committee that wanted to pass along their appreciation for the additional accessible viewing and accessible parking areas that uh the town provided along with peninsula celebrations for the um the fireworks evening and then the parade, additional viewing areas, additional parking also additional parking at Iroqua So all of those things were really wellreceived and they wanted me to make sure that uh council knew about that and staff knew about that and they were grateful and kudos to all uh for supporting that. Um the other thing that came up regarding Sydney was the wayfinding markings um and uh uh during public participation um that was mentioned and this is the um they're talking about the way the the lines are scored at the intersections for visually impaired people. So, one of

the individuals on the committee, his wife is blind, and they actually did a whole tour around Sydney and came up with a whole pilot, a long list of places where these are still not aligned correctly. And the committee uh thought about making a recommendation, but at staff's suggestion instead, um they're inviting engineering staff to come to the next meeting and have kind of a discussion about that. So we thought that that was a good a good first step. Um in terms of the recommendation I'll uh I'll go along with that is regarding the right fit program and the recommendation. It's a little bit different than what's in the agenda based on some input from staff. Um, so the motion is that council direct staff to collaborate with North Sanage and Central Sanage on the development of a process to identify adaptable and accessible units for sharing with the right fit program.

We have it moved second and seconded by councelor. Uh, councelor. Yeah. So the right fit program has been operating in the Vancouver area since about 2017 and what they do is they create and maintain an inventory of housing that's available and accessible for wheelchair users. Um housing is hard to find uh for a lot of people but it's especially really really difficult for people who have wheelchairs or mobility uh devices. So what next fit, a right fit does is they go out to the community, they ask people to let them know if they have have spaces or not. They have an inventory of those of those spaces and then they have an inventory of individuals who need those and then so they do a sort of a matching program.

um they also go out to the actual suite themselves and conduct uh an analysis based on a certain number of parameters that they have to ensure that is it it's accessible. So in Sydney, as you know, we have been asking developers to uh have 20% of their suites to be adaptable and uh which is great, but there's never been a way to match those up to the people who could actually do that. And so the right fit is proposing that they could take that on. Um when we discussed this at spa um staff felt that it wouldn't be uh terribly ownorous um that it could be something as simple as when developers come forward and they're doing their 20% uh adaptable units that they be asked to contact the right fit people to let them know about it. And the thing that's in it for the developers is you've got another organization out there marketing those suites for you. So they've got a whole list of people who are looking looking

for that type of accommodation. So that's an advantage to them. There's no cost. Um so the idea is that uh the three municipalities worked to kind of fine-tune some sort of process. Thank you. I'll turn to the second. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Uh the specific motion before us is just uh you know asking staff to collaborate with the three municipalities in the peninsula uh you know to look to to further this and uh come up with maybe a manner in which this uh can work uh efficiently for for staff and for the community at large. So um I support it and I do think our community likes to see initiatives where the uh three principal municipalities are working together. Council Keith re referred to that earlier with the tree canopy and that may be some foreshadowing for future agenda items with regard to cooperation on the peninsula. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, councelor. Seeing no further discussion, I'd love to call a qu Oh, counselor Duncan, please. Yeah, thank you. Uh, I'd had a note to to ask about the intersection. So, thank you to former counselor for bringing that forward. But I guess my question a question I guess to either Spack if they were going to move this or or maybe our staff um that where MOT's jurisdiction ends and they had recommendations kind of saying wayfinding ends here and it could you know once it moves off where there's going to be different standard part of that is the Lockside Trail which is CRD's jurisdiction part of it is is Sydney's and so our staff are aware we're sitting on the council you know they've heard this and they they sit on the committee Is there a mechanism for us to make sure that the CRD hears about these wayinding requirements? This is I'm I'm actually floored. This was MOT's first time ever making this kind of stuff. And it sounds to me like therefore we should really let the CRD

know about this because this is going to be happening throughout all the other jurisdictions. Do we have a way to amplify that to them? Not seeing councelor O'Keefe with any comments. Oh, one of them. I'm just kind of looking. [laughter] Well, I so so what I would say is so um the the update that we got from Miss Flet this evening that hasn't gone so spa isn't necessarily aware of what's going to be happening next so they hadn't had a chance to review it. I guess what I'm hoping is that the staff on behalf of council did send a letter to MOOT. So I'm what I'm hoping is that they now that they've gone and assessed it and that we sent a letter to them that they will respond.

