Transcript: Regular Council - 13 Jul 2026

Good evening everyone. Good evening. We are now at 6:00. So I would now like to call our regular council meeting to order and welcome everybody into chambers tonight. Uh I would like to begin by acknowledging that this meeting is being held on the territories of the South Nation. I'll ask our staff um councelor McMath uh is hoping to join us virtually when available. Okay. So when she does join if you could just uh flag me so then we can test her audio and all that at that time. Uh welcome everyone. For those of you here in the room today, just a few housekeeping matters. If you do have a mobile device, I just ask that you put it on to silent. If you are looking for the washrooms, they are through the door uh in front of our staff table. You'll find them there on the right hand side.

And we are in a regular meeting. So, we uh hope to get through this lengthy agenda tonight because council will need to resolve into a closed meeting after the open portion. But thank you everyone for joining with us. Ah, so on that note, council, I'll turn your attention to item 3.1 and that would be that the agenda for the July 13, 2026 regular meeting of council to be adopted as presented. Moved by councelor St. Pierre and seconded by Bettos. All in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh before I continue further though, I'm holding this piece of paper and I forgot to look at it. Um we did have news of a tragic event that occurred today. uh a Souk resident um by the name of sorry here we are uh Nicholas Dale of Souk uh was a helicopter pilot and was assisting the Colorado team in fighting a fire in the southwestern area of Colorado. it uh is called the Gold Mountain fire and unfortunately there was an accident uh that he did not survive and he leaves behind both a wife

with two children. So I just wanted to express our sincere condolences on behalf of all of us here to his family and also to recognize and thank him for his service and that very dangerous work. Okay, council turning attention to 4.1 is our minutes. So that would be that the June 22nd, 2026 regular council meeting minutes to be adopted as presented. Please moved by councelor St. Pierre and seconded by Baitman. Any questions or corrections? Seeing none, all in favor, please. And that's unanimous. Our chief administrator under item five is currently attending a meeting downstairs. She'll be joining us up here uh when that meeting concludes, but I'll ask staff is there if there is anything to report at this time.

No, we don't have anything. Thank you, our worship. Okay, the written report you'll see is included within the consent agenda. That takes us into 6.1 into our delegation section. Uh, and I would like to welcome Ian Wah and Elizabeth Lang, co-chairs of the Friends of Eagle Bluffs Forest Society, to please join us at the microphone. Thank you. Uh, yes. Yeah. I'd like to recuse myself. I live within about a 100 footsteps of the forest, so I think I'd be in a conflict of interest here. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Baitman. We will find you in the firefighters lounge and welcome you back when the delegation is concluded.

And thank you for joining us. We have 5 minutes set aside for you tonight and when you begin your presentation, we'll start the timer and we just ask that you stay within the time. Thank you. We're wondering if we could just request one to two minutes a little bit longer just to finish our presentation and uh review the motions. Sorry. Uh we'll put seven minutes on the timer then. Thank you for asking in advance. Okay. Whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mayor, and and counselors. Um, my name is Ian W, and I'm one of the co-chairs of the Friends of the Eagle Bluffs Horse Society.

Next slide, please. Oh, sorry. That's me. [laughter] One back, please. Okay, there we are. Got it. Turn down now. I am, as I, as I mentioned, I'm the co-chair of the Eagle Bluffs, Friends of Eagle Bluffs Forest Society. I'm also coming to you as as someone who has a background in protected landscapes as I worked with Alberta Parks and protected areas for over 30 years. So landscapes are what I love. I'm uh Dr. Elizabeth Lang. I'm a professor of sustainability education and I'm also the other uh co-chair. So we are a registered nonprofit society. Uh our vision is to raise awareness and educate on coastal temperate rainforests and our current mission is to permanently protect Eagle Bluffs forest which is a 32 acre parcel of rainforest on Wan Spit along the Wandafuka coastline. We have been quite humbled by the level of public support that we've been receiving. We've already in just a few months received 820 signatures on our petition largely from Souk. Uh over

2600 visits to our website, 60,000 social media views with 900 positive reactions, and we've also raised almost $60,000 in pledges. Next slide, please. Uh, can someone else change it for me? That direction back. One back. Okay. Sorry. Wow. Okay, we're getting it. And and why why are we putting in this effort? It's it really goes down to looking at where there are temperate rainforests in the planet. 1% of the planet has temperate rainforest. 6% of the planet has tropical rainforest. These are rare to begin with. And in in no in in British Columbia, this particular area that we're talking about about Eagle Bluffs, it's a ve it's a rare component of it. It's actually a dry type of rainforest. What's also unique about it is that it's a transition area. To our east, there is the coastal Douglas fur that you'll find in Victoria. to the west and to the north in Tofino you'll find the coastal western hemlock. This is an area where those two systems come together. So it has unique bio that you won't find that you will find in one place and in the

other place and you find here also. It's this wonderful zone of rich biological matter. It's also a place of deep cultural and historical significance. It's within the traditional territory of the Silk Nation. It it extends from their traditional summer village of Sciosen. And in the 1850s, John Mir's uh steamdriven sawmill was located there. In the 1920s, Captain Daylor built the Heritage House. And in the 1990s, Hollywood director Lee and Penny Thompson purchased the forest with the express intent of protecting it. And why protect it? If you go in into W and Spit, oftentimes you'll hear people talking about the wildlife and the wildlife that is there. The the place is a refuge. It's a refuge for some of the larger carnivores such as bears and and cougars, but many of the smaller animals and and right down into an amazing diversity of plants and animals that live in that location. It's also a corridor where it links the east souk coming out of East Sou going along the into W and Spit and then up into the Sou Hills. animals migrate through that area and of course spend some time in the

forest itself on the shoreline. If you go down and walk along the shoreline, you extend your view out, you'll see one of the richest kelp forests, I believe, on the coast, certainly on Vancouver Island. Extends out well over a half a mile in some locations. It's a rockfish conservation area. It's also a feeding ground for a diversity of marine life. It's truly where the rainforest meets the sea. terms of the benefits of this particular area, there are many. The benefits of the uh the environmental benefits of this particular area right down to beginning with the essentials. The essentials the air air we breathe producing the air we breathe. It also is an area where it cools the area around in surroundings also absorbs the rain water and filters that rain water. It buffers soup against the winter storms and and uh the winds that come with those. Also, the forest prevents bank and soil erosion or slope erosion. There are many human benefits as well.

The World Health Organization is recommending that there be green space for everyone within 5 to 10 minutes of their home. We know forests are restorative of mental and physical health. And wouldn't it be amazing if all the school children in Souk had a place where they could go to really experience the wonders of where they live? Protecting Eagle Blast forest also aligns with many of the district of Souk plans. So for instance, Souk's vision in the OCP is to a vibrant net zero emissions community cradled in the stunning beauty and vitality of the ocean and forest. And a key message throughout that plan is protecting our natural environment. It aligns with three of the strategic plan goals, environmental stewardship, community economic development, and community well-being. The parks and trails master plan uh whose goal is highquality parks accessible for all. One of the key findings uh in the leadup to that plan is that residents place a high importance on the natural environment.

They desire a balance between preservation and development and they want ecological integrity protected and a connected trail system. There's lots of tourism potential as well. So this could be a fourseason ambassador site for coastal temperate rainforest, a destination as part of the Wandafuka tourism corridor. There's all sorts of possibilities. There could be ecoours. There could be educational tourism. There could be a boardwalk with state-of-the-art interpretive signage that's barrierfree for strollers and wheelchairs. There could be a blufftop viewing platform overlooking the Wandafuka Strait. There could be art installations and of course yearround wildlife viewing. So, this is just a few of the um possibilities. And how do we do this? We do this through collaboration. We're we're a small group. We won't be able to do that. We're out of time.

Do you want me to proceed to the final? Yes, please. Okay. The final one is our ask. Beth, can you go there? Yeah. What we're asking for is two two components to our ask. Your support. We're not asking for financial support. We're asking for your support in principle for what we're trying to do to secure the securement of this 32 acre parcel of land which which we've called Eagle Bluffs Forest which is called Eagle Blast for the purpose of protection as a publicly accessible nature park and for its ecoourism opportunities. And our second ask is we're designing we will be inviting a number of different individuals a number of different corporations levels of government nos and others to participate in a south to participate in a round table and through that round table we will develop the pathway forward. We will develop that pathway forward. So we would ask for a representative to join us in that group.

Thank you very much and we look forward to your questions. Okay. So, at at this point, thank you. Um, any business that would emerge from this, I'd be looking to council to either move a notice of motion or a motion when we hit the new business section later and then that'll trigger the the rest of the discussion from there. Okay. Yeah, we'll do we'll look to new business or the notice of motion section. Okay. Thank you. No questions at this point then. Yeah, we hear from you and then we take that later. Yes. Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. So, that'll move us into Thank you for the delegation. It's turning off the microphone. Okay.

I'll move into our public question and comment period. So, in this case, we have two minutes uh set aside for each speaker for a total of 20 minutes. Uh when we reach the 20 minute mark, our corporate officer will let us know. We can then look to council to extend that time uh when we see if there's more speakers here. So, at this point, I would like to invite any members of the public that would like to address council forward at this time. We require your full name and please let us know which agenda item you're speaking to tonight. It's only for items on the agenda.

Hi, good evening. Uh Jeff McDonald. Um two two agenda items uh 8.5 and 8.7. Uh so for 8.5 I just want to give kudos to the LUD uh committee for recognizing uh what you're going to be presented with tonight which is flexibility on small lot ALR properties. Uh I happen to be a small lot ALR property owner and so uh it's very important that we look for as much flexibility of use uh as possible. I'm not related to this uh particular application but uh the next one is 8.7. a little bit off topic, but I'm still waiting to hear back uh about um changes to the bylaw regarding three dwelling units in on ALR properties and where it's related to this uh item is uh that we're also updating the uh short-term rental uh aspect of the bylaw. So, I'm wanting to not only sort of ask where we're at with allowing the three dwelling units, but also to verify that the use of those three dwelling units is not going to be interfered with

by the new language of the bylaw related to this so that you can use each of those three dwelling units intermingably or inter uh without interference from the bylaw. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, one more thing. Yes, if I could make a motion, which I can't. I know there would be no more spending on Thr Road until we have a gathering place. Okay, thank you. Well, if you run for council, you can move that motion. Uh, okay. Other speakers tonight, please. Hello, Ellen Lur. I'd like to speak to um 6.1. I think it's a wonderful idea that they have there, but I'm I hope that we're not going to be spending any money, but I'm glad that they're looking at creative ideas to make it make money.

Uh, I'd also like to speak to 8.5, the non-farm use application, and I understand there's no building permits for the prop uh for the housing there, but there there are other opportunities that I I can see that to be a really successful um use for for farming, which I'd have to talk about more too much. Um, but I think there needs to be discussion on that. uh uh permissive 9.2 the permissive tax exemption for catalyst. I don't think we should give any more tax exemptions especially after what we found out about um Mcola [clears throat] Housing and uh they've already did some digging and they've already had plenty of compensations in different ways and the district already has given them a lot of compensation and we can't afford the $100,000 uh of tax losses either. So I I don't think we should be doing that to be uh responsible in our spending and lack of um 10.1 I support the cash and lou Parkland dedication for 5536

and uh uh request for sponsorship and 10.3 for souk region fi society. Uh I'm the president and uh we're having a harvest festival this year and we we have a lot of costs looking after our um orchard. We have expenses there. We have water and and um equipment and lawn cutting and things like that. So this this $1,000 would just help us. It's we don't it's not a lot of money, but it's enough to help us get over so that we can make this a successful event. uh and reconsideration of through road motions. Sorry, I have to go through all this so quickly, but the 10 point that's 10.6. I think that we should be looking at alternative possibilities to alleviate the traffic. I don't think we should through road. I think that the province should be the one dealing with this issue. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, Mayor and Council. Um, Mary Dunn. Um, I want to address item 10.5 around the suit gathering place. Um, there's two motions as part of this item. One is an additional motion that is requesting that um, land on lot A be dedicated. the the remaining land on lot a be dedicated to the community plaza and the gathering place and I'm hoping that will go forward. If that does go forward then I have no problems with the change in the staff's motion to remove lot A from that initial um motion that was put forward in terms of the plebite. Um, I do have concerns about the part of the motion where it is saying that if there is a yes vote that um, if the majority of voters indicate supporting yes, the staff report back to council before boring or project commitments are considered with information on feasibility and business planning, capital and operating expenses, potential partner, etc. Um, my concern with this motion is that I would like it to say that council directs staff to

work with searchin and the community on these things. There's a lot here that would dictate how um how that gathering place would run and I think that it's imperative that search and the community have um some input on those answers. Um I think that's it. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Mickey Logan's president's searching. Thank you your worship and counselors. I wish to speak on item 10.5 which looks at two aspects of soup gathering place. Thank you for everyone who's coming out here in support of it. Much appreciated. Um through your worship, I want to offer a huge thank you to the district staff for the report on this item. It's a public document. It informs your discussion tonight, but importantly, it also is very helpful information for the public, especially the historical contacts, what's already been invested, and the excellent frequently asked questions. There are two motions to consider. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

Even as the motion recommended by staff focuses on the borrowing aspect of the plebbeite, council baitman's motion to confirm access to lot A is equally important. It's open-ended for multiple community uses. It gives a reasonable timeline for implementation. I'd like to see it much sooner, of course, and it's open to reversal if that's where future planning leads us. The community has spent so much time, money, passion, and effort on the vision for lot A. So, the housing component was a bust. But since then, several successful highdensity housing projects have been completed and or or are in development literally on the site or within just a couple of kilometers of the site.

Lot A, regardless of what anyone thinks should be there, lot A has been identified over and over again by the community as a place for the community. It's in the chet. It's in the parks and trails master plan. Let's not waste the work and the time and the money that's already been invested. Let's just get this done. So, I urge that council approves the motion on the plebbeite as recommended in the staff report. and as well it is imperative to approve the motion that is being put forward by councelor Baitman tonight. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Other speakers this evening. Hi, I'm Susan Belelfford. I live in sunny Casinos. I'd like to speak on two items. won the delegation presentation earlier and also about the gathering place. First of all about Eagle Bluff's forest. I don't know if you've looked at aerial photos of Souk recently, but you've probably noticed that there isn't a lot of actual forest left in our town.

A lot of the forest that is left is in private hands and is likely to be developed. Eagle Bluffs in 20 years would be likely the only largecale forest still functioning as a true forest. And this is a special place. I was there taking some photographs around the perimeter and I stood on the bluff and looked out over the ocean and the kelp beds and then looked in, panned in and looked into the forest into these huge trees, hemlock. Um, sorry, I I I haven't I can't remember them all. I I'm going I'm going crazy. Um, but anyway, these huge trees way up in the canopy, you can hear ravens calling and other birds and and the silence other than that is magical.

We humans need that kind of connection with nature. And right now you can say, "Oh, there's forest all around us. We don't need to worry about it." But I tell you in not very long we won't have forest all around us and we will wish that we had protected that bit of land not only for ourselves but for the animals that we share this world with. So we don't we're not asking for money, we're just asking for support. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please.

Thank you, mayor, council, uh, citizens, staff, Dave Saunders. Um, I speak before you. I'm not running for council, not running for mayor, not running for any politics. It's been rumored that I have been, consistently said I'm not. Citizens like to approach me and ask me to stand up for them when they feel their voices aren't heard. So this is a bit awkward and I'm speaking to 8.4 8.5 8.7 and 10.3 tonight in that we have councelor St. Pierre who is also the land use chair and I've offered the district information related to his businesses related to partners and with all good intentions I just feel that uh these situations have been prejudiced with respect to the advocacy related to this. So, I just caution you. Um, I've been asked to bring this forward in this form in character because a citizen didn't want to sit here and say this. So, again, um, I've offered that to your officer and I ask you to maybe to review it. It's not um, it's not trivial. It's serious. I have looked at the financial disclosures.

uh there was a corporate title search. So that's all I offer and uh with all good intentions I just feel that to protect the district and fair in the process that I needed to bring that forward. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker please.

Kevin Burgerer on behalf of the community association. Uh this is to uh the soccer club seeking help after field rentals jumped 214% July 2nd 2026. It's in regards to that. Uh on behalf of the Sou Community Association, we'd like to clarify an important point regarding our recent article about field rental fees at Fred Milan Park. The articles state that the Sue Community Association operates uh fields uh the Fred Milan Park and suggests that the association responsible for recent increase in the field rental rates. Respectfully, this is not correct. For more than 90 years, the Sue Community Association has proudly served our community as a volunteer-run nonprofit organization.