You're not sorry councelor Ke we're not directly speaking to the motion. Oh I was just responding to your question. Okay. But the question was was with regards to CRD. Okay. And I guess the answer is no. SPAC isn't doing anything at this time and I was elaborating as to why. Does staff have any comment with regards to what's being undertaken in and CRD becoming aware or being made aware? Uh thank you mayor. Um I believe yeah we are off topic because this is not relevant to the motion that's being considered right now but um uh we can ensure that we connect with the CRD staff about the uh intersection issue and and make them aware of what what's happening there. Thank you.

and CRD does have a accessibility advisory committee as well with some local representation. U Thank you, councelor Duncan. I thought if I just didn't ask it now, we'd go past this report. So, we appreciate the question. Uh seeing no further discussion, uh those in favor that carries unanimous. Thank you so much. And uh next we're turning to uh the first of our four staff reports and and the first under 13A is Radio Sydney's application for an FM broadcasting license. Uh we have a report from our manager of communications and our fire chief. I'll turn to our manager of communications, Miss Judson, for an introduction, please.

Thank you very much. So this report seeks council's consideration uh of a letter of support for Radio Sydney's application to the CRTC for an FM broadcasting license. And as part of that, our radio transmitter would be installed on the top of the community safety building. Uh, Radio Sydney already shares local information and connects residents with community news and events. Expanding to the FM broadcast would further expand that reach. Um, but for us, what's especially important is that during an emergency, it would be a way of getting information out, especially if hydro or cellular service internet connection was disrupted. And it's for these reasons that staff recommends that council provide that letter of support. And you'll find in the staff report there are two maps because this transmitter that Radio Sydney would provide would have a reach between two and 5 kilometers. Although in areas where there's um uh more mountainous, it wouldn't reach the full 5k. It can give you a sense of how far that transmitter could reach. And if in future the town of Sydney wanted to invest in a stronger

radio transmitter, then that could be greatly expanded. But at this time, this proposal is looking at the transmitter that Radio Sydney currently has. Thank you. Thank you for the introduction. Are there any questions? If not, we have a recommendation. Councelor Neik, I'm happy to make the recommendation that the mayor provide a letter of support for Radio Sydney's application to the Canadian Radio Television Telecommunications Commission for an FM broadcasting license bracket CFVI 92.7 FM. Second. Moved and seconded. Alternative. Yeah. Uh, I don't really have much to add to what Miss Judson uh reported, but I think that would be a great asset for the town. Thank you, Counc.

Thank you, Mayor. And I just because I see Mr. Collins in the audience. Uh, want to signal about thank you for the uh presentation that we had previously and thank you for your continued work locally in the community in a day and age when um local media and general is disappearing across the country. I think I've mentioned this before, opening the door to misinformation and disinformation. And I think it's you've you've gone above and beyond with the emergency, but I think you already provide such great um community asset. Uh and um it's been very much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, uh Councelor Ganette. And I I was going to express some of that myself. So, uh thank you. and and um let's stay tuned for uh CFVI 92.7 sometime in sometime in the not too distant future will have that letter of pronto subject to this recommendation.