Our mission has always been to preserve and provide community spaces where residents can gather, play, celebrate, and connect. We are honored to own and and to steward community assets such as the Souk Community Hall, the Art Morris Park, the Souk River Campground, and the lands that make up Fred Mill Park. While the suit community association owns the field the Fredmill park property, we do not operate the park. The day-to-day management of Fredmill Park, including field scheduling, maintenance, rental agreements, and user fees, is carried out by the Fredmill Park Society, an independent volunteer organization. It is also important for the public to know that the S community association does not collect rental fees from the soccer club or any other minor sports organizations. In fact, each year the Sue Community Association contributes more than $10,000 to the Fred Mill Park Society to assist with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the park.

We recognize that conversations around user fees can be difficult, particularly when they affect local families. We also recognize that both Souk Soccer and the Fred Milan Park Society are led by volunteers who dedicated countless hours to providing recreation opportunities for our community. Their contributions deserve appreciation and respect. Our only purpose is in writing this is to ensure that the public understands uh the distinct roles of our organization. Questions regarding field rental rates are best described are directed to the Fred Milm Park Society while the Sou Community Association will continue to focus on preserving and supporting the community assets that have served community uh the souk for generations.

We are proud of our 90-year history and remain committed to ensuring these community assets and continue to benefit residents for many years to come. Sincerely, the board of directors, Sue Community Association. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Berger. Can you provide that to our corporate officer so that it can be circulated to council again? Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have other speakers this evening? This is the only time on tonight's agenda where members of the public can address council. So, call for a second time. Any speakers anywhere that would like to address council. Third and final time. This is it, folks?

Okay, just checking. Okay, looks like people are leaving, so I think we're good. Okay, thank you so much to everyone that presented tonight. We'll carry on into tonight's agenda. and move into item number eight which is our consent agenda. So that would be that the following items on the consent agenda be adopted by consent. 8.2 correspondence 8.3 report of the chief administrative officer. 8.4 Land use and development committee draft minutes from July the 7th. 8.57296 Frances Road ALC non-farm use application 8.6 Six, development permit with variances PLN01930, floodplane exemption PLN02032 and a.7 zoning amendment bylaw number 946 600-119 2026 Agra tourism agurism accommodation and alcohol production facility.

Would someone like to move consent? Moved by councelor St. Pierre, seconded by councelor Betos. I'll call a question. All those in favor, please. And that's unanimous. Thank you. So that moves us straight through. So all those recommendations are now endorsed as provided and into 9.1 which is our bylaw section starting with zoning amendment bylaw number 934600-114 2026. Uh yes, Councelor Pearson. Uh in the microphone. Excuse me, Chair. My technology has kicked me out and it's saying I'm not allowed in. So, can I go ask somebody in corporate over here just to check us because like for your device you've been kicked out. Oh, okay. That's not good. Says network is not working.

Okay. Uh I'll just pause here. Is anyone else having that issue with their microphone? Okay. We'll just get some technical support for you. Everyone else can load everything. Okay. No, if you want if you want to see Thank you. Does your Wi-Fi work? I had to run a hotspot off my phone, but says looks like it's coming up. It's just very slow. Okay. No, it just says nothing. Oh, well that's not useful. I'll follow along. Thank you. You're okay for now to continue? Okay. Let us know. Okay. So 9.1 is here for adoption. So, the recommended action is that council adopt zoning amendment bylaw number 9846, pardon me, 934600-114206.

It's moved by councelor St. Pierre and seconded by councelor Betos. We're on adoption. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That's unanimous. Thank you. I see that some folks are looking to exit. Is that true? Okay, why don't we just pause again so that folks can depart and then we'll thank you for attending tonight. You'll be able to watch the rest of the meeting online on our YouTube channel. Great way to spend a Monday evening. They're all saved, so you don't have to watch it live. You can watch it whenever you like. Actually, just go into YouTube and Google soup.ca. See,

my personal financial I had some weird message on that woman. It says disable. Great. Yours is working now. No, not at all. Okay. Okay. Shut up if you need help. Yeah. Okay. Others, everyone's shifted around a bit. Okay. So, we'll continue back into the meeting and go into 9.2, which is permissive tax exemption application from catalysts. I'll turn this over to staff, please. Thank you, our worship through the mayor to council and uh members of the public. The report before council concerns Catalyst's permissive tax exemption application for the project located at 21101 Sitka Court on Lord A. According to section 224 of the community charter, council has full discretion to approve or deny this application and there's no obligation to give the exemption. If council wishes to proceed, staff recommend that the exemption be limited to the below market rental housing portion of the project which is classified as residential class one.

The proposed exemption uh would be 75% in 2027, 50% in 2028, 25% in 2029, and would be fully phased out by 2030. This approach would be consistent with council's previous decision regarding below market rental housing exemptions. No permissive tax exemption is is proposed for the office, health center or other non-residential portion of the project. If council is minded to advance the bylaw, the next step would be to give first three readings to bylaw number uh 949 2026 and direct staff to provide public notice before adoption. With the uh proposed exemption, estimated property tax revenue from the project would total approximately 353,000 from 2027 to 2030 based on the construction value provided. Without the exemption, estimated tax revenue from the project would total uh approximately 447,900 over the same four-year time frame. The difference is approximately 94,900.

If the exemption is not approved, this amount would be collected from the project rather than shifted to other properties. Thank you. And um happy to answer any questions. Okay. So, I'll put the motion on the floor at first and that would be that council receive this report for information. It's moved by councelor St. Pierre and seconded by Helen. Uh, councelor St. Pierre, go ahead. You have any questions? Yes, I do. Uh, my understanding is that we don't actually have within our permissive tax exemption bylaw, uh, we've made an um, we made a decision to basically take back the exemption over a period of a number of years in order to avoid hardship for the properties that were previously given the exemption. But is that actually part of the bylaw as something we're meant to do in the future? because my understanding was that was more or less on a per case basis in that situation and it's not part of the our exemption. It's not part of our bylaw per se and not meant

necessarily to affect all other similar properties in the future. Could you confirm that or uh through the mayor to uh council? Um it's stated I believe councelor um S Pier is talking about bylaw 930. In that bylaw we granted exemption to below market housing and with a phase out uh condition by 2030 we'll fully phase out which means in 2030 we'll charge 100% of the property tax. All right. So just to confirm, yeah, we do have a bylaw that actually allows or or encourages that kind of an exemption for below market housing. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much for that. That's good. Uh and the amount of the exemption over a period of four years would be about 99,000. Do we have a sense if the proponent or the applicant actually needs such an exemption in order for the project to be viable?

Because that's not my sense, but I'd like to know. Do we know that? I believe that was the case when the previous exemption came to us. We were more or more was given the impression that without it uh we would just might not get the affordable housing component. But uh through the mayor the uh applicant states in their application that they they need this kind of exemption. Um it's hard to judge from their financial statements or the size of their organization if they need the exemption or not. Uh it's just purely based on application. Thank you very much. That's it for me for now. Councelor Haldane is a second.

Yeah, thank you. Um, in this K, I mean, I've had some issues with this project since day one, but I do know how important the the medical component is, of course, everybody in Souk needs more doctors and so on. I'm just wanting to the the public and the taxpayer to get good value for their tax dollar because I feel like it's not fair of the developer to be holding us for more and more consistently month after month here because the small medical component is being dangled as you know we're not going to get this unless you can keep giving us a little bit more. We've given them parking um um we're giving them parking relaxations. We're giving them $3 million worth of land to use for a number of years. Um the 20% below market value for for some housing is great, but that's the condition of getting the land for nothing. Otherwise, again, I've said it before, the taxpayers aren't getting anything for the land component. A a private developer would be more than happy to take on a medical center at

market rate. So, I'm going to be reluctantly supporting this because we need that medical center worse than anything on the planet. So, but just so you know, councelor Haldane, right now the motion is just to receive for information. Council would need to move a followup to do which you could do now if you like as an amendment because the only item on the floor is to receive this for information. Um, well, do can you tell me the other thing is is this going to be uh breaking ground by December or by the end of the year as they'd said? My understanding is they've applied for a building permit and they're getting re they're ramping up to go.

But one of the conditions was they'd start by the end of the year. I was just wondering if that's still a condition or not. I would need to ask staff. I'm not in those operational discussions, but through the chair through through the mayor. Um in the um application um I have asked specific information about the construction value. The applicant state in that email that they will start construction before the end of 2026. And the construction value um stated for this year is actually half half of the total value. So as far as we know their intention is to break ground this year. Yes, that's true. And they so far they only paid um application fee. They haven't paid they have not paid the building permit fee yet. They only paid the application fee $300. And and one more question then through the chair would be are they getting a reduction in their building permit fees? Uh through the chair, yes, they will.

So that's another reduction they get for helping us out with the medical center. Fair enough. Okay. Other speakers on this item. This is to receive for information. Councelor Baitman. Yeah. I I need a little clarity through you to uh to our finance director. Um you've mentioned just th So there's 80 units in this building um 80 apartments and you you are seeking um the numbers you've created tonight are for the 30% of the units at 20% below market rates. Is that correct? through the chair. I'm I'm seeking sorry not am I'm seeking I'm pro I propose if if council agree to grant uh permissive tax exemption we only exempt the uh residential class one which is all the uh residential units uh because our below market rental housing the definition as stated in the housing report is a very broad definition it include units below and at market rental rate. So um we we don't have a measurement to single out like which portion is really below market which which portion is not just we can only

grant class one residential and we don't grant for any other uh property classes. Okay. So so the numbers I'm looking at are in fact the numbers we're we're talking about tonight. Yes. Okay. All right. Um, yeah, I have comments, too, but I'll save those for uh for a little later. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to ask a clarifying question. So, right now, the motion that we have is to receive the report for information, but should council wish to debate uh granting the application, then we would need to move that like a different motion, right? And that would be the part where we give first, second, and third reading. Would that be the appropriate motion? Just so I'm following.

I would I would like through the chair would like our corporate officer to clarify that. Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you chair. Considering that the current motion is to receive for information, I would say that anything contained within the report is fair game for discussion. So if you would like to discuss the merits, then you could do that as part of deciding whether or not you want to uh simply receive for information or do anything else with it. That said, if council have clearly uh if council are of the opinion that they would like to do something different than simply receive, it would be entirely in order to move that uh different motion instead.

Okay. And then the different motion then to provide uh a particular the permissive tax exemption per our policy would then be to give first, second, and third reading. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to be clear that I understood. Okay. Fine. Okay. So any other councelor Pearson is next. Yeah. Yep. Um and thank you thank you for the report. Um so we we talked about this is the second time like a permissive tax exemptions on the low market rental. Is there not a um an easier way to determine what the full market rent is like as a percentage of the building? Is it too complicated to figure out that uh you know they've got 80 suites, 20 are below market value, so they should we should be charging full taxes on the market rental portion of it? I I asked that before and I and I can't remember what the loss um through the mayor. I think I explained this before that it's just

beyond staff's ex expertise like what is market rate like we don't really have a policy or criteria to judge what is market rate and and my question is what like because the catalyst is making the presentation right how what is the number of units that are below market rate that they're advertising through the char they have um 20%. Yeah. 20 or 30%. Yeah. So would it be easy for us to take 60? And again it it's we're talking policy and I'm asking a question that's hypothetical. Could we actually take that that tax base and tax them fully on 60% of that building? Is that something that we could do through a bylaw or through a policy through the mayor? The P permissive tax exemption is fully up to council's discretion. You can you can do basically whatever you want. As long as it's a majority vote through council, we can do whatever we want.

Yeah. Okay. And I just have one last follow-up question. So So in the in the staff report, it's depreciating 80 60 40 20 over five years. So this would kick in one year later than our previous. So they would be in 2031, they would be at full tax rate. Is that our the through through the mayor the proposal is is it phase out by 2030 is consistent with the other bylaw. It's it's the same same time all below market rental in souk all phase out in 2030. Okay. Yeah. So they would have an accelerated rate then of diminishing tax exemptions through the mayor. Yes. If you diminish quicker in a shorter period of time compared to other Yeah. housing project.

Yeah. Thank you, Councelor Boss. Yeah. Through your worship to to staff, uh I just want to make this clear. I I think it's it's pretty clear that the exemption is only on the 20% portion of the overall bill. Is that correct? Through the mayor, the proposed exemption is all the residential units because because when we It's a little different then. Yeah. when we report to um uh BC assessment we have to provide a detail uh how to exempt this project like okay the all right we can only go to class level yeah that makes a big difference thank you very much councelor Baitman did I see your hint no okay counselor safe pier um at this point in time we're here to receive for information and uh I don't actually feel comfortable personally with moving forward with providing an exemption Uh, I feel like what we need here is a clear and consistent policy that any affordable housing project can come forward to and expect to either get or not get regardless of a catalyst and regardless of, you know, a community

health center. We need developers to be able to know what they're going to get themselves into. And it should not be possible for a solid project to be broken at the whim of council because of not getting an exemption. either the project was good to go and was going to be able to go ahead without council giving an exemption or it should never have started in the first place. They that should not be happening. Uh I think that developers need to be able to understand clearly they will get an exemption or not. If we want to encourage affordable housing, I think we should consider maybe something along those lines maybe. But that's up to the rest of council as well. But I don't think that at this point in time tonight I feel like we're ready to get bang together an exemption policy. I would like to see something that actually we know is going to encourage affordable housing. So as councelor Haldane was saying, what are we getting for our

money? We're actually really encouraging affordable housing because it's proven that this type of exemption structure would do it. We don't know at this point in time whether these exemptions are actually making a difference in our affordable housing stock or not. What we do know is that if we provide exemptions to every affordable housing project, we can't afford to provide services and that's not going to work. So I'd rather not I'd like to just accept the report for information if possible. Okay. So that's what's on the floor. We do have a permissive tax exemption bylaw that was adopted earlier that outlines how the exemptions are applied. So that is in place for anyone to look at. I'm just going to clarify one more question through to staff though. um if I'm not mistaken and and I'm sorry to be confusing here but they we have already provided this exemption though right so it within the report it says on September 29 2025 oh I see we adopted

the bylaw but that wasn't specific to this particular one that was just the bylaw on how we approach or was it specific to this project through the through the mayor to council the previous permissive tax exemp exemption bell 9:30 exempt the project that applied last year. Uh at the time catalyst didn't apply because last year the uh lot a uh was owned by uh the municipality by the district of Souk is under statutory uh tax exemption. So catalyst didn't need to apply the tax levy on law a was zero. However, because catalyst had entered a long-term lease with the district, they are the um occupier of the land going forward and the BC assessment will treat catalyst as the owner. So the primary use of the uh of this quadrant of the law a is no longer municipal use. Therefore, if without uh permissive tax exemption, uh catalyst would have to pay tax.

Okay, I got it. I understand now. So, that's why um it's here for information and now it's up to council to determine after receipt of this report which way we're going to go. Okay, got it. Thank you. I'm following the ball. Councelor Baitman, we're on receipt. Okay, so I think some points good points have made here. 30% of the units that will be rented at 20% below market rates. I feel that we might be okay with giving a permissive phased permissive tax exemption. So in the the permissive tax exemption bylaw as presented tonight under section 3A there is an opportunity to specify those 30% of the units that would be rented at 20% below market rents. Um this um yeah so perhaps I should be making a motion to that effect. chair.

Uh yes, I will call what we'll do is since we have one on the floor, we'll dispense with that first and then I'll turn to you to move the other part. So if there's anything further on receipt, I'll call the question all those in favor of receipt. That's unanimous. Thank you. I'll turn to councelor Baitman to move a subsequent motion. Okay. Well, how do I do this? Uh I I don't have the language. I can't do it in the moment. I'll read it out. I'm just finding it here. Just bear with me here. Uh, okay. It would be then that council that council give first, second, and third readings to permissive tax exemption bylaw number 9492026 and that council direct staff to give notice of the proposed bylaw in accordance with section 227 of the community charter prior to council considering adoption on the screen.

That's the motion that is directly out of the report. Okay. So, we need to specify. So, you would need to move that and you can speak to it when there's a seconder. Well, I haven't amended the the permissive tax exemption bylaw to indicate 30% of the units. Okay. So, then that would be the part you need to do. Yeah. So, let's how do we do that? Mr. Lowis, thank you. through her worship. Uh, oh, I wish maybe a second. Can we send this to Miss Lou instead? Um, so the bylaw itself um was uh proposed as an attachment. So um it would be three read first, second and third readings to permissive tax exemption bylaw 949 2026 and then amending whichever section it is that you're seeking. Section 3A which says notwithstanding any other provision of the spy law, permissive tax exemptions granted to the property classified as below market rental housing shall be phased out by 2030. So I believe it was a percentage of that [snorts] that you were looking to insert.

Yeah, the microphone then. So in the second line, granted to the 30% of the units that will be rented at 20% below market rent within the property. So let us just put that on the screen for you. If my Wi-Fi worked, I'd send you. Okay, we'll just wait for staff to have that on the screen and then we'll look for a seconder so we we're all clear on what is being moved and seconded.