I'll call the question all in favor. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Returning to uh now 13B, which is a contract award for RFP 2026-00008, sidewalks/road improvements capital projects for 2026 uh and engineering design report. I'll turn to our director of engineering, Mr. Murphy, who's joining us online this evening. Good evening, Mr. Murphy. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can you hear me? All right. Absolutely. Great. Uh so yes, this is to request council approval for an RFP award uh RFP 2026008 for sidewalks and road improvements engineering design. And so this was posted publicly. We had 10 submissions uh which we evaluated and ended up with two very highly ranked submissions.

fortunate to have high quality submissions on this project. And uh the scope of work is for the design phase for three sidewalks and road improvement projects. Uh those being Canora Road, two segments on Ocean Avenue West and Fifth Street, Mal View to Amelia. And so the proposal is to award the design of all three projects to one engineering consulting firm. Uh however, each project would progress independently. And so the the analysis uh which is outlined recommends award to RF Biny and Associates. And the an important point is that committing to the designs for which we we do have capital budget funds already allocated for each of these projects. Uh committing to the design work is not a commitment to construct. So we know in particular for Canora Road uh that we expect that to be a a wholesome process starting with the concepts for the road layout and what features from uh rain gardens and street parking uh to a more minimal approach.

Uh so we we hope to to generate likely three concepts and then have a neighborhood engagement phase and collect feedback and then decide which concept and it may uh likely come back to council for input on which concept to move forward with based on the neighborhood engagement uh and then proceed through through detailed design. uh Ocean Avenue West. Similarly, we expect to have some concepts uh and we know that uh that we're not committed to constructing one or either or neither of the two segments east and west that are proposed at this time. But there is value in there's a lot of value in proceeding with the detailed design so that we have designs ready uh for when uh through budget deliberations that council decides it is time to build those sidewalk segments or uh many grant programs particularly federal and provincial uh look for shovel ready projects and so having some uh you know high-profile sidewalk projects ready even if we don't proceed to construction uh does uh create opportunities for a grant in the future. The fifth street

project is probably the most likely to proceed straight to construction being more more relatively straightforward and uh a neighborhood focused project. Um but yes, so we'd like to award the engineering design and then uh construction decisions would come later. Thank you very much for the introduction, Mr. Murphy. Are there any questions from colleagues? Uh I'm not seeing any. We do have a recommendation. Thank you, mayor. I'll move Sorry, you didn't acknowledge me. I should wait, I guess. I'll move that RFP 20226-00008 sidewalks road improvements capital projects 2026 engineering design be awarded to RF Bin and Associates Limited for the contract amount of $157,068 plus applicable taxes plus allowance for scope changes and addition additional subconultant fees as approved by staff.

Second take councelor Duncan as the seconder. I'll turn to the movers. Yeah, thank you mayor and thank you uh Mr. Murphy for the report and thank you for the extra questions you answered for me today. Um I think the the the rationale for staff's choice is quite strong. U you went way more in depth than I ever expected. So appreciate that very much. Um you know the this is an important step towards getting these really important infrastructure projects off the ground and and and headed in the right direction. Um particularly Canora which will be very challenging. So, it's good that we're getting ahead of this.

Um, that's a long overdue project as someone who's lived in that neighborhood for close to 30 years. So, I'm I'm I'm hopeful that um the public feedback will provide what we need to know, what the council of the day will need to know in terms of which path to take forward. So, thank you for your work. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councelor. Councelor Dunle, nothing to add. Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in favor? That carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Uh, we are turning to item 13C, which is the budget variance report for the first half of 2026. I'll turn to our manager of finance, Miss Chen. Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you very much. Uh, this variance report covers approximately the first half of 2026. The numbers in the reports reflect information available up to the date of the report, not just the six months mark. So, as a result, year-to- date actuals for some F sub functions will be over um 50%. But that doesn't necessarily indicate a problem that it's over budget. Uh for example, personnel costs should be around the 56% mark in the report. Um additionally, a lot of costs and activities aren't incurred or completed evenly throughout the year. And where things are not quite incurred or completed evenly, that's described in some of the notes in the report as well.