Yeah, that seems to work. Okay. Uh maybe just for clarity since I read out the one motion and that wasn't fully what councelor Baitman was moving, can you please read that out? Starting with that council. So that council receive Oh no, we've done that. That council give first, second, and third readings to permissive tax exemption bylaw number 949 2026 is amended by altering section 31 to read, quote, notwithstanding any other provision of this bylaw, the permissive tax exemptions granted to the 30% of the property classified as below market rental housing shall be phased out by 2030. Okay. and that council direct staff to give notice proposed bylaw in accordance with section 227 of the community charter prior to council considering adoption.

Okay. Just I see I just see our staff raise their hand. Yep. Yeah. Through the uh mayor, may I make a revision to the uh motion? Can we read this way? Um 30% 30% of residential class one. Okay. Yeah. Of the project. So 30% of class one of the property of the rental. Okay. Of 30% of the residential class one of the property. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Councelor Baitman and seconded by councelor Btos. Okay. Go ahead. Councelor Baitman as the mover. I'll just motivate on the grounds of a few points. Uh I mean this is a fantastic addition to the souk landscape. We know it's been desired for a long time. our uh expanded healthcare facilities, below market rental housing built through BC builds, a very uh rich and complex process that's unfolded over a couple of years to get us to this point in time. Um you know, I think it's I was very torn when we we passed that permissive tax exemption policy. We we are uh phasing

out um uh these exemptions on a truly affordable housing in Souk and we know that that's a need. My my fear when we passed that was that we're sending a message to the nonprofit community that Souk is not necessarily open for business for um below market rental housing. This seems to be in this situation. We now have this 5-year phase out and that's fine. Um this this is signaling to to that a helping the uh catalyst get this project out of the ground which is critical. it will help those uh individuals who are renting those um 24 units I think is 30% of 80 and um yeah it's sending a message that um not for profofit affordable housing will be supported here in souk for 5 years at least.

Okay. Thank you as a secondary councelor Betos. Yeah, I'm I'm happy to to learn that uh we're only giving it on the 30% which is uh affordable housing. And I I think in fairness uh you say we looked hard and long at this uh for some of the other organizations in town that have had tax exemption for years and all a sudden hit them with a you know 100% tax increase. It's it would be totally unfair. So I'm happy with that that 30%. Uh I just uh just as a side note when we were dealing with the Drenin buildings the original tax bill would have been $231 $231,000 and then the province came in and reassessed it and the most we can get out of them is uh 86 now. So u I'm concerned about uh these uh buildings going in and we're having to pay for pay for police officers uh 247 uh costing us a great deal of money. I heard the figure 270 something thousand per police officer. So unfortunately uh the people living in this this housing will also

need police fire and all those things and we have to find a way to pay for it. Unfortunately that's just the way it is uh with our tax system. So I'm happy to uh vote for this uh amendment. Okay. Thank you. Other speakers on the motion? Councelor St. Pierre. Uh, I will support the motion with the 30%, but I do think that we need a consistent treatment of all of these properties. Uh, I don't know that our taxpayers can actually afford to keep on providing these exemptions, especially on much larger projects. If you have a project with 500 units and they're all affordable, they all qualify for this.

That's a huge amount. That's a lot of services that we don't have any income for. and it's it's not something that our residential tax base, which is where all this money is coming from at the end of the day, can really afford. So, I think we have to balance a lot of things. Um, but what I would really like to see is if this is what we're doing now, this continues to be what we do with similar projects and we don't just make it up as we go along. So, thank you. Okay, that'll be a great discussion for the next council. Other members of council wish to speak? Go ahead, councelor Pearson. Yes, thank you. And um I'm happy. I'm not happy overall, but no, I should say I am generally always happy. Um I'm not I'm happy I'm happy that um the tax exemption is being directed at the affordable housing for another five years because I think it's, you know, it it's as councelor Baitman said earlier, there's there's certain parts of being in society that we that we have to have a leg up. What I'm not

happy about is what councelor Haldane touched on earlier is that we desperately need this medical center and it's been in the works and um uh our mayor has worked tirelessly on this file for I'm going to say close to a decade now. And yeah, and um um it just seems like the goalpost just keeps getting slid a little further away all the time. And I'm happy to hear that it's going to be here by December 31st. It's going to be actual reality. So, I mean, I can support this, but um again, it's I have a two sides to this. You know, let let's get this medical center going. We still haven't got, you know, it's it's interesting because Catalyst also wants full market rent for that 5,000 square feet that's ours. You know, there's another piece of this that just doesn't sit well with me sometimes. But anyway, that's my opinion. I will support this permissive tax exception. Councelor Helding.

Yes, thank you. I mean, I'll reiterate my complaints of the stuff because I believe Catalyst has gotten the deal of a century here anyway. And and yes, they're called a nonprofit group, but realistically, all the people that run these nonprofit groups get paid handsomely for doing what they do. So, all the money that they get from all these for market rents and free properties and tax exemptions goes towards their boards and the people that run the organization. So, they do quite well. Um, the other thing is if you look at the provincial average, they say the average family in in BC makes $68,000 per year per household. So, and with that being average, they say one-third of that income should be for housing.

So, that puts you at around $1,900 per month. That's the average family. So, who decides what's for market rent and who decides what's below market rent? So is it do we use those terms or is there anything that should be written into this that decides that market rent is based on what the lowest um price that people get paid in wages every year like a you know I mean is it do we base it on $1850 an hour times two people and then divide that up that's going to be the issue here in the end is what's going to decide for market is it going to be catalyst that says yeah it's $5,000 a month for the real stuff and 4,000 for the for the less expensive That's still not reasonable for somebody. But we don't have any control over that if we just pass it based on this. Again, I get it. We need this medical center more than we need anything on the planet. But what do we

give for that? What how much does the taxpayer have to eat and have to uh pay out of their own pockets to keep subsidizing this stuff all the time? So, that's where I have the issue. We have organizations looking for money time and time and time again, and we have to come up with this money from somewhere. So, somebody's going to have to pay full pop at some point, I'd hope. Anyway, anyhow, um again, I'll reluctantly support it based on the fact that the medical center is the carrot that's being dangled here for us, and I'd like to see that happen. Um I'm hoping that there can be some negotiation about what's deciding market rent at some point, and maybe um some of these numbers can play into it. Thank you.

Okay, I'll make some comments. Um, I am in support of this. Uh, well, I'm excited to see it here. Uh, it's a step that the project is moving along and it wasn't a uh a letter to receive that says we've canled or are unable to proceed. This is actually moving. So, that is exciting. Uh, I appreciate the cost impact on our community and the challenge around affordability and all of that. Uh I also recognize that people in our community are living in unsafe situations and they need to be in safe secure housing uh of which this will provide. Um I agree with councelor Baitman. I reluctantly supported um the phase in because I think we need to be open that people do need access to below market housing and now there are yes you have it but it's a phased in approach at the will of council. So I totally agree and and and with what and echo what councelor Baitman has said uh around the

province you hear of many uh medical services or health services that are stalling or fading out or on hold and the ones that are rolling along are where the municipalities are actually hiring the doctors themselves and the nurses and are running all of that HR and taking on all of that risk. Um the difference here in Souk is that we do not have a medical clinic that we can buy and operate. There is none built. So a building must come out of the ground and that has been the challenges that we're hearing. Uh so that would be another approach is to take on all of that work that others are doing and that would be another impact because we would need to bring in the the the related staff to actually do that and but we still don't have a building. So, it's one thing to have a a team of of medical professions and then we have nowhere for them to operate out of that. We have to pull it out of the

ground. When this was entertained years ago, there was no private entities stepping up. Our staff looked, we ran an RAF BOI or whatever the acronym of the day was with no response whatsoever. We reached out to different developers and the performer failed for them and they did not advance it. So that is where the partnership with BC builds came along and allowed us to uh move ahead and the complexity is adding different uses and we were sort of told if you did all housing it would be different if you just did one or the other but we're combining uses. This is the same challenge that searching has had with the gather the gathering place is putting two uses together. separately.

We may have had a better shot together, they fail. And this is one where we're combining different elements and it's actually rolling ahead. So, I take this at a time to celebrate. Yes, I will be very happy when it actually breaks ground. It may not be me at that particular ceremony, but I will wish whoever it is around the table the very best. Thank our staff for your time and attention. They've been working on this diligently for months, as has uh staff from the province. um from various ministries and it's been a a real team approach to advance health care here in souk. Uh I hear the pain of pain for this but it's worse also to sit in emergency for 11 hours only to be turned that away come back another day and take all that time off work and try to go back the next day day after day until you're actually seen. So if you've been in that situation I'm sure many of you are. It's incredibly frustrating and challenging, but here hopefully we'll have something close to home that uh

folks will be able to access and will be able to carry on on their date. So on that, I know councelor Mcmath has joined the meeting. Yes, you wish it. There were two things I wanted to flag. Firstly, councelor Mcmath has joined the meeting and secondly um Miss Lou has proposed a minor alteration to the wording of the amendment. I don't think it uh or the motion. I don't think it changes the meaning at all. It's simply ensuring that the bylaw is uh properly worded. So it doesn't need a formal amendment or anything. But before the vote took place, I wanted to flag your attention that the uh screen is now slightly different. Uh stating altering section 3A to read, notwithstanding any other provision of this bylaw, the permissive tax exemptions granted to the 30% of the residential class one of the property shall be phased out by 2030.

Okay. Thank you for cad catch. Um councelor McMath has joined the meeting. Would you like to speak on the motion? I was just about to call the question. No, go ahead and call the question. Thank you for joining us tonight. Uh, all those in favor, please. Oh, sorry. There's a for record keeping uh purpose. I would like to keep the record straight that um the um um health center portion may potentially qualify for a statutory exemption granted by the province under the health authorities act. However, it's up to catalyst to apply and to meet all the requirements. Uh staff have urged catalyst to get hold uh with the province and they did today. Actually um the uh ministry of health already uh send uh ministry of health already uh send an email to a catalyst to those two party communicate to work on the statutory tax exemption on the health center portion. Okay. Well that's um out of our hands. That's exactly right.

Yeah. But I will also uh say that's a very good signal that this is rolling ahead. So that's exciting. So I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh councelor Mcmath when this as you know from being online the screen share I can't see you. So if you are if you do wish to uh speak in opposition or have raised your hand and I don't see you please just verbalize and let me know. Absolutely. Thank you joining us. Uh okay item 10 10.1 cash in le of parkland dedication for 5653 Souk Road. I'll turn this over to staff please.

Yeah thank you. Uh this is related to a five lot subdivision of a 1.29 hector property at 5653 Souk Road. This is the same property that was reszoned under item 9.2 of tonight's agenda. Um section 510 of the local government act requires 5% parkland dedication or equivalent cash and loop payment um where three additional lots are being created. So based on the appraised value of the property um this report recommends that the methodology and valuation of the appraisal is reviewed by the director of finance and approving officer and if satisfied that staff can accept the payment without returning to council which has happened in the past. Um that is it for information.

Okay. So can I I'll just ask our corporate officer can all these motions be read together? Uh yes your worship if council is so minded you can read all of them together or you can break them apart if people wish to vote independently on the sections. Okay. So, I'm going to read all of them together and then if council wishes, any council member wishes to sever, I'll entertain that at the time. And that would be that council accept cash in lie of 5% parkland dedication pursuant to section 510 of the local government act for the proposed five lot subdivision at 5653 Souk Road and that the value of the land be established by an appraisal prepared by a qualified professional based on the market value of the land at the time of preliminary layout assessment issuance in accordance with section 510 of the local government act. and that the appraisal be reviewed by the director of finance and the approving officer and where both are satisfied with the appraisal methodology

and resulting valuation. The cash inlue payment may be accepted without further council consideration and that where concerns arise regarding the appraisal methodology or resulting valuation the matter be referred back to council. It's moved by councelor St. Pierre, seconded by Pearson and on the motion councelor St. Pierre. Uh the first thing I'd like to do is just thank staff for the uh additional information from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs because that provided a great deal of clarity on this particular report and I'm sure that members of the public learn more than they ever wanted to know on the subject and were able to follow what was going on. So thank you so much for that. Um, I also appreciate the efforts made to actually, you know, given that we have an election coming up, uh, put this entirely in the hands of staff so that the developer can actually move forward without having to come back to council in case there's any sort of issues. If there's major issues, of course, it will have to come back, but this does give, uh, the process the ability to move forward without delay. So, uh, thanks

for the good work, Councelor Pearson. No, I um this guide actually uh gives a lot of clarity um for cash aloo. So very good. Thank you. Anything from anyone else? Councelor Helane. Yes. So just through the chair I guess this so this 5% park dedication could it be used for a property purchase of another park such as Eagles Club? Yeah. Through the mayor. Yeah, that's exactly what it would be tagged for. It would be acquisition of future parkland. Okay. And then that would only by council the day where that money would go or is that a staff thing? I imagine it would be a a council decision based on staff policy but it would come to this table. Okay. Great. Thank you. But it would only be for parkland.

Yeah. Whatever it comes out of. Okay. Yep. Anything from anyone else? Call a question then. All in favor? None opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you. 10.2 two temporary director or pardon me temporary appointment of deputy corporate officer Mr. Lewis. Uh thank you worship. This is just a note that um sadly we are currently operating without a deputy corporate officer and deputy chief election officer. We are working through the recruitment process to fill those roles but uh whatever happens we certainly will not have anyone in place for the next several weeks. And uh so this is just asking council to formally appoint Miss Gray as my deputy for both of those positions so that in case anything horrific happens uh uh we the council will the municipality will still have the operate the ability to operate in all functions as she can sign in my absence on anything any matter related to those items. Okay. We wish you good health.

We might not normally do this not for the election. Okay. Uh this would be that the appointments of Nancy Owen as deputy corporate officer of the district of Souk and deputy chief election officer for the 2026 local government general election be rescended and that Rachel Gray be appointed as deputy corporate officer of the district of Souk and deputy chief election officer for the 2026 local government general election. Moved by councelor Baitman. Seconded by councelor St. Pierre. Any comments councelor Baitman? No, just that uh Ms. Gray has routinely stepped into positions of this kind and held the fort well until uh the next professional enters the ranks. Thank you, Councelor St. Pierre. Anyone else?

Call the question. All in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. Next up is request for sponsorship Souk Region Fucci Society, the Souk Harvest Festival. We have a report here. Was staff going to add anything further than what's in the report provided? Nope. I'll just uh read the recommendation then that council approved the sponsorship request from Souk Region Food Cheese Society for Souk Harvest Festival 2026 in the amount of $1,000. Moved by councelor Betos, seconded by Haldane. Go ahead, councelor Betos. Yeah, I uh I think it's a worthwhile uh endeavor and $1,000 uh as uh Miss Lew says is is not a tremendous amount of money. I know it's still taxpayers money, but I think it's it's the essence of our community to have these these events go on and uh that's a fairly big one. So, I'm in full support of $1,000. Councelor Heling. Yes. Yeah, I'm in full support of this.

the um the food chief supports food banks and whatnot and help out the community. So, I'm uh 100% behind it. Thank you. Okay. Any comments, councelor Baitman? Yeah, I'm 100% in support of this. I I particularly appreciate the fact that uh Fucci delivered its financial statements as part of this sponsorship application. I think that is the best practice for all community groups coming forward um to just show show us show us the money on on these uh these statements and that's um yeah and I'm a big fan of Apple Fest. I bought a pie from made by Ellen Lures um and I think I also bought one from Alita Pierce. So uh it's a wonderful pie auction. It's one of the great souk events and I think it attracts locals and out oftowners as well. Councelor St. Pierre.

Uh I will also support uh I do think that I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in the future when perhaps we have uh a group together with the MRDT and all of these various functions the festivals can get really organized and uh robust support without necessarily having to come begging to council which I think would be fantastic for them and us. Uh but this is a great event. Uh it does draw a lot of people from Victoria, Victoria area and all the rest. It's It's really amazing. So, well done. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Pearson. Yeah, I'm 100% behind this as well. It's, you know, it defines who your community is. Little events and little celebrations and things like that are really about real people doing real things and that's what we're all about in Sou. So, great idea.

Okay, I'll add my support to this. Um, I don't have the date in here, so if anyone is in the room that can forward me the actual date of the event, uh, I do look forward to it as well. I just, um, want to mark it into my calendar. I do remember the pie auction and, uh, losing my bidding. Got in a bidding war with the late Premier Han and he got the pie, but it brought in well over $100, so that was on him at the time. Okay, call a question. All in favor, and that's unanimous. Thank you. 10.4. highways maintenance contract renewal. Uh go ahead over to staff.