So, on the operating side, the year-to- date actuals are mostly in line with expectations. Right now, we're expecting some savings on the RCMP contract this year due to a credit we received from a final reconciliation of prior year costs. Actual year-end results um will largely depend on the level of officer vacancies we see for the remainder of the year. Right now, we've been seeing a decreasing trend in vacancies. That's great news for the level of service that the community receives, but it does also just come at a higher cost and it's something we monitor closely to ensure our future budgets align with the trends that we're seeing.

Um, one other thing worth noting on the operating side is that we're now uh have two quarters now with utility billing using the new sewer rates and rate structure that council approved earlier in the year. So sewer revenue to date is definitely on track with budget expectations. Um and you know these things these kind of changes we need more time and more experience in working with it to know its long-term effectiveness. But so far the uh indications are very positive that the new structure is doing what it's intended. On the capital side, uh 45 of the 99 capital projects in this year's budget are either complete or in progress, and many more um have planning underway, just haven't incurred any direct costs just yet. Summer and fall are always our uh busiest construction season for our capital projects. And by the time of the next variance report in about three months, we'll have more information on which projects will be completed this year and which ones will need to be carried forward for completion next year. So in total the

report contains 51 notes providing details on various operating and capital items. Um some of those notes cover more than one line item and we'd be happy to answer any remaining questions. Uh thank you Miss Chen for the introduction. I'll turn to colleagues if there are questions on the report. Councelor O'Keefe please. Uh thanks just a couple little things. Um so in the the last page you mentioned um there have been some areas that have faced challenges in the first year and you'll be closely monitoring those. I wonder are we experiencing any challenges with the uh the tariff environment you know in terms of increased costs for computers or equipment that or parts that engineering uses for waters or sewer or vehicles.

Have we seen any uh kind of implications of impacts of that? Mr. H, would you like to take that one? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There have been some impacts on vehicle purchases which I believe we we've identified for council um on a couple of occasions. Beyond that, nothing specifically tied to tariffs. Just um general inflation that's been accumulating over the last five years or so has not really abated to the level we had hoped. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Seeing no cancer gut. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. uh three to staff and just looking at B13 Harbor Road pump station and B14 trenchless sewer replacement for the three streets mentioned and the grant funding that was not successful. Um given where budgets are provinially and federally, do we have concerns? I mean this is kind of a large question I guess but um until financial situations better geopolitically speaking which trickle down to every other level of government do we have concerns about um our ability

to finance things with with the potential for lack of grant funding for some of our larger projects going forward? You serious? Not. I would say not really because grant programs are always out there and there's more being announced and discussed constantly, especially in relation to housing and the infrastructure to support it. It's just a matter of um every grant program is overs subscribed and we're hoping to get lucky on one out of every x number of applications. We did get a $5 million grant a few years ago. So I'm sure well I'm guessing that factors somewhat into the way they tend to dole it out um somewhat equally but even today we met about potential grant applications that we might put in for the um next intake on different programs. Great.

Thank you. I think I think it's just important for the community to realize that if somebody if somebody takes the time to read this report and I'm not sure how many people will but if they do that it's important to note that you know we are our staff are well aware and plan accordingly. So, you know, we don't we aren't reliant on the grant funding and I think it's important for the residents of the community to be aware of that. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. I'm seeing no further questions. Uh, want to thank Miss Jenna and the finance department for putting this report that comes uh to us regularly uh through the year. We very much appreciate the detail that's provided uh in both the operating and the and the capital budget.

Uh we're next turning to uh also an item for uh for information the monthly building report for the month of July. I did make reference to the monthly building report from June but that was carried forward from the last meeting. So we are seeing an updated report uh in July. Uh are there any questions or comments uh from colleagues on that report? Uh councelor Gette. Thank you mayor. The staff just noting on on the back of the first page um 2060 White Birch and 2180 Beacon that have September expiry dates. Do we have any updates on where those are in the process? Uh yes, thank you. Through the mayor, uh both of those have active building permit applications under review and both are aware that the development permits will be expiring soon.

Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, mayor. Thank you for the question. Um, seeing no others, we'll turn to the next item. And that does take us up to correspondence. And under 14A, we have CRD bylaw number 4782, Sanage Peninsula Recreation Service uh, for the District of Central Sanage Recreation Facility and the loan authorization bylaw number two, 2026. We've received and the letter is from the CRD dated July 10th is on our agenda. Uh and as well on the agenda, we have a copy of the letter from District of Central Sanche's consideration and some links to additional information uh provided by uh CRD at the on the Panorama Recreation uh website. Uh council, we have considered a proposal previously. Uh so this is coming back and with a different scope as we're aware. Um, as CRD has asked that we uh make a recommendation to either consent or not consent to adopting uh bylaw number 4782.

Uh, when the first proposal came forward, uh, council uh, chose to um to allow a period of time for public input uh before making a decision. So while uh there is the request uh for consideration of consent or not consent this evening uh council is open to consider uh options for uh further community consultation. I will leave it to colleagues wishes as to how they uh wish to move forward. Councelor Gette I'm willing to move a motion if that's all right. Mayor uh please go ahead. I'll move that we uh defer or postpone the decision on this item uh CR bylaw 4782 until the regular council meeting on September 14th. Second.

We have it moved and seconded. I'll turn to you Monday. Uh thank you, mayor. I I you know, we we allow the public to uh provide input based on the first um option of this that was brought forward and I think we should do the same again. um there has been a change and I think there are based on some of the feedback I've I've received many of the members of the community don't realize that this is a second option coming back. So I think it's just gives an extra time for people to be associated with the item and I do think it would the decision should be made with the full council and uh when councelor Duck is back. Thank you.

Uh thank you. I'll turn to the secondary. Um I'm thinking pretty much along the same lines. Uh I have received some additional information from the U building opponents. I'm not sure that it's sufficient to sway me, but I would like to see this come before a full council. Thank you. Thank you. Um I'll turn to council and councelor. [clears throat] Uh thank you, mayor. Um you know, on the point with respect to uh uh tableabling this uh giving the community time to provide uh feedback on it, um I don't think the feedback's going to change. We we've had uh feedback on this matter. So the amount is uh $3 million less, not to be exactly precise, but it's $3 million less than it was last time. I don't think the fe the feedback I don't expect it to to change. And I [clears throat] expect that during this time of year, uh as we're looking at August, um you know, that people are going to have this on their radar while they're in holiday

mode. Maybe I'm uh u maybe I'm wrong about that, but I think we're going to hear the same thing. And um I would have been happy tonight to move forward with this. However, you know, I the point regarding having a complete council here uh and being able to address it and not get, you know, maybe in a position where we've got a three-3 tie vote and then this this fails to move forward is is a concern to me. Um I supported it last time. U you know, I supported it again. Um I I can't speak to uh my support at this time simply because the motion that's before it is is to table it. So I I won't reiterate my thoughts [clears throat] on the try meal for cooperation on a project of this nature. But I I uh in the interest of I think keeping this uh alive and a topic of discussion to come before council again I'll support tableabling. Thank you.

Thank you. Just a point of uh clarification on one point. Uh, councelor, you made reference to, I think, a $3 million difference. It is the loan authorization was previously 14.2 and the loan authorization on this is 9.1. So, that is a a difference of just just over five. And that's why math was not my strong point. Just uh just for the public council, we have um uh the CRD PRC senior manager uh Steve Mikl uh in attendance. Uh, I would ask for a motion to invite Mr. Mel uh into the meeting to answer any questions that we might have. And I do have a question if we could um have that moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? That carries unanimous. Sorry. I did have councelor Keefe next on the speaking list, I believe. Sure. I I just to say um I'm in favor of the motion. Um as councelor Renul said, it's summertime. Maybe people aren't tuned in, but uh September maybe uh people will at least at least we're giving them the opportunity to weigh in. Uh they may not, but I I think at least giving the the opportunity is uh is reasonable. Thank you, Councelor Duncan, please. Thank you. I'm I'm going to vote against this motion. While I recognize having councelor Duck here would make the decision, whatever it is, end up being stronger and more final and not not run the risk of it coming back, uh I just think it's important to make the point that if we're delaying this for I think as councelor Renol said more public feedback. I don't know why. Um, I feel our society has moved into this idea that if the more people are being asked what their opinion is, that somehow is making a decision stronger and we're not thinking about but whose