You worship. This contract came into being in 2024. It is essentially uh a contractor we maintained for working on linear surface projects such as roads, sidewalks, and drainage. Uh that original contract had an extension period that is coming up at this time and we're looking to council to extend that contract. Okay. Thank you. I'll put the recommendation on the floor and that is that council extend the highway maintenance contract with Victoria Contracting and Municipal Maintenance Corp to September 30th, 2028. Moved by councelor St. Pierre. Seconded by Bettos. Would you like to speak? No. Bettos. Anything? Anything from anyone else? Councelor Baitman, I just had a had one question and this relates to that the contract signed in October 2024. So this is on page 403. And the contract price is the sum of $587,000 payable to the district by the contractor payable by the district to the contractor. Now, these these annual incremental increases are CPI for Greater Victoria.

Yes, I believe that is correct as the staff report states. And um yet the fee from October 1st, 2024 to 2025 jumped uh from 587 to 625. That's a $38,000 increase, which is about a 7% increase, which is higher than the CPI. So I maybe I'm just in the weeds a bit bit too deeply here. Um yeah I'm just curious because that is that CPI through you to Mr. Miller that that is the the [snorts] benchmark for advancing the contract. Would that also be due to the addition of new infrastructure? But I'll uh I'll ask our staff to answer. Thank you. Thank you your worship. That would be part of the reason why the contract also increased. As we add extra infrastructure into the system, they do have to do additional work. So, it's the CPI plus whatever infrastructure we add.

Okay. Councelor Helding. Yeah, thank you. Um, I do a number of things with this contract. Um basically because even just as a regular citizen of Sou and I drive around with construction business and stuff but um there seems to be a lot of issues with our roads. I mean we have mowing that doesn't happen. We have brushing that doesn't happen. Um we have ditches and water course maintenance that's an issue. We have plenty of patches and holes in our roads that don't seem to get regularly looked at. And it was funny because I was looking through the whole contract and it talks about potholes and travel lanes and it says 24 hours on major collector roads they will if you phone in and you complain they'll be there within 24 hours to fix any potholes or issues on travel lanes in the major roads. Any other roads they'll be there within 48 hours. And I know I've driven on Otter Point for a number of years now and that doesn't happen within weeks let alone 48 hours and and

days. And a lot of people in suit call during those times when they're running through these potholes and they have issues with the fact that nothing seems to be getting done. I don't have an issue with with giving these guys the contract and stuff, but I think we need more oversight on what we're getting for this dollar. If there's an increase in the number of roads that they have to look after, and they're going to charge us another 38,000. They need to do the work on the roads that are already being paid for. I would hope this cold patch method that they use quite often. And I've talked to some other highways guys who live in Souk, but they work in other highway places say that's just a bad way of doing any kind of a patch at all. It has to be a hot patch method. And again, once you get on council, people phone you up and they say, "I'm an expert in this because I work in this other yard here and here. Why are these guys

getting away with this and doing this stuff?" The other big issue, and probably our biggest one in general, especially during our heavy rains, is that the ditches and culverts plug up regularly. And this last year alone, it's cost literally millions of dollars in damages that we're stuck mitigating now. And I would think that maybe at some point here, an inspection process has to be done on a regular level. And and more often, the one that happened down just off of Woodlands Road there on Lifewood there. I mean, that it came down the trailer park. It came across the road cuz the all the ditches were plugged up or culverts and it went right across the road and of course took out part of the the main road there. It happened down on charters once upon a time as well and it's happened at the bottom um just past the Royal Bank down at the bottom of that hill. So, if we're going to renew this, we need to sit down

with these guys and come up with a better plan and a better system or we have to find somebody else willing to do the work that needs to be done around the town. And I know you're brand new here through the chair or whatever, but but if you understand what the public is saying and asking all the time, maybe we just need to be a little bit more on top of it. and I'll support these guys with the obviously the the oversight component I'm hoping happens with when we're talking to them about them getting the extension. So, anyhow, that's all I have to say about that. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. That's noted. Thank you for that feedback, Councelor Pearson. Yeah. Um and you know, it's it's time to renew, but it it looks like and and councelor Haldane is talking is in the schedule that was on that u in the page. I would I had questions around the 24 hours 72 hours as well and I'm glad that councelor Haldane identified it. Um and I didn't see where we have an inventory of high-risk areas. Um and Blewood comes to mind. So is there a way of us to to catalog and and have an inventory where where things have to be sort of preventative as opposed to reactive you through the counselor that's called asset management and unfortunately for drainage as an example that's a very labor intense process. So the staff within engineering are carrying out inspections as best they can with the one person we have to do it. So trying to establish where the criter uh critical areas are is challenging at the best of times. But when you have limited uh personnel to do it and also the other thing that happens

with drainage as again as an example it will change from year to year because we don't know what is happening upstream outside of our own borders that could bring log material in. We could have had a tra a tree fail the day before the storm happens. So, it is something we kind we keep an eye on uh as we are traveling throughout the district and we do have Victoria Contracting also looking for these things. Um and so we can coordinate a response before it turns into a disaster. And and and thank you for that. and that and that I would hope um that's there uh the the Blewood one um the the people whose yard got flooded out said that they phoned and again you know they mentioned they phoned the district on several occasions and said something bad's happening here and of course we were slow to react and it says says 24 hours here but again again again that's hearsay after the fact it would be it just feels to me that we need the preventative piece there was a hole in D4 road that it

seemed that it sat with a hole in the road and then when buses couldn't turn around there for school reasons a couple phone calls to the to the district after the fact a steel plate got put over that which you know maybe that would have helped if we got a steel plate like earlier on in the process that just couple of comments that happened throughout this year not not criticisms just that's noted this is an extension to an existing contract, but uh the other pieces staff can take away and work on and and uh go from there. Okay, I will call the question. Anything? Okay, go ahead, Councelor St. Pierre. Uh just a very quick comment question.

Uh I was wondering how often street sweeping actually happens uh for spec loose gravel on on on the uh sides of the roads. You worship through the counselor. I wish I could answer you right off the top of my head, but I haven't reviewed the contract that extensively that I can answer it right now. I can get back to you with an answer at uh later this week. Appreciate that. Thanks. Okay, that'll come back. Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor, please. Any oppose? That's unanimous. Thank you. Next up is 10.5. Non-binding opinion plebite suit gathering place intergenerational center. I'll turn this to staff, please, if there's a report. Welcome, Miss Greg.

Yes, thank you. Uh, apologies. I'm just getting up to speed here. Um, so no, I don't have a PowerPoint to go along with this. This is just a report providing some information um to council on a potential uh plebite question on the uh ballot. So, I believe has been stated before about plebite questions, there is additional time. If council feels uh not ready to make a decision tonight, we we can obviously defer that. Just receive this report for information and request us come back with uh additional information. Um so at this time uh this is just in response to um the various motions passed by council and I believe there's also and I'm not quite sure procedurally then there's a notice of motion that councelor uh Baitman has as well that is tied to this. Um, so I will probably I know this is a uh a longstanding ongoing issue. So I will defer to council for what your questions are because we could branch off in many different areas I believe I think on this subject matter. Um so I'll defer to

council if there's any questions. Uh myself and staff are here to respond. Okay. I think what I'll do to open up the dialogue here is just to put a motion forward that council receive the report for information. moved by councelor St. Pierre and seconded by Helen. Okay. So this would then allow you to answer or ask any questions on this. Gives us a bit of structure and then following that we can move through what is in the recommendation uh portion that we have within the report. And on an I technical perspective my screen just went out. Does anyone else have their screen out or are they on?

Everyone here is out. Okay. Um, this is a great day of technology. Um, I might have just bear with me. I might have kicked or something. Everyone's out. I don't know where the connection is, but there's cords and sometimes I might have bumped something. I'll go to you in just a minute just so we can see that.

Perhaps just while we're we're at 7:30. So maybe what I'll do just while we're waiting to get this is we will take a 10-minute recess and then we can pick it up from there. 10 because there's going to be a lineup otherwise 10 minutes. Um, councelor McMath will be back in about 10 minutes at 7:42. Thank you. Sounds good.

this whole thing work. So tying tying somebody's hands or whatever makes it more difficult for sure. So thank you councelor Betos then Pearson. Uh yeah uh thank you your worship uh to our financial people here. Um some fairly recently I thought the province uh gave the district uh ability to borrow a certain number of millions. I heard it was 15. I'm not sure what it is. Uh without you know just on council making that decision. Can is am I right on that? I just I I read it. I think it was in the paper but uh not not all was right in the paper. So maybe uh our financial person could answer.

through the through the mayor. Just let me explain the um the uh borrowing capacity is uh the the province approved at 25% of our revenue as the maximum to as the annual like after you you take a debt you have to pay principal and interest. So the annual payments of principal and interest cannot exceed your annual 25% of our annual revenue. That part the legislation has no change and we have we have a lot of room to take on a debt because the sewer debt will be paid off October this year and we only have a couple of uh equipment loans on the fair tracks. We we're almost uh debtree. We will have the capacity. Well, that in itself is good news. So, thank you.

So, I suppose the question is is how much can council authorize uh staff to borrow without going to a referendum or AAP? Like, is there not a way to borrow? Because when we when the lot A was acquired, that that was not done through a referendum, right? there is if you know sometimes we or even for the fire trucks we borrow without going through that process. So how much are like what is do we know a dollar figure bigger we can borrow without going that way? Uh your worship I'm not sure if Miss Lou can add more in terms of the actual finances but in terms of the borrowing authorization um the issue isn't so much the amount that we're allowed to borrow as it is the time period over which we can borrow. So if council are looking to take on a debt that would take more than 5 years to repay then we're required to uh obtain the ascent of the electors. So as long as it's within our borrowing capacity if we're borrowing from say 1

day to 4 year 4 years and 364 days then we could do that without getting electro ascent. However even if it is a smaller amount which is being borrowed over a period of 6 years then we would be required to get electro ascent. Okay I understand. So if we were to borrow 5 million over five years, it's a million. So it' be a 10% tax increase every year. Okay, I understand. But that's an option for council to consider should they wish. Okay, understood. Uh speaking order, I had councelor Pearson next, I believe. Yep. Yeah. Um I think I think this is a good this is a good question to uh for the electorate to get out. It hopefully it'll encourage people to get out and vote. Um, I think we have to make sure that somehow we bold the words and I've got italics wrong. Up to I think that that's I don't know how we can do that in the in the plebite. Up to is in some kind of bold letters. Doesn't mean that we're borrowing 5 million. I

think I think human nature is a borrowing 5 million. So up to is kind of my request for it. maximum of any any any indicator that's in the wording. Um because I think people's eyes will go right to the 5 million. It's just an opinion. I don't know. I support this uh this going ahead. Um but I I think that there's people who are minding the minding the taxes and they're going to see the 5 million. So we can do it for less. It' be it'll be great, which I believe we can. Okay. I'll ask staff is there when this is actually on the ballot, what ability do you have to bold text or is it just plain text as it is?

uh your worship. I'm afraid to say in all of my dealings with the uh company I I have a contract for the election machines, I did not occur to me to ask them what kind of formatting was possible as I was just anticipating names, punctuation, etc. Um so I'm afraid that's not something I'm in a position to answer at this point. Okay, that's fine. I think a lot of it will be um there obviously the SUR region community health initiative. This is an important event. We'll be uh doing communications around this. Every candidate is in support. We'll likely be sharing this. So hopefully that'll help uh indicate uh as best as we can. And uh we'll just see what is available when that comes forward. Councelor Mcmath has a question and then I'll go to councelor Baitman. Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay, great. just on the the question itself. Um I I where do I start? Um so the gathering place, does every souk resident know what that means? I don't I don't think they do. Um so I just have some questions about the public education um including how this works. And so educating voters as they come in, if it's their first time uh discovering this, how are we educating them either before they get there or when they're in the box how this plebbeite works? And then should this get approved and we advance, what happens and how are we managing if the project is over $5 million? Um because that's not something we've really touched on either. So, if the plebbeite, if the goal of the plebbeite is to understand community wishes, I think that $5 million amount on there is is going to be a bit of a disservice because if someone goes in, that's the first thing they're going to see. Um, I think most people would assume that they're locked in for that $5 million. Um, and that I that will affect how people vote. So just

education around that um for the public um and also education around the gathering place itself um because I don't think I know we all are all very aware of what it is and what it means um but to many residents who are busy with like their family, their children, their work, their just their day-to-day lives, I don't I don't think a lot of the community knows what that is. So, um I think we we could finesse the way that the question is written and perhaps um have it more in layman's terms. Do you support um council focusing on the development of this uh community space and then underneath it perhaps something that is up to $5 million with the with a catch on there that says that still would come back to council for discussion. so they understand that they're not locked into this um potential huge tax increase.

That that's a very valid perspective, Councelor Mcmath. Um when you're in it all the time, it makes complete sense, but uh no, I appreciate you raising that. Um and then in terms of you had a question around like educating the the electorate at large and where does that fall and who does that fall upon? So I guess I'll ask staff like what role do we have in showcasing or answering what that is or would we be looking to search and to do that the s region community health network? Yes sir. Uh your worship in terms of so it would be important that the district be neutral on the presentation of this question. So we would have a role to play in education uh and certainly not to do any kind of campaigning for or against. Um but I think we would expect the particip uh the uh proponents that are actually much more interested in uh the development would be the ones with a moral responsibility to do the education to voters on why they felt that they people should vote one way or the other.

Okay. And I think part of it may be answered in the intergenerational center but again it then depends on uh how much uh background the voter at large has had to do into what that is. Um if someone just left it blank that's an option too that may happen like leaving Okay. All right. Other counselor Baitman was next. Yeah. So thank you. Um yes counselor math makes a good point. Um I um I'm okay. So I my first question is the the the motion we passed back on April whatever that was 27th I think did very explicitly state lot A in in the question. Now you've come back with a recommendation um to to remove that. I know it's stated in your report but just for the public record could you through you um chair Tate um can I can you explain why you've removed lot A from this question?

Um, I'll potentially start here. Apologies, Miss Moog isn't here, who um is closer to this report than myself. Um, so I think I believe law A was uh removed specifically as a recommendation. Council can alter this motion or or this question any way they um we have an alternate alternative motion here. Let's just let Miss Gray finish, please. Okay. Um, so yes, lot A was removed um because um I believe uh you know in staff's opinion well yes LA has been the main uh location for this and it's been included in the uh initial uh studies and and surveys that were done back in the day. Um you a lot of things have changed since then and so we I guess I just didn't want to limit it to only LA. If another opportunity comes up with say Air Manor who we know has land, other organizations that have land uh land swaps and things like that come into factor and if it's limited to just LA, then that definitely narrows down the scope of creative opportunities and

options to work with uh willing uh developers or builders um to to do that. So it it because this is a non-binding question, it's um it was just recommended by staff to remove the reference specifically to lot A just Okay. Thank you. to have more options available. And then as well the um just wanted to follow up again to councelor McMah's point on the 5 million figure. I believe that came from um councelor's uh council's motion um put the $5 million figure out there to councelor Haldane's point. uh staff aren't clear what 5 million uh where that figure came from and and and what to do with that figure. Um so that's the 5 million. We don't quite know exactly what we can get for $5 million. It would depend on the location and willing partners.

Well, thank you for that. I I I hope as I explained back on April 27th as the councelor that brought forward this motion in the first place um the $5 million I'd like to definitely amend as councelor Pearson has just noted this uh whatever the the final question is up to a maximum of 5 million that was deemed to be a number that would be the kind of kickstarter um to to get this project underway and the the the the vagueness of this number of the up to five million maximum is very much based on um a situation when you when when you do give a project a fresh jolt of life and juice, things start happening just as we saw with a $100,000 donation to the project immediately following those that meeting. It it's now in the public uh realm. There are um all sorts of possibilities, creative possibilities with this project. uh if if we get a strong yes vote um the next council can

uh ideally create a task force or do do so um okay that's that's my opinion your your statements here in the final clause is that should a majority of voters indicate support by voting yes staff will come back with um the following steps um the district will undertake this now as as Miss Dunn noted in her comments, "Does this leave Search and and Search out in the cold or h how would you work with Search and who has taken the lead on this project since uh since well back in Marlene um Barry's day with the with the ple with with the plebite of 2014 and um here we are. So how how will Certin be involved in this theoretical future?

Uh through uh your worship to councelor Baitman. Uh so Certain's role as you've stated has been the main um advocate and and champion for this uh initiative for for years longer than I've worked here. Um so they will definitely still be involved. They are the party that will be managing and I assume right that that's the whole point is we need more information. So I believe that's why searching wasn't specifically named I guess again in the mo in the suggested uh question or or in the motion because it's a bit premature where you don't have we need a lot more information on the feasibility the business planning what the model would look like maybe search and plays a different role in it.

We're not 100% sure on what the oper how to operationalize this. So they haven't been named specifically in the report but that doesn't mean they're not going to be involved in the project. That will be again at council's discretion how much they're involved and how much um authority they are granted over the project. Okay. I'll just um are you okay? I just wanted to add that we are on information. So this what is on the screen has not yet been read in. It's just a starting point that staff put together. So there is a way to adjust the language to add in the maximum if you like. You could also add as as the speaker indicated earlier a phrase that council directs staff to work with search and community partners like we can amend that there is room here. Uh and also your follow-up notice of motion which comes afterwards. Um you could put L back into the equation with the address to have it more specific. So, I'm just saying that there's we're on

information and this other piece will will be next anyway. But I'll turn to councelor Betos and then St. Pierre and then how did you have your hand up too? Yeah, thank you worship. Um I just wanted to comment about some of the things that that have been said. I I think the question is pretty clear. Borrow up to uh whether you say maximum up to or the most or whatever it is. It's pretty clear to me if somebody reads that uh I I would think that the population by the time the election comes around they'll be wellversed in this whole matter and uh uh I did have some concerns about the 5 million because initially uh being involved in some things with Sea Park and how much things cost. I was a little worried that 5 million may not be enough depending on what we're doing. But uh with that being said, when we if this comes through, let's say everybody says 90% fee, uh

which I hope it does, uh and it comes in at 6 million, we still have to go back to the to the citizens to pay for it. So I mean we look maybe a little bit foolish by not putting it in the front but uh I think the the idea is to get indication from the community uh that they want this gathering place inter intergenerational center uh to happen and my feeling is they do. So uh I'm happy with the way it is right now up to 5 million. Um, and I kind of agree with staff that I would I think lot A is the logical place, but you're right. Something could come up in the meantime, and I wouldn't want to see us locked into lot A if there's a better location. Uh, but but I I'm okay with the way it is right now, and I think it's time we just stop talking about it, made a vote, get on with it, and get it back to the people, and they'll tell us.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor St. Pierre. Uh I've been listening carefully to what everyone said and I'm I really like what uh council McMath and what council Hollain had to say about it in terms of the 5 million. I don't actually see a value in including that 5 million period. Uh if we're going to be boring, we're going to be borrowing and uh the public will necess will probably assume the worst and maybe they should if we don't provide an actual number. Uh at least then they'll give us an honest opinion of what they think of actually spending money this way and potentially having their taxes increased. If we follow that, if there's a strong approval, which as has been noted, we probably will get what one can anticipate maybe getting, then we have, if we want to avoid enough referendum, we can go to an AAP with numbers, with actual strong numbers because the process basically that we're looking at would actually have some strong numbers.

Uh I also agree that uh specifying lot A is not to our advantage. uh it's likely to happen there, but depending on what kind of partnerships we can look at, depending on uh where we get the money, I'm actually really interested, for example, in knowing at some point I expect an amenity cost charge bylaw to come out. Can we pay for something like operation costs or building out uh community centers like this using amenity cost charge? I think we can. So, there might be income to pay off a loan. There might be a lot of opportunities. We have all this stuff potentially open to us. I don't know why we'd lock this down with details that may actually be wrong.

So, I I like keeping it to a firm commitment. The district is going to borrow money to try and make this happen that commits a district to a plan to assist any potential partners, including searching in making this happen. And I think we need that approval from the public. Everything else is either confusing and it's underlining in up to or maximum of 5 million, but could be more. Why bother? Let's just take it out. Thank you. Okay, we're on information. I'll just add a few comments. Um, I hear what you're saying. However, the question then is, well, how much is the district borrowing? You're not just you're not telling us anything. And so then it could be 5 10 20 million like I I don't know. Like I think in this way there is a number there. Uh they're also then should this pass this may then trigger other additional support that would come in and as things are more known maybe it's less. Wouldn't

that be something? Um because you need to start with something because otherwise everyone would say well in my head going in it's 50 million because that was the road the through connector road. So there's nothing like it just needs to be contained in a way and then I think there's a way for people then to say okay well how much if you borrow 5 million you can do the math over 20 years how much is that and break it down into payments and how would we achieve that so there's something it also then has mobilizes uh the volunteer experts in our community to also fund raise and get the sponsorships and all of that because now the district is showing up with one piece and they can attract the rest and start exploring all those other opportunities. So it may be the case where no all we want to burden the the community with is maybe up to 5 million.

We now want to seek all this other support from other entities uh to bring that down. Uh in terms I still tend to want the location, this is me, we're not on this. I'm just going to put it in a a thought piece because counsel I'm also looking at councelor Baitman's notice of motion that comes after is the location because yes there may be others u but we've been talking about that for a long time about finding alternative options in the community and something may show up um but to date nothing has so at some point you do need to know like how do you plan if you don't know where it's going to land.

Now, at least if if it's in here with a location and the community agrees that that's a great location, then the super region community health network can go on and then plan and site plan and what it's going to look like and where it's going to be. If there's no place for it to land, it's still just a concept drawing floating around waiting to land somewhere. And then we could end up with a generic boring box that just fits in anywhere that nobody really likes. People do like to see sue character reflected in the buildings. We've heard that over time where we see that so then they can work more spite sight specific and work with the land in terms of what is the best layout there. There's a desire for the community to see the trees remain at the back. Where could the plaza be located? Perhaps that would be at the front. Great place for youth, more sunlight, no shadow. You can start planning all of that. If we say, "Okay, we're going to find another location."

It almost feels to me that in four years that that election, the council is going to come down with a borrowing bylaw from to put it in here because we spent four years looking at other places and other possibilities and then I think there there'll be just a lot of frustration. The desire that I'm hearing is you can just get on with it and get it finished. Okay. Uh they've been out there fundraising all the signs, all the meetings that people have been attended to. I feel for Miss Penowski who really just wants to see this happen. She's held the banner for a very long time. Uh we started this in 2014. It's been 10 years now. Like we just need to get on with it and search has explored many different options. We talked a little bit or I mentioned earlier the combination of uses the challenges that had with getting other funding. It's come back to what is the problem we're trying to solve.

We need a gathering place that's intergenerational for seniors and youth. That is the problem we're trying to solve and this is our way of solving that. Fine. Let's get electoral uh get everyone talking about it. Get electoral electorate support. Then the next council can say okay we have or don't have a firm ask. Or if we don't, let's say they say no, uh we like the idea of the gathering place. We don't want you to borrow any money. then search and at least knows that they can still go on with the location and trigger plan B because the need is there and it has to happen. So, this is non-binding. It will be on candidates to educate uh as well while they're out getting the vote out.

Searching will certainly do their part, but the show's been on for a long time. And so, I think for me, I know we're on information right now. I appreciate staff wanting to be neutral and explore others. I think it's time to just lock it in and get on with it. That's that's where I sit on it because uh it it's time and I'll be in that I'll be in the audience champion council in the future to be like remember that gathering plays that you've talked about like it's and carrying that banner because it still hasn't happened yet. I don't want to do that. I'd like to just one day be able to walk in there. Okay, I'm going to call the question on rece oh sorry on receipt. We're on receipt and then we're going to move into the next part. But it's all tied together.

Okay. Just a couple of comments. Um, thank you for that, Mayor Tate. Of course. Um, I I don't know whether I I know this question will will go ahead and if I don't start motivating on my particular follow-up motion, that motion is null and void. Well, you'll be able to motivate on that in the next part. So, I would just introduce your thought here because we still are on information and then we'll break it down. What I plan to do on the next part is break it down into segments. Okay. Then I'll have comments at that time. Okay. Anyone else wanting to talk on receipt? It's all here. I'll call a question on that. All those in favor, please. And that's unanimous. Thank you.

Okay. So, when we get to the recommendation here, I'm going to just read out what our staff has and then of course that can be moved, seconded, amended, so on. But just to get it out there, that council approved the following non-binding opinion question for inclusion on the October 17, 2026 election ballot. In your opinion, should the District of Souk consider borrowing up to $5 million to support the construction and initial operational startup of the Souk Gathering Place intergenerational center? Yes. No. Moved by councelor Pearson, seconded by sorry, did I call you St. Pearson or sorry counselor Pearson and seconded by St. Pierre. Go ahead, counselor Pearson.

What I'm hoping for is that this translates into action. If there's a will, there's a way. you you know you you you said a lot of things in in the in the previous um comments there this this passed in 2014 that's 12 years ago the people of souk said they want a gathering place so it's incumbent upon even even without this plebesite question I think we have to have a will in our community to get a gathering place built this is a technical piece of it uh up to $5 million it gives it gives some direction to council but council ought to have that direction already in my humble opinion. We just need to get it done and we need to develop a will within whoever the council is in in future. We need to develop that will and actually make it a reality because there's been people in our community who have been selling cupcakes. Bless them for 12 years. Um uh and and and attending events and promoting it.

They've done a great job of promoting the gathering place from their side. the will has to come back to us at this table. So, whoever's here, uh, whether it's me or whether it's anybody else, get it done. So, anyway, that's my this question starts that process again. Okay, councelor St. Pierre. Uh, I like the question as it stands. I very much like what uh our mayor had to say about the $5 million. I do see now that if you actually have a 5 million, even if you're looking for a partnership to top it off or whatever, it does give us something to work with. uh I think we could do without but I see the value of having it there and I can totally accept that. Uh I do think that including law a specifically is to our detriment. We have actually worked with searchin and have actually worked with BC housing to try and put it on lot A. Lot A has always been the place in many ways but I do think personally that what we need is

a series of community centers intergenerational centers in every neighborhood with a hub in lot A. And what that's going to look like is a little bit different. Uh it needs in order for people to be able to reach it when they're in a wheelchair or on a bicycle for it to not all be in lot A because that just creates massive parking problems too. So I do think that we need to be creative. I think we have to allow for other sighting. Uh I think including lot A specifically doesn't allow for the creativity, the partnerships, and all the great things that we need and can happen if we just don't put it. Okay. Uh we all know that lot is going to be good. And we have a second motion through uh councelor Baitman that can include lot A as a primary site and enshrine it. We don't have to put it here.

Okay, I'll go to councelor Mcmath online and then to councelor Betos. Thank you. Um there's a lot of comments around uh the getting on with it. Um, and I just wanted to to pause on that because us taking a little bit more time to educate the public doesn't delay the project and and the question will be on the ballot. It's more just investing in the success. And the success for me with this plevisite is that every voter that gets to that booth fully understands what is being asked on that question. Um, so I'd sent an email. Um, and I've just it retains the $5 million, but it's finessed a bit a bit, excuse me. Um, where we like when you say uh intergenerational space, people don't know what that means. [laughter] Like uh so having a more simplified explanation because the whole goal of this is um not to be locked down to a site, not to be locked down to who's running it. The whole goal of the plebbeite is to

understand what what is a priority for the community. So us taking a little a little bit more time here to to educate and to clarify and have transparency is going to go a long way for the success of this question. The success not being whether it's a yes or a no, just that each participant understands what it is that's being asked of them. Um, so I don't know if you received that, but it's in there and it just includes a bit more simplified language um for the person that doesn't have time um to get as educated as they would like. Okay. So, what I'm going to do, counselor McMath, is entertain that as an amendment.

Um, because it is, I would say, the same intention. It's just different language and ease of everyone here. Um what I would suggest then with this amendment is it would be actually striking out everything in bold. Um start so the first part that council approve is there. It would be striking out in your opinion like all of that up until question mark leaving the yes or no and then supporting it. Pardon me. um replacing it with do you support the district of Souk exploring funding options including borrowing if necessary to develop a new community center for people of all ages? Question mark. If supported, council may consider borrowing up to 5 million as part of a broader funding strategy. any borrowing would require further council consideration and any required approvals.

So that way we can all see what we're doing here. Um so I'll just wait till Okay. Oh, it's on the screen. Okay. So councelor Mcmath, that is your amendment that you're moving. Is there a seconder for this amendment? Councelor St. Pierre is seconding it. Uh, councelor Mcmath, would you like to uh motivate any further on this proposed amendment? I think we all have the same goal right now. Um, so it's just my my goal is just so that the public fully understands um and ensures the success. And again, like I said, whether it's a yes or a no, what we want to know is the public's opinion. I just want to make sure everyone's grounded in what it is that they're voting for. Thank you.

Okay, I'll go to councelor St. Pierre the seconder. I really appreciate council McMath's work on this and the plain language that's being used because it does clarify things in plain speak, which is great. Uh I have a hopefully a very friendly amendment. In the second part, any borrow will require further council consideration and um either referendum or AAP because that's what we would require at that point for borrowing and that way people know you're motivating on an I would say is it a friendly amendment? Well, it's it's the same thing. Like required approvals would include either an AAP or a referendum. Like if we're putting this on a ballot, then perhaps uh and and require approval from the public.

Uh approvals from the public. Okay. So I'll if councelor McMath is I'll then entertain that as an amendment that councelor St. Pierre is moving so we can follow the bouncing ball. So if staff can add add any required approvals um from the public, is that your addition? No. Further consider first uh would require further council consideration and require approval from the public. Okay. And so um strike out any required approvals and then replace and approval from the public would be the amendment. Is there a seconder for the amendment to the amendment? Oh, come on. No, it's uh No, I'm not seeing anyone second that. So, we can just leave it as it is. Thank you, staff. Um there was no seconder for that. So, we can you don't have to do that.

And go back to councelor McMass original language of and any required approvals. Okay. Sorry. I may just to clarify procedurally um that's um Mr. Lois and I are just discussing uh this motion and the second part is moreformational. So we don't believe the second part would even be on the ballot as the question. The question is the first part that can be information that is shared as part of the public information sharing neutral public information sharing about um you know an info sheet on the project. We can include a narrative like that. However, just to kind of clarify, it's mostly uh it is the words in bold that will be the question on the ballot. Um just to clarify and then the other sub a couple sentences there can be um if council wants to continue talking about that that can can be in the information package that's prepared.

Okay. What I would suggest though is in the event that council sees an appetite for this than for this change uh rather than binding it that this is the question, I would suggest that it would need to come back to a future meeting to see if it actually worked uh before just discussing this tonight. Uh I just want to put that out there that I would think it needs to be it just needs to be uh it would need to have a different view. So I'm just leave that. So the amendment fails. Our next speaker was Pearson on the amendment. Yep. And um while I I I fully appreciate uh councelor Mcmath's intention of of simplifying it. I think I think that there has been a tremendous amount of effort and advertising in our community calling it the gathering place. Um, I think they've done a great job of making it known. It's called the gathering place. And I think that the volunteers I wouldn't want to change this to a new community center. I would

prefer it to have the word gathering place. It even says gathering place on the on the top of this slide. I think a lot of people are already well aware of the word gathering place. And I, you know, we talked about educating the public and all of those things. I don't think we need to re-educate the public on what is a community center. I think the gathering place is well known in our community and um if it doesn't have the word gathering place in that question, I'm not going to support it. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Pearson. I'll go to Bettos and then Baitman on the amendment. Yeah, I concur with councelor Pearson.

Uh I I think the first question is very very clear. I think the uh the seniors in our community have uh spoken loud and clear uh and they've uh I think they've waited long enough. I think it's we we kicked this around at previous meetings and uh uh I think it has to be the gathering place and I like that it says inter uh generational uh that says it as well. And I like the idea that the five million's in there. um uh cuz I think if I was voting on something and I will be voting on this by the way um that I like a dollar value attached to things because uh uh you know if you just leave it like this I mean I know there's a second part with just information but um you know when you say someone would you the district to build something they'll say how big you're going to build it how much you're going to spend where you going to get the money and all those

things like that and that first one that uh we were dealing with, it made it very clear and I think we just get on with it. I'm starting to get a little weary of of word smithing everything. So the public is not stupid. They they know exactly what it is. I've talked to people on the street and they are so much in for this. Um uh I I think this just clouds the issue. So I will not support the amendment. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Baitman. Yeah. So, um, to the amendment, um, thank you both for those comments. Um, I I I do believe that the original question that we approved back on April 27th, uh, with or without L is is clear.

Um, the key point here in the amended uh motion, it speaks of developing a new community center for people of all ages. Well, in fact, the gathering place very specifically is a senior youth intergenerational center. Um, th I was about to say those of us in the middleground. No, I'm no I'm I'm now a senior, so I will be dropping in there. Um, but it's not a community center for people of all ages. It is a a gathering place for seniors and youth. Um, yeah. So, yeah, I won't be in support of the amendment. And I think maybe now I'll just mention this $5 million. Uh, you know, we we very much specifically um in in drafting this question, the thought was, and I'm speaking of the age friendly committee now, uh the recognition that we are in an affordability crisis here. So, by putting a a maximum price tag on this and it was, you know, when we first started thinking of it, we were

thinking, well, there will also be a road question as well. So, and we we've just put, you know, a 10.5 tax increase through. So, we needed to come up with uh a number, a maximum number, and it very explicitly stated in the in the request that we get back these numbers. So, if we borrow $2 million, that's going to cost me as a taxpayer on an average assessed property $400 over 20 years. And if we were to go as high as five million, I would cost me $1,000 over 20 years to uh to borrow that kind of money at I believe it was a 4% u MFA rate.

So this is why the five million is there as a reflection of yeah we this is an affordability issue for people in souk and um and again it's it's a question of what the district would borrow to pony up into a larger budget that could well be supported by a number of other sources including uh the good people of Souk um and grants and other other ways and means. So that's it for that. Okay. Thank you. Anything else on the amendment, councelor Helane? Yeah, I'd like to have the original question for for the information process as well. Again, I can appreciate where this is coming from, but we need the information there. I think needs to stay who's doing it and how much we're thinking of possibly borrowing for it.

So, okay. Thank you everyone. I'll call the question on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Councelor St. Pierre in the room. Councelor Mcmath, are you still in favor of your amendment? Yeah, I've had my hand up for quite some time. All right, I missed you. I will go back to you and pause the vote. Go ahead, councelor McMath. Um, just to follow up on a couple things and I had a couple questions. Um, when councelor Betos makes statements that the public isn't stupid, what he's inferring is that's what I'm saying. Um, and that's not what I'm saying. The reality is is that people are so busy they do not have time to consume all the information that we do every single day for the last like seven and a half years that we've been here. Um, so this just gives them the it's just it's to help them. It's to it's only to assist and to educate. And ultimately, if the group's goal is to succeed is to succeed with this, then

that's what this helps do. My follow-up question is to staff and is that are you saying that there is not enough room to have both pieces on the ballot? What I heard was that the second part is more sort of administrative operational. It would be what the next steps that would happen. It doesn't need to be I I'll let staff reiterate that um through your worship to council McMath. I believe that's what Mr. Lowis and I were trying to confirm is if the second part um is appropriate to be on the ballot for a question if it's just like information. Um the more critical point is then a yes or no question. So at this time I don't we don't know exactly if that needs to go on there.

I'm not sure Mr. Laos has been looking at this as council has been debating here. Um so I I don't know this second if you want an answer today if that needs to be on the ballot. I do just because obviously it ch it changes because if the secondary piece can't go then I wouldn't align with my own motion. Um but I I just want clarity of whether they can go together or if they can't and if we don't have an answer then then maybe it can come back. But uh thank you your worship. Uh I would say on this it's a question of because the however this goes it would be a community poll which means there are far fewer rules on explicitly what can and could not go on. Certainly if this were a referendum which was being approved by the ministry then this would not then the second section would not be allowed by the ministry to be on the uh the ballot because the only thing they allow is the explicit question which ends yes or no. So anything which you wanted to

be included in in the question would need to be before that point um and then worded in the form of that question. And for this in particular for this because this would purely be a community opinion poll. There is more flexibility for council to instruct that they would like that to be on even though it would not represent a um actionable question in the form. uh so that the ministry would allow if it were a binding uh vote. So I think councelor McMath uh for myself if we were to entertain this then I would want to see it return at a future meeting uh because we're all just looking at it for the first time here including our staff. So they would need to process that to see what would be the best fit if this was the plebite question. So, right now, uh, as we just received it, then this is what our staff have put forward that the first part goes on the ballot and the second part doesn't. But if you're

wanting this to still move in this way, then I would suggest it needs to come back after everyone's had more time to look at it. But in the room right now, I'm not seeing support for this amendment. Well, the difference is is that if staff is saying that only the first half can go in, I understand that. Um, but if both pieces are in there, then if councelor Baitman has concerns about all ages, but he wants it to be specified that it's youth and seniors, that's a minor tweak. The goal of this is to simplify and educate. That's the that's the sole purpose of this recommendation.

Okay. So, I've been asked now to call the question on the amendments. So, I will do that and call a question. All those in favor of the amendments, councelor St. Pierre and Mcmath. All those opposed is councelor Baitman, myself, Betos, Pearson, and Helane. So, the amendment fails and we're now back to the original motion. If we can have that back on the screen, please. Okay. So, that would be as it was written. Um, I will test an amendment and that would be to add um, hold on a second after the word center. So, at the very end before the question mark to be located on districtowned property at 6671 Watam's Way so that the location is in there, I'll move that and look for a seconder.

Seconded by councelor Baitman. Uh so this would then answer the where is this going? What are you talking about? What are we doing? Um when we refer to it as L like it needs to be I think we can do better than L but uh I think it's just this is the address uh 6671 WMY and that just firms up where it's going and answers that to the electorate. So that's why I'm putting the location in there. So, it's been seconded by councelor Baitman. So, it just I I've heard what staff said around the flexibility and all of that and I know that councelor Baitman's not uh motion is following, but this just ties it all together. Uh and then the community can weigh on on and just okay, we are serious about this. This is the this is how much we're potentially going to borrow and this is what we're borrowing for and this is where it's going to be. So I think it's just 6670 W. Oh, there or 6671 Watoms away. Okay.

Thank you. I'll stop talking. Councelor Baitman as the seconder and then I'll go to the speaker list again. Yeah. Um so yeah, I'm pleased to see that because of course this is the uh the intent of the original motion. Um you know, I'm going to use some of the motivation I was going to use for my my follow-up motion here. You know, the search and team and the gathering place supporters have been focused strongly on LA as the highly centralized town center location for this facility. Um, as demonstrated in the 2019 L report, uh, it is the logical and consistent part of a quartet of complimentary uses on a rare piece of town center public land, the public library, the primary care center, the public plaza, and this intergenerational center. And this is a key missing link um in Souk's community infrastructure identified as a priority community need more than a decade ago.

Um you know Miss Logan said it well today. Yes, the ga the gathering place is no longer affiliated with the senior's residential component uh which was always part of the district planning along with searching up until I guess 2024 when BC Housing finally said you know Souk you've had enough from us and and uh you're going to have to to wait for another project. So um this unfortunate development should not derail the vision of the gathering place on lot A. Um yeah and I I think it's important to note that the shortly after the plebite or sorry I'm going to carry on here. [laughter] Just shortly after the plebbeite, a a community uh spaces committee was formed and met in this hall. And uh one of the key uh recommendations arising from that committee chaired by Lee Boyco was that uh the gathering place be focused on the new lands which uh thanks to the council of the day um purchase that prime piece of downtown real estate and um yeah I would very much like to see that uh amended motion proceed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor Bettos. Thank you very much, your worship. I just want to remind everybody this is a nonbinding opinion. So, I mean, we can put lot A in there and I I think it it's fine. I don't have any problem with that. But the council of the day next year could if they found a better spot, they they could deal with it then. So, uh this just gives again uh some clarity uh to the people that are really working hard to make this happen. and uh but it's non-binding so uh I'm happy with that. Thank you. Okay. Uh Councelor St. Pierre, I believe I believe councelor Boss is swayed me because I was much concerned that this would actually bind us to one single location and if other opportunities arose if what you're saying is true then I can actually accept this otherwise I was not going to support this. All right. So well done. You've done it once. All right. Uh, having said that,

it would be nice to include the word community center, intergenerative community center, but I'm not going to insist. Thank you. Okay, fine. Councelor Pearson. Yeah, I I think it's um I think it's uh a a a good thing that we're doing and I think that uh by getting this on the uh on the ballot in October, we'll have a clear direction coming out of that. And that's really what we need. Um people need to see that we're moving forward. This is a this is a step moving forward. So I'll support it. Councelor Helain, any comment? Um I'm actually running in the next election, but I would like to call the question just so we people here can go home at a reasonable time. So if we could do that, I'd be we can do that. So we are on the amendment though.

I I vote for whatever we need to do to keep it moving. All right. I will call the question on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendments? Any opposed? That's unanimous. So now on the main amended motion, that would be the first part as it's amended. Any other comments? You can. That is in order. I would just like to see borrowing up to a maximum of 5 million because you know it is true. We we need to get that. Okay. You can't motivate until you have a seconder. So that it would be up to a max. So we're adding in maximum of Is there a seconder? Seconded by councelor Pearson. Now you can motivate.

I think that's it says it all. It's the the need for the as much clarity as we can deliver to the voter. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Pearson. He agrees. Councelor Betos. Yeah, I'll go along with it, but I remind people it's a non-binding opinion. So you could put up to a maximum or whatever you like in it. It is just giving us some indication and up to uh was fine with me, but if you want to put maximum there, that's I agree with uh councelor Holding. Let's just get on with it and get this going. Okay, fine. I will call the question on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment? Any opposed?

That carries unanimously. And so now on the main amended motion, any further comments? Did you have a comment or an amendment? Councelor Hel. Oh, you're ready to vote. Okay. All right. I will call the question. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay. That is unanimous as well. So, that part is done. Now we'll move on to the next part of this which is and that council direct staff to complete the legislative and administrative steps required to include the non-binding opinion question on the October 17, 2026 election ballot. Moved by councelor St. Pierre, seconded by Haldane. Any comments? Councelor Councelor Haldane. Anyone else? All in favor?

Anyone opposed? That's unanimous. Uh and then the next part would be and that should a majority of voters indicate support by voting yes, staff report back to council, staff report back to council before any borrowing or project commitments are considered with information on feasibility and business planning, capital and operating impacts, potential partner agency governance and delivery models, site and tenure considerations And any further statutory approval requirements? It's moved by councelor St. Pierre and seconded by Bettos. Would you like to speak to it? No. Councelor Betos, Councelor Haldane, Councelor Pearson, Councelor Baitman. Yeah. I just want to thank staff for for coming up with this roadmap. I think it's excellent addition.

Okay. I'm going to add a an amendment just because I like doing that for Shanon. I want to add uh and just a final after all this and I'll put and that council direct staff to work with the Souk region community health network and related community partners. I would like to see that organization in here. Is there a seconded for that? Seconded for that. So just for staff, it'll be just like another and that at the very end on the amendment. Uh is that clear? It's not quite on the screen, but is anyone wishing to speak on the amendments? I'll call the question on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendments?

Anyone opposed? None opposed. So now on this main amended motion, yes. uh Betos. Yep. Thank you. Uh so then that way it just includes uh search and going forward in this particular work. So I will call the question on did I call the question on the amendment? I did. Okay. So now on the main amended motion. Sorry. All those in favor please. Anyone opposed? None are opposed. That carries unanimously. So that completes um Wow. that particular item. However, we do have a notice of motion that is connected to this within this report. So, we're going to move to that part next. And this was the notice of motion that councelor Baitman provided. Uh whereas the gathering place intergenerational center was identified for a portion of the town center lot a and the council approved souk lot a a future in planning 2019 report along with the library healthc care facilities and a public plaza and whereas the souk region community's health network requires certainty as plans move forward for the gathering place and the related plebite.

Therefore, be resolved that suit council direct that remaining land on lot A be held in reserve for a public plaza and the gathering place with associated parking space for a period of no longer than 5 years. That's councelor Baitman's motion that he read in at the last regular meeting. Do we have a seconder for that? Seconded by councelor Betos. Okay. Now going to councelor Baitman. Okay. So, um we we've had a lot of conversation and I' I feel under the gun to get this done quickly. So, I will do my best to be brief here. I I want to quote um Search and President Nikki Logan's in the letter that is part of our package. She is very encouraged to know that every person on this council is in favor of making the gathering place reality sooner rather than later.

Uh she also adds it is imperative that we get an answer to access to lot A and when she says we, she means the Souk region community's health network and the steering committee. Uh with that access we have leverage to engage funders, builders, developers, and donors to support this project. And with that kind of support, um we won't need to put uh to find $5 million in taxpayer support. So that's really what it comes down to. As I said earlier, um LA A has been identified from the get-go. Uh we do now have um the library in place. we have the the footprint of the um the urgent and primary care center and related housing which has now taken up a larger piece of the property than originally intended. Um so so really that's where it stands for a period of no longer than 5 years so that um we have a field of dreams upon which uh this project can be can be developed.

Thank you. Councelor Betos was the seconder. Yeah, I think at this point in time lot A is the most logical place and uh again even though this is binding somewhat uh the next council could could change it very quickly if they had to. But I think for uh for search and the group that's worked so hard to get to where we are today, uh I think they need that so they can work uh to the future as councelor Baitman said. So I'll be supporting this motion. Other members, councelor St. Pierre, then Pearson, then Helane. Uh I have a question through your worship to staff and that's just uh I support the spirit of the motion as it stands.

I'm concerned about uh it being all remaining land because I don't think that we're looking at all of the remaining land. And I'm hoping that surgeon and staff can actually work with partnerships and other uses. So, for example, if there was an arts group that wanted to do a theater plus gathering place or whatever it might be, is this actually going to be permissible with this motion as it's written? There's a question for staff. Um, through your worship to councelor St. Pierre. Uh, I I think that's possibly staff's reservation with this motion is um it the way I read this, this limits it to a public plaza and the gathering place period. So, uh, it's very limited and it is for the remaining two quadrants on lot a um, so if the gathering place needed all of that land for part like I we're not quite sure how this gets operationalized to I believe councelor Bto stated a future council can come and reverse this motion. Um, we

were just debating are you putting like a lease or a license to occupy on this land with this motion. So, I'm a little respectfully I'm a little unclear. Well, I appreciate this provides search and um you know uh specifics and emotion for L. However, it it's in the gathering or it's in the plebite question the location specifically there. Um so yeah, I believe this would handcuff search and end staff search and staff to be creative the way it's currently uh written. However, again, we defer to council um with this and if it did need to come forward to a new council, that's council's will to bring something forward.

Okay. So, um my interpretation is that unless we actually tighten up the language and change it, we should simply not put this forward because the previous motion actually covers this anyway. And so those are my thoughts. I would not support it as it's written because I think it might make it more difficult to actually get the place built. Okay. Thank you. I have a speaking order. I'll go next to Pearson, Haldane, and then McMath. Yeah. Um, and I appreciate what uh, Councelor St. Pierre just said. It feels like a little bit that we've already covered law A. We haven't got an answer to law a yet. It it feels like this is just out of sync with the steps that that would happen. This this motion may be more applicable after the plebite gives us the go-ahad to be on L. Then I think there's a there's another discussion that that would say, "Okay, we're going to give this land as opposed to tying it up for F." I don't know. It

just it doesn't feel like it's congruent to me with what we just decided. Going to Okay, that's fair. Councelor Haldane, then McMath. Yeah. So, um I appreciate where this is coming from 100%. that one council can't fetter another council's ability obviously to to be able to do bas stuff. And the only other way of making this work really there's a section in the local government 516 and it's about phase development agreements and that's how you could protect the use of a piece of land for a period of time for up to 20 years and it you would have to go through some process like that if we were going to do this. But again, even with that, are we willing at this late state in the game, 3 months to go, we're going to tie the hands of the future council by passing a phase development agreement on a piece of property?

Probably not. So, I think at this point, if it's in there, I mean, I'll support it either way, but realistically, legally, I mean, we're we're just we're making words out of it, that's all. But anyhow, thank you very much, Councelor McMath. I was just wondering if a a compromise that sort of catches um what councelor Baitman is trying to achieve is if we added it to the strap plan because I do think it is a bit premature um and ultimately if the ballot is not successful then then what happens with this motion? So then does that remain locked in and then it can't be touched for 5 years those pieces. So perhaps the strap plan is uh it kind of hits both points because either way they could reverse it. Um but this way then it's top of mind for the council the new council as they get onboarded and then provides a bit of um a little bit more security for searching.

Okay. Anything else from members of council? Um I will speak in favor of the motion just to be difficult. Uh the plaza has also been an item that young people have been asking for. Uh there may be an opportunity where another entity would work with searching. Maybe that's where the water park should go. Many communities have that tied in. Uh I would hope that the plaza remains um something within this land going forward. Perhaps it could be at the front of the lot. You could have a Christmas tree. The whole parade could exit there. And it could be an outdoor gathering place. Young people could perform there outside. And often that is what a lot of younger people want is unstructured access to land that is not inside a building. So this in terms of making this intergenerational, that is an opportunity that exists. Uh and then dedicated place for searching at the back. I hear what everyone was saying, but um this is my final time to speak on this in the term that in the month's

having, so I'm throwing my support on it. Yes, another council could come back and say, I don't know what this is, and now what do we need to do? Uh I have been part of councils that have gone completely opposite directions to motions that previous councils have put in for place and have undid been part or seen different things undone and redone and whatever. So that would be up to them. We can't our strategic plan remains in until another plan uh is approved, but this at least would provide them something should they choose to do anything with it. So I'll leave it at that and call the question.

All those in favor of it, you're in favor. Is councelor Baitman, myself, and Betos opposed? Is councelor St. Pierre Pearson Oh, you're in favor. And okay, Nickmath is I'm in favor. Favor. So, this passes on a 52. Okay. Thank you. So, that's great. We're moving on. Okay. Thank you everyone. Uh we are at 8:53. Would council like to recess at this point or continue on again? There's a call for a health break. So we will recess at It's 8:54. So I will see you at 9:04. 10 minutes. Thank you.

Okay, everyone, if I could please ask you to take your seats. Okay, we are at 9:04. So, I would like to call us all back uh into to bring your attention back into the meeting please. Thank you everyone. So, we are on 10.6 which is reconsideration of the through road motions. So, as mayor, I have the unique privilege of bringing items back for reconsideration. I've learned that there are different ways that I could do this. So, when we adopt meeting minutes, I could just bring whatever back right on right when we're adopting the minutes uh to be discussed. Um, in this case, I provided notice so that everyone was aware that I was doing it because I didn't want to do the element of surprise as we're adopting the minutes. We're now going to reconsider all these things from the previous meeting. So, I'm just trying to be as uh clear as I can be. Uh where this works procedurally is it goes back to where the motions have been moved and seconded and a vote would need to be

called. So, what this does is it reopens the ability for anyone to comment again on the particular motions because they're already on the floor. uh and then I'll just call for another vote on that. So that is procedurally how we're going to work through this. So if we go back to where we're at and that's why in bringing this forward, we cannot bring any new information in. It's just all the information that was provided to that last meeting and up to what we heard in that particular meeting and then uh the discussion is from there. So in the first case, the item that is now on the floor again is that council received the through road Philips road connection project report from information and that was moved and seconded.

And so I'm going to open up the dialogue by speaking to it and that I feel council has adequate information to this point to make a decision and by that I made a decision on the particular road crosssection. So I feel that uh which is sort of goes into the second one and then of course the plebbeite um there has been some incorrect information circulating and so I wanted the opportunity to address that. So I heard that there was a comment made that we did not receive grant money because the mayor doesn't get along with other with either the province or the federal government. Uh that is not true. I am on speaking terms, texting texting terms and I hug both of them. We get along very well. Uh we have applied for a grant proincially. We were successful for a provincial grant.

Uh in terms of the larger grants, we're all waiting $7 million grant. Um but we are against every other local government in BC that is also applied to that particular fund. Uh probably in the next while you will start to hear news releases on who else was successful and who was not. Some of my elected peers have already shared this information with me. So I'm aware of some other disappointment throughout the region on who was and who was not successful. It is nothing. These are merit-based grant applications. Doesn't matter how well we get along with our other elected representatives or whether or not we're aligned with them because they are strictly merit-based. And I think that's a good way for infrastructure dollars to be handled. It shouldn't be whether or not people get along across party lines. It's strictly merit-based.

Uh I do not feel we should be advancing. We're beyond the date to borrow uh for this. Um but in terms of a cross-section, most of the people around this table are aware of the transportation master plan that has been guiding our work. Uh we are aware that this has also been approved by the provincial ministries at large that this is the road uh that we are the road type of design that we are working with. They have all been engineered and are used. So they are in fact grounded in uh good engineering design. Uh there was a comment that a former MLA provided the district with money to advance this connector and we have not spent it appropriately. That is not true. We are one of many local governments throughout BC that received the strong communities fund and a specific share based on our population and other factors. It's all within the provincial guidelines. We report on this throughout our annual report and the annual report indicates exactly where those funds have been spent and they are all in accordance

with the grant and the funders requirements. And in fact, you all know that because the auditor also when they were here stated that their focus was on the grant money and allocation of it so that we were using it appropriately and that was stated. So anytime if we had questions that we were not using the grant money appropriately, council had both an in and out of camera or in camera and in open meeting opportunity to actually ask the auditor that straight up and nobody did because they achieved we received a clean audit and everything was fine. Uh we did use a portion of the fund specifically for the connector. In this case, it would be the connector portion at church road and throop road and completion of the roundabout. So that is an example of yes, we did use the funds specifically towards the connector on that element which I think is an important one because that particular intersection was an ultimate fail. You could see that

with the old ballards that were being knocked over by vehicles on a regular basis and now we have a smooth running traffic circle there. Uh I stressed a bit over the concept of a T intersection. ICBC data was also pointed to and when I looked up ICBC data for the past several years, the roundabout in the middle of Souk has less than both T intersections on Watam's Way. Both of those ends have more than the town center roundabout itself. And I didn't see anything for the church th church and throop roundabout, but I've seen several uh and you can go and see the circles where there are several problems there. So I felt that I could go around and spend too way too much of my time trying to combat this online. Uh the more appropriate place for me to be is here in chambers addressing this.

There's an opportunity to correct that which I have chosen to do. Um, and so that's why this opportunity here to discuss it further is here. Uh, will it change anything? I don't know. But I just wanted to open up with that and then I'll look for any members of council who may want to speak on the first motion and then we'll go through the series of votes and hopefully call it a day. Yes, we uh we have an Oh, sorry. We have an indication how the vote went. We have the motions here, but there was a vote cast and I believe some of these were uh uh not uh passed. Uh and I think that information would be helpful to have it in front of me.

I can tell you that because it's in the meeting minutes. Let me just let me just find it here. There's three motions. I'll also just note that councelor McMath is here tonight, so it would be great to hear her perspective as well. Uh Item 10. I'm scrolling too fast and I can't read it. 13 10 is reports. Okay. So, receiving for information carried usually does unanimously. So, that's good. Yeah. Uh the second one on The second one was defeated with councelor St. Pierre in favor, everyone else opposed. And the second one or the third one on a potential non-binding plebite had myself and councelor Baitman in favor and everyone else opposed. Councelor Mcmath was absent fully for that meeting. Okay.

So, thank you for that and I'll go to councelor Pearson. We're on the first part of information. Okay. Um just a couple of questions and and you know your opening there. So um your privilege to bring it back. I guess my my um my question is because this was unanimously considered. So um part of your requirement is to tell us what your objection is to that motion. Well, right now I have no problem with information. I just wanted to open up the dialogue. So I'm not going to oppose receipt of information. Yeah. No. And and I understand that. I just cuz you know I I looked up on 131 to say what you know what your role is to bring it back. Um I'm kind of surprised that it came back. But anyways, I'm I'm I'm fully prepared to debate it as well. So I'm so on the first one, you do not have any objection.

I am fine with receiving for information, but I also wanted to just correct some incorrect information and comments that were particularly having me named in them. That's why I'm providing this here in this forum which I deem to be safe. Okay. Okay. So your objection is the information that we voted on was incorrect. No. Okay. It's what came out afterwards in the communication. Um and that is why I'm correcting that and I'm opening up this dialogue. I rarely if ever have brought anything back for reconsideration why I went through the process and then it's just here we are whether it's for info it kind of opens up the full report well and and you know point of order is for me is it says it says here says the mechanism for the mayor can can require council to reconsider a previously voted on bylaw resolution or proceeding. the mayor must state their objections and the municipal clerk must record these objections in the meeting's minute book.

So, I'm just kind of I'll ask our corporate officer. Yeah, I just and I read this right out of the local government. Uh your worship uh so the the local government act isn't the relevant legislation in this case. We're in section 131 of the community charter. I said yeah, sorry. And that's where I am which I can read in full if you'd like. that states that without limiting the authority of a council to reconsider a matter, the mayor may require the council to reconsider and vote again on a matter that was the subject of a vote. As restrictions on the authority under subsection 1, the mayor may only initiate a reconsideration under this section at the same council meeting as the vote took place or within 30 days following that meeting. And a matter may not be reconsidered under this section if it has had the approval of the electors or the ascent of the electors and was subsequently adopted by the council or there has already been a reconsideration under this section in relation to the matter.

On a reconsideration under this section, the council must deal with the matter as soon as convenient and on that reconsideration has the same authority as it had in its original consideration of the matter subject to the same conditions that applied to the original consideration. If the original decision was the adoption of a bylaw or resolution and that decision is rejected on reconsideration, the bylaw or resolution is of no effect and is deemed to be repealed. That is section 131 of the community charter. Yep. Okay. So, I'm going to move on and just ask if anyone would like to speak further on this particular item or I'll just call the question. Okay. Councelor Hane.

Yes. So to give a little bit of clarity on it, I mean I mean some some things are being said online or whatever, but not always misinformation. Um it was our sitting MP that stated she was not in the know of any grants applied for. If texting was an option, she did not receive one in this case and that would have been an important communication tool that would have maybe helped in our process. That may be where some of that came from from that end. There was another one that talked about uh it's a Rabbi Parmar statement in the in the press that said we were disingenuous in saying that that they weren't helping us with some of our road improvements and so on. So it gets out in the public based on headlines in the papers and stuff. It wasn't necessarily even coming from anything particular other than people were reading what they wanted to into the post made it and she was the one that that sat up and mentioned it in the suit mirror. So that's probably where some of that derived from.

Okay. Well, I'll share that we did write to our MP after we sent a current congratulatory letter. She has since confirmed that she is aware of those particular grants. Uh there was one to deal with the servicing from Sun River into there was like a wastewater or storm water grant that she was not aware of. That's all been clarified. And in terms of uh the former MLA's remarks, a lot of that was around Charters Road and punching through a road of which we were doing our due diligence observing other conditions like archaeological findings and the salmon window. And then yes we are getting on with the next but I think uh it was one thing at a time and charters took up a lot of uh it was just a mess for commuters at that time and we couldn't move any faster because of other requirements uh in observance and taking good stewardship of the land.

So they can say whatever they want, but I do have a good rapport with both our current MLA who is also very aware of the transportation master plan as he sat around this room and is doing what he can on his end as well as our MP. Okay. Well, the it's nothing to do with uh well the article from here says Souk's poor inter internal road planning. Armor specifically urged the district to immediately build the fruit bro connector rather than waiting and that Tate's comments on Highway 14 were disingenuous shifting the blame for Zuk's traffic congestions onto the district's poor planning. Okay. Well, that's fine, but I will say that Highway 14 has its own challenges as you all know and particularly with three elementary schools and little ones crossing that highway. It's dangerous and we have had severe loss of life and head-on conditions and several challenges uh to that particular road.

So I still feel the province needs to step up and uh do more on Highway 14 and we are advancing our internal road network but we can only do one thing at a time with so many staff and so access to so much money. If we had endless supplies and billions of dollars I suppose a lot of other things would have happened by now. Yeah. So, more texting maybe next time. Well, I I no longer I text with our current MLA. I don't know what more to say and I'm not going to say any more about it, but I would say that everything is fine as it is and I'll call the question. All those in favor on receiving for information and that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay.

On the second one, I will share that I was in opposition of that particular vote, but I am now been thinking about it and I am in favor of a 25 m cross-section and this is why. Uh firstly uh the largest land owner is Sea Park uh with not only the arena and the facility located on both Phillips and on throop but also with the golf course and the skate park which is operated by I mean that is SD62 land but C park operates the crosswalk. Uh, I am not comfortable with a T intersection and putting a stop sign on Phillips Road that Sun River traffic would now have to stop at while highway traffic offloads and can easily turn left. I think a T intersection is incredibly dangerous.

Third point, this is used heavily by school children of all ages. going to and from uh either after school at middle school, going over to the Sugar River store, EMCS students, it is busy all the time. There's a heavily used corridor. Uh there's also folks that bike through there to get into Souk. It's heavily used. The bike park is down below. We're encouraging active transportation to get to Sea Park and that is what we're seeing. Uh the 25 section crossroad will also leave space in case there's a breakdown, an accident or anything that happens in that particular area as well as the need for land potentially in the future if we wish to add more services. So let's say for example a wastewater line or a water line needs to run through that connection. It allows for the servicing to occur in the future should it happen.

Um I'm still unconvinced that this will do anything to commuting traffic. Uh I don't think that a Sun River resident like myself would use it to get into town. And here's why. You would come down Phillips Road, turn on the highway, and the posted speed is 50 or 60 until you hit a slowdown or whatever. Uh would I turn and go say 30 kilometers cuz that whole road from say it's 30. It would have to be 30 given the uses of a ball field, a golf course, a skate park, a rec center. Uh, and then you have some high density development until you hit the roundabout and then you would turn left and then enter in the slowdown onto Church Road and then maybe eventually turn right.

Church Road at the highway is really busy all the time. So, you would probably just stay on Phillips and take the highway up into town. It's really not a big deal uh to get up soup when you want to. Um but I feel that uh shortcutting it here um is a real problem and the big one I think about is Se Park that area has is not paved as anyone who goes to the facility knows. It's a gravel lot that has some logs in place and that's really all that's been done because I've sat on the commission for 12 years now and there's always been talk about potentially the connector coming through. So C park only gets its revenue through user fees and facility bookings.

So all of the funds generated go back into the facility. Paving something only to be torn up later doesn't make any sense. The egress to sea park will be heavily impacted. Right now it's an exit only and the parking lot has been aligned to allow it to be a oneway out only. You cannot turn in from there. Uh should the road go through at any length or any width, parking will be heavily compromised. So Se Park needs to know because they do get complaints about the lack of parking sometimes and not in the summer so much. Right now it's not as busy, but again go there on a Tuesday at 6:00 and try to find parking. When the fitness center and the ISIS, it's full.

Or even when the U7 grouping plays, there's four teams in a game on one sheet of ice and they're all driving. Use your microphone. Which one of these are you debating? I mean, I'm on the second one now. This was a question on the first one and I'm explaining why. Just a sec. Just can I say what I need to say? What's your point? Sure. Well, my point is we're talking about acquisition of the 25 m. I'm not we're not talking about the the T form or the roundabout or or sea park and their parking. We're talking about that segment and uh purchasing the land now.

So, I understand what you're talking about, but this isn't this isn't what the motion says. I am explaining why I I opposed that previously. and we were a directed staff need to know what cross-section of road we want to go with. In the end, they have been left with no direction on anything and in the media reports no d no direction, no design, nothing. We have we have ample information and I and I voted in opposition of that. I am now saying I am in favor of just having the 25 meter road width there and I'm explaining why the 25 meter is important and the main impact on all of this is sea park and is and the access and what it's doing they will lose parking that they will not be able to find and if you have a narrow road width there will be no parking on it. You need something wider so people have a place to park because the facility is full. So on this one, it will just sit. We're heading into

summer. Nothing's going to happen. There are conversations all the time between our staff and the sea park staff about what's happening. The next council can pick it up and if they don't like the 25 meters, they can make a decision then. But everyone around this table is well aware of the transportation master plan and what have we been designing and what we are doing. So I would just say I'm voting in favor of this this time and that was my rationale why. Whether or not anything happens with this I don't know. We'll deal with the non-binding part. I still don't think it's going to address commuter traffic as much as some say it will because today, for example, on my commute home, the slowdown was between the roundabout and Otter Point Road. That was what was said on the highway. Nowhere else in Souk, it was smooth sailing the whole way until you hit the Town Center roundabout and carry on westward. I'll leave it at that.

Other speakers, St. Pierre, Van Baitman. Hold on. St. here. Baitman Pearson held I'll throw you in there and everyone else. Okay, go ahead, St. Pierre. Okay, so uh I recommend that we move forward with allowing staff to start negotiations on the 25 meter cross-section. I understand those negotiations will be whenever they happen and they won't happen very quickly. Having said that, uh the 25 meters can always be scaled back, but it's much more challenging and costly to add it on after the fact we decide that's what we want and if what future council wants. So move allowing staff to move forward also means that in terms of a plebbeite or costing out the project in the future, we can actually have some real figures. One of the concerns discussed when we discussed this the first time was that we didn't have any hard data, no hard figures. we need to allow staff to actually go out and negotiate and get us those numbers because if we don't do that, we still

don't have those numbers. Um, those are the main reasons. I would suggest that the roundabout is definitely the way to go. The public, if it's in favor of this project, it will want this because it actually moves traffic more quickly and a T intersection will not do that. So, I think it's definitely a case of go big or stay home. We don't want to spend 27 million instead of 33 or whatever the hell it is and not actually achieve it. Uh we should actually be able to achieve what the public is asking if we're asking that much money. Uh I'd like to be sure that we do that. Uh the 25 m more or less ensures that according to our engineers again up to future council and whoever to figure that out, but at this point I think we need to allow staff to move forward in whatever ways they can. It costs us nothing to let them do their job.

Great. Thank you, Councelor Baitman. Yeah. So, um, I did make this motion and I voted against it, um, on the grounds that we were discussing, I think it was a $700,000 roughly, uh, land acquisition cost and how this would um, this would commit the district to a $700,000 cost in the immediate future. Um, in fact, as as our minutes state, and I I missed this in the heat of the moment last week, authorization for land acquisition would permit land negotiations only and would not commit the district to land purchases or construction. So, as councelor St. Pierre just said, yes, staff are eager to get on with this work. Um, they have recommended it in the past. Um, I I keep hearing, let's get it done. Well, this is a key part of getting it done. Um, I think initial discussions have been uh ongoing as the as the the minutes also state. Um, and as the mayor stated, uh, staff noted previous discussions with the CRD. Um, and there has been discussions with um,

the private land owners as well. So, I I think that should continue. So, if if this Yeah, I will vote in favor of this this time. Thank you. Okay. Councelor Pearson. Well, it feels like we're at a Victoria Council meeting. Um, I'm confused because the debate centered around uh the CRD not wanting to negotiate until after the election. There was no negotiation. So, we're going to do a negotiation with land owners and then we're going to have to do it again after the election. The board doesn't meet. I I know. But they made it clear to us that there was no they were not going to discuss land. That was what the information that we got. If if that was wrong, well then I guess I got wrong information. So this motion is talking about doing something between now and the election. And some parts of it we can't do until after the election. We may none of us may be here.

Um, I'm I'm confused because I don't think anything's changed, you know, except maybe a couple of opinions, but we we we debated this fully. We came up and I'm not I'm not trying to go back on, you know, the mayor has full privilege and she stated her objections, which is was what we're supposed to do. But again, we're we're in this kind of nomads land. 700K, where's that coming from? Because I have these questions written. Where's the $700,000 coming from? Where's the budget for that $700,000? Where is like when is this negotiation starting? When is this expected to be finished? And is it being all handed over to the to the next council? The mayor's statement at that meeting said, "We're out of term and out of time." and I wish the next council good luck. That's kind of exactly what was said. Um I think that the 25 meters is is is admirable. I think we can do it for on a 20 m road road rightway. I asked our engineers safely all of those questions. But again um this is only

about directing staff to negotiate with private property owners for acquisition of various land partials. Um, I think it's a again the cart is ahead of the horse. Okay. Uh, councelor Helane. Okay. Well, after all that, so and bear with me in this. So, after the mayor's statements on not using the connector route, I can now understand why we have not made any real effort to have SE park property dedicated. and I understand why 25 meters is your choice as it will never be built because we'll never afford $50 million buildout. Lastly, we have spent $834,000 on engineering and design on a road that is not going to deal with traffic issues in the mayor's words. It would have been nice to know this when doing our transportation master plan and OCP with these designs in it. And this is something that was voted for in the affirmative by the mayor both times. So, how am I to ask now the public to vote on a muddled issue like this when if there's an

obvious understanding here now that we don't even want this road built really? And I've got a a a map here that I got from my surveyor. Then he was involved with a company called Lener Rico back in the day in 1999. Highways and them got them to put through and they've got here and I I sent a copy of it to our staff today the road dedication that goes right through there. And it was expected this road to be built in 1999. So I'm pretty sure it's still, as Rabbi Palmer would say, get it built. It's still an expectation to do it now. So, somebody's decided that this is a traffic issue and will fix or help our muddled tra situation. So, why would we spend all this money on something that we didn't want to do then? Why didn't we bring it up a few years ago and just say, "Listen, this isn't really in my appetite or our appetite. So, let's not spend $834,000 engineering, designing something that we really don't want to do, and I'd rather drive out to Souk Road anyway and and

drive up in a traffic jam." So, I'm I'm I'm having a tough time with why it was brought back as well and I'm having a tougher time now that understanding it after hearing mayor speak. It's not about me. It's uh if if people want to use this and that's great. You had said indicated and I don't want to go back and forth that this is what Sun River residents need to get into Souk. So, I disagree with that because I live there, but I'm just one of many people that live there. Uh in terms of this, what staff need is to know what design between 20 and 25 a different design was brought forward that a counselor used a measuring tape. Well, I can go and measure roads and say, "Hey, let's do this one and this is what I measured." But that's not a good approach to road design because I'm not an engineer and our staff are and they have put forward recommendations on a cross-section.

uh when a new council forms, they're going to form their priorities. They may or may not advance this, but at least we can bookend this and say, "Okay, this is the design where it is." The next part goes on to whether or not we want to have a plebite on that. That's a different conversation, but in this case, we broke it down into particular segments. And the recommendation uh was okay, let's just do this one particular segment, which would be from uh the roundabout at Phillips across. And then I admit I squirreled a bit when I hear of like tea intersections and stop signs on Phillips Road and that's somehow going to uh it it just seemed a bit messy.

uh we don't know what's in the ground there and that may stop the whole project and of course access to funding is going to stop but this is a transportation plan that has been approved by the ministry on how we approach road designs throughout our community they have seen it they've approved it and so in the case that something shifts and changes with different funding our staff at least say council is resolved to deal that this is the road with we want to pursue And over time that might change depending on how the conversations go. So at least I think there's enough information for us to pick a design 20 or 25. I'm in favor of the 25 and uh whether or not as anything no as everyone knows things take time. There's other matters in the queue that staff are focusing on. they have an approved budget that they want to go with, but largely things are going to go on hold now. Uh and then the next council will pick it up and pick up their priorities and go from there. But

in the meantime, if anyone asks them what is happening, they can say at least this is resolved. Council's done their work. They've actually made a decision. End of story. Okay, next speakers. And counselor, I'll just clarify. MLA Dana Lajiness is our MLA and the one that uh governs this area and who we connect with. Councelor Haldane has spoken. I'll go to Bettos and then check in with Mcmath. Okay. First of all, a clarification. I I I believe when we talked about um this 25 meters, we were talking about the section from uh through uh to uh Phillips only. That's the only section. Y and uh I'm personally in favor of the 25 meters. I don't really have a problem with that. I just I'm not happy with the timing. Our time is running out here and we're going to put we're going to have a new council in and hopefully I'm part of that. Um and then I will advocate for for the 25 meters. I don't think three months is going to make a great deal of

difference and then we can come in. I've heard some arguments for 20 or 25. I'm in favor of the 25, but others may have an argument and win the day at 20. It is just basically about the clock running out. And I I think for us to have a last stab at it, um I I don't think it much matters. Uh I think that uh uh we we need uh to have a new plan drawn up and and a new plan just for that section only. And then we need to go seek uh some uh other funding sources to get it done because even at that that small portion that we're talking about is going to be anywhere from 22 to 27 million and the one I was in favor of was the $25 million one even that is very rich for for souk in itself. So, uh I believe that the throughpro extension is necessary and uh um I I am a little concerned about the speed limits and things like that, but it's only going to get worse as this town builds out and I see stuff going up all over the place.

So, I think we do have to get on with it. I just don't think that it the time is right for us to do it. I think it has to be the next council and uh then the uh then the people of this community have spoken and that council can carry the ball and make it happen or not. But uh I think our time we've had our kick at it and uh what through us is uh the funding from the federal government which has been postponed or whatever has happened to it. We don't really know. uh if that had come in, we would be with a question to the public. But that is the that is the key. That money didn't come in. And I know in my heart that if we went and asked for $50 million from this community, it would not pass. And I doubt whether 25 million would pass. So, we need to rework this under the the new guidelines and our new council and uh but come back at it hard because I think it's still a very big priority for this community. But uh with the information

that we have so far um I'm just not in the position that I think we should be talking to uh land owners and things like that uh when we can it may be 3 four months down the road we do that but not now. It's just enough's enough. Uh we have to uh let the new council figure that one out. So that's my two bits. Councelor McMath u I just have a couple questions. So from the June 22nd um I want to make sure I understand this correctly. So you we have the options for the width selection and staff land negotiations. Those were the two pieces.

And so what ultimately went forward was for staff to go ahead with negotiations which sort of pushed it to the 25 and that's where we're looking for more clarity now. Is that correct? Well, like nothing came out of that meeting. So the motion at the time it failed. There was no other motion put forward. Uh and so nothing happened. So in the end staff don't have a uh like which design are we working on? We did not answer that question at all. So no other mo follow-up motion was put forward for anything. So then it was like okay fine. Wish the new council well and now they have to pick a road design. Okay.

And then in terms of land owners, the land in total is 9,910 square meters. The CRD owns 7,737 square meters. 1,538 of that is privately held. But in the meantime, we have also not heard of the outcome of the funders. our staff are following up with the funders or if a different grant comes in the same time they need to know what the design is. Yeah, that's why it's here is just pick a design and it'll for just for clarity you'd mentioned before no new information. So that is that holding now that we cannot request any new information. Well, it's just we are if we wanted to add anything new. So, councelor Haldane referenced private information that he has. It doesn't really have any bearing because none of us have seen it. So, I'm not holding that cuz I don't know what he's talking about. The information I'm looking at was in the report that was provided when I referenced the dis the land ownership piece was in the land uh

was what was in front of us at the last meeting. Okay. I just I had a question from a member of the public. So maybe I'll I'll state the question and then we can get guidance to whether I can get an answer for it. Yeah, if you want to ask your question. Yeah, it was just that with the design as it is now, um are any existing ball fields going to be basically become unusable or have to be relocated? And is that cost for the replacement or relocation included in this project estimate? Sorry, I can you what needs to be reloc I missed that. Just with the the $50 million budget with um say it's a 25 meters, does that impact the sports fields? And if it does, is the rehabilitation or relocation of those sports fields included in the budget?

My understanding is it's more the parking lots at the pool, like the the ball field down below is is further back. Uh it may impact the trails or some of the access to the lower more the bike park. Oh, are Art Morris, I'm thinking of Stan Jones, pardon me. Uh, councelor Mcmath, this particular section is just the last report was just sort of from Phillips to say the golf course charters. So, it doesn't quite go all the way over to the ball field like it it's not that far over. So, I don't have that answer because we were just we broke it down into I think it's CP5. So it's just one segment from say Phillips to throop or throop ends the golf course.

Does staff have the answer for the the other sections? It's not quite what's in front of us. So I think they can address that later because we weren't dealing with that section or I think well I'll go to our CEO. They probably know that. Uh thank you worship to councelor Mcmah. I believe what was shared before uh with Mr. Miller's predecessor uh Mr. Carter uh was yeah if you're talking if we're specifically referring to the the community association ball fields I believe one of them uh was going to be impacted not the adult field that's more appropriate for I guess adult baseball softball but it was the field that they said they use mostly for the youth um baseball is what they said when we when staff met with them and so there would be an impact and they said it basically would potentially make it not usable for like adults to use it. It would be too small. However, they could use it for T-ball and things like that. So, there would be an impact, but And was the cost

to move the ball field? No, that was not factored into um the $50 million overall price tag. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Councelor McMath? Not at this time. Okay. Councelor St. Pierre. Um I just want to remind everybody that uh staff is not out of term or out of time. Uh they actually have a job to do which is to you know basically give next council the best information possible. Uh what they're being asked for here is uh a decision and we're not actually completely out of time and we have all the information and we got the homework. Next council is going to have to come up to speed on this stuff. They're going to have so many documents, so much stuff to go through. uh they're going to be mightily confused by all this stuff. We actually know what we're voting on and what's going on to at least some some to a large extent that they're likely to.

We're in the best position right now to decide on something like a cross-section so that staff can actually move forward and actually provide next council with the best information in terms of costs or any other challenges, impediments, whatever it might be, but a good report, good information. This is what actually we're here for. Um, we're not here to stop because this wouldn't have been brought forward by staff unless they needed this information and decision so they could move forward the work. Uh, they've got lots to do and we got lots to do. This wouldn't be here in front of us if it wasn't important. It's important. It will allow them to do important and good work that will help future council to make decisions to keep this community moving along. Um, whatever the decision is, we should make one because that's what we should do and that's our gift to future council, right? So, I hope that we do go with a 25 meter because I think it makes sense in terms of allowing for a roundabout in terms of making sure that we have the

middle lane potentially if there are emergencies or if people need to turn off and don't want to block up traffic because that's what we've been asked for. Keep the traffic moving and a roundabout will do that as well. So, I hope everyone will consider voting in favor. Thank you. Okay. Anything else on the motion? I have another question. Please go ahead, councelor McMath. In in terms of um just logistics wise because we are halfway through July. Um I don't believe there's a scheduled meeting yet at least for August and then we're going into September, October. Um we have are short on staff. So, what exactly is going to realistically what what is staff going to be able to do if we push this motion through tonight?

So, if this carries, I'll ask staff what happens next. Uh through your bishop to councelor Mcmath, I'll start. I don't know if Mr. Miller wants to add anything. Um, basically staff were working with the 25 meter cross-section. Initially, all the designs would have been based on 25 meters. I believe at a previous council meeting, council introduced uh a motion that was supported to bring reports back on a 15.2 meter and a 20 meter cross-section. So, we brought that forward a and then the result of that was then seeking clarity on do we like 15.2, is it 20, is it 25? Right now, again, our designs that that council Odana has pointed out, we've already spent significant funds on are based on a 25 meter cross-section. So I think staff were looking for clarity from council is if there [clears throat] is will and of the majority of council to change the cross-section from something other than 25 in order to allow staff to carry on with some work you know while election is happening over the next few months. Um we can go to redesign on a 20

m cross-section and bring a new council forward options of what that could look like. the 25 meters. It will just reconfirm that we don't need to go and seek new funding potentially to redesign it. Um, and also clarifies we don't need to change the messaging that we have already provided to the property owners impacted that the width and amount of land we're looking for. So, you know, nothing I guess immediately happens. We still carry on business as usual. At least we have clarity from council that it is still the 25 m. um they're not uh supportive of a 15.2 or a 20 m. That direction wasn't provided to to staff.

So um that's why it's kind of just paused. It has just paused any further work or any further conversations with property owners at this time. So this is more just to solidify that you don't need additional funding um those pieces, but there will be no land negotiations till after the election. uh through your worship. I I believe there council already previously directed staff to negotiate with private property owners and with the owners about this land acquisition and I believe as council and the public has heard we have spoken with all of the owners and um Sea Park uh CRD is the as Mayor Tate stated is the primary property owner. So that has been our main focus in the short term now um is getting direction from um council and the community on that specific section which is now renamed CP5 um and it's just the clarity of yes are we looking at the 25 m cross-section okay and just to play devil's advocate um a whole new council comes in they don't like 25

they change it back like is there any benefit to holding out on on us making this decision now. So the the whole thing is 25 is what has been approved. So if changing it back would be changing it back to 25. Like right now we're at a point where there has been no confirmation that is 25. new council comes in and they like 19 meters, then they would need to find money to design and come up with a different design to change it to 19. And maybe that's what they ultimately decide to do because of whatever. Mhm. But 25 is what has been approved and what we've been working on uh to date.

And so to our CEO's point, any change now would then require funding to come up with a different design that works. our engineer spoke as to his reservation of anything below 20 uh but ultimately at the end of the meeting we made no decision so it's just sitting there but I feel as a council we have enough information to just solidify uh one road design or another we've all been immersed in this master plan and been working on it for several months in different sections and this is now coming to be like the most one of a very difficult section to complete yeah okay thank you that helps Okay, thank you for your questions, Councelor Baitman.

Yeah, so I'll just um reiterate some of the things I said the last time. The 25 meter uh cross-section is this is the right of way. This is a future proofing for this community. Uh 30 years from now, we will have double the population, won't we? And um at this point in time, yes, the next council might wish to move ahead with a 15.2 to cross-section. Uh but we still need that 25 meter for future uh future councils way down the road to say okay it's time to uh to expand our our road uh road width as it states here the cost in 2026. This is from LA last month's uh report. Um, so at the 15 m cross-section, uh, to expand that back out to 25 m is a cost in the order of $20 million.

Um, so yeah, so I I will vote in favor of this on on that very grounds that we we are doing good work for those future residents, future generations of this community. Okay. Anything else? Councelor Haldane, just for clarity, we don't have a single 25 meter road anywhere in the District of Souk now, other than some of Highway 14. So I see no reason why 25 m we're going to set up on some little bow hunk road out in the middle of nowhere through a ballpark is going to be our 25 meter standing ground here. We're going to make that happen. Why why are we trying to build this crazy crazy buildout road out in the middle of Souk, you know, and over by the schools and so on then the rest of the roads all hold sidewalks both sides, bike lanes both sides, all the stuff, all the bells and whistles on every road we've ever done.

So this is this comes out of nowhere. It was something that was decided by somebody once upon a time, but it doesn't make any sense to me and I won't be voting in favor of it. Okay. I believe we've heard now with Watoms being completed by the current developer to have sidewalks on one side, that road would actually be 25 along with charters. Uh those are two and really we're if we're going to build a new road the we always hear build back better leave a gift to the future generation not a big cost of what they have to fix as all we've been doing is fixing infrastructure that we've inherited that uh was done is it's just the reality of it is if this is meant to offset highway traffic then it needs to be safe particularly when you're intermingling with high pedestrian use with young children.

So anyway, call the question. All those in favor opposed is Pearson and Helane and McMath