opinion is being asked and what information are they using to provide their opinion. Um, because what what we see is that the people of Sydney are saying and usually they're very wealthy people. We know that who pays attention and who usually packs uh the seats when when an issue comes up are people who have they are people who already have um and have to spare and they don't want to pay more because they already have um North Sanage and Sydney already have municip have have community facilities that are being paid for by all three municipalities. Central Sanage is paying and they do not have something in their facil in their municipality. And now since our municipality feels they have and they got theirs, they don't want to have to pay for equity. And that was a big criteria here was that we're trying to increase equity. No, you can't just say the poor people will have to buy cars so they can access the community facilities. You are supposed to be able

to walk and bus. Um, these are facilities that are being built where we know First Nations who've written in needed facilities. They are already underserved. We already know this municipality is underserved relative to the other two regardless of income level. And we know that people who tend to use these facilities who cannot travel are lower income seniors with disabilities um and lower income people of all ages. This is what we are going to get is more feedback from more people who are not looking at it through the lens that the CRD or the that Panorama is having to evaluate it that governments have to evaluate it at a higher level. They're only looking at it from the perspective of do I want to pay more for somebody else to get something and people are always going to say don't know to that and they've proven that time and again. And I don't like the appearance that simply having a lot of people come and say no should be weighted very highly when the reason they are saying no is not decent. Thank you.

Uh thank you councelor Duncan. Uh seeing no other speakers I would invite uh Mr. Mel to if you could come forward. We just have a mic that you can activate there and I have a question. Um my my question and sorry I I know you just joined the meeting and thank you um timing is we've we've had a longer evening uh but there is a motion on the floor to refer uh refer this to a September meeting to allow public input. But my question is is thank you for the CRD project page. Uh the links to the uh to the various documents and an FAQ uh page and um that FEQ uh was provided printed and provided in our agenda package. Um one of the one of the topics that's uh that came up when we discussed the pro uh proposal at a previous Sydney meeting, the previous proposal at a previous Sydney meeting and also raised at the commission was um some of the history and information were related to the Green Glade um uh

facility uh PRC's Green Glade facility and its operation and I'm wondering if there is is still an opportunity that while there is a lot of information and and uh the FAQ page wasn't up when the proposal came forward last time whether it would be possible to put up information about Green Glade such as its history in in establishing in Sydney in 2006 it's some 20,000 square feet and it's high usage uh with perhaps those numbers up until June. Would that be possible to add to the FAQ? Uh sure. Thank you uh your worship and thank you for having me. My apologies for kind of rushing in here at the last moment. Uh yes, uh that would be possible. We did include in uh the FAQ, just going to try to find it here on um the second to last page. just some attendance numbers from Green Glade. So, as you mentioned, opened in uh 2006.

Uh we've had seen in 2024 an 18% increase in uh attendance at Green Glade and then in 2025 another 9.9% increase in attendance. Um pleased to say we've early we had uh first quarter quarter 1 uh 2026 participation statistics uh we had over 1500 registrations in a in a wide range of of programs uh from children's to adult programs at Green Glade and we're averaging over uh 3,700 visits per month uh to that facility which is fantastic. Thank you very much. And and you're referring to the FAQs correct for that information. Yeah, the be the second to last page about twothirds of the way down. Couple second set in uh bulleted numbers there.

Third bullet down. I've got I apologize though. I don't think the pages are numbered properly there. No, that's okay. I'm just um not seeing that in the printed pages, that information in the printed pages and I didn't access the the FAQ. I will follow up with staff after the meeting. I just I just may have miss inadvertently missed that but thank you for okay there what I'm looking at on and those three bullets um was that um document uh significant and growing program capacity challenges nearly including nearly 200,000 visits um sorry there was a reference somewhere to both uh the visits at combined the fitness at combined PRC and and Greenblade but thank you for clarifying that. Y um and uh in speaking to the motion um thank you again.

Thank you. In speaking to the motion, um I um I spoke in favor of this uh quite uh quite strongly and um but but I think there is value to uh to public input and I think um uh the commission um and uh NPRC has uh uh in this revised proposal providing more information, helpful information uh in terms of the project page, in terms of the FAQs. FAQs are always very helpful uh for the public uh information. Um, and um, I think it's it's just not a case of of whether someone says a member of the public says that yes, they support it or no, they don't support it. Is it is the rationale that they provide for their support or for uh, having concerns or not supporting. And um, I think we're as a council, we're always open to to considering the rationale that uh, that members of the public provide. So I I will support this recommendation. um the consideration of whether we have our seventh member of council that's always nice but we cannot guarantee a full

council at any given meeting. So I wouldn't uh I wouldn't make the recommendations or support the recommendation on solely that rationale but uh but do see the value of input and the project has changed significantly. It is a five million 5.1 million less being borrowed uh under this loan authorization u and there's other good information. I'll leave my comments there. Uh turn to any uh other first or second time speakers. Councelor Nova second. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question and I'm not really sure who I can address it to. Perhaps Mr. Michael or Mikl or perhaps yourself. Um and and that is if we're going to delay this or or refer it so that we can get a little bit more public input, which I think is a great idea, do we have a mechanism for ensuring that this information and this need for public input and engagement gets out to the public or is this or h how will a public find out about this?

No, thanks for the question. I I might turn to Mr. ML in that this is a CRD project and and uh in terms of them putting information out or could Mr. Mikl could you speak to what uh what PRCD might do? Uh sure thank you through the chair uh similar channels to what the the town of Sydney would have in terms of uh using our own website, our own social media channels to just to share information and ensure people are aware of where to find information. Um, other than that, we certainly could, you know, we'd be happy to host a forum or a town hall meeting if that made sense at at the Panorama Rec Center and uh uh or at Green Glade might be a better location actually. So, uh there are some opportunities to to do that to uh have staff address people directly if they have questions. It's always hard in presenting information through social media or other uh you don't always pick up on all the questions people may have.

So, uh, happy to speak to that directly if that makes some more sense. But, uh, yeah, we're certainly prepared to, uh, present information, uh, to the public and and push it out through our social media channels to make sure people are aware of where to find information. May I continue? And and is there a mechanism for gathering this feedback and then presenting it back to us in some way? Uh, thank you through the chair. There there are some mechanisms I would need to probably uh either bring some further information back just to ensure what that looks like. Um I know in the past in these kind of processes um the collection of of information of that nature has been up to the municipalities uh given that it is each of the municipal councils that are voting uh on it. Uh so I I just want to be cautious that there's no appearance of of bias in any of that collection of information or those kinds of things. So, I would want to work with our legislative services to make sure we we handled that properly.

Fair enough. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, thank you for the question. Uh, seeing no other discussion, I'll look to call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? Councelor Duncan is opposed. The motion carries. Thank you. And thank you for attending, Mr. Mel. Um, lastly on our agenda, we have uh correspondence for information. We've received eight letters of correspondence. With some of them, we have staff reply. Um uh so council has received those and they're being received by virtue of being on our agenda uh this evening. We have no notices of motion or motion to go on camera. I would look for a motion to adjourn. So move.

Second and seconded. All in favor. Uh that's carries unanimous. Thank you everyone. Have a good evening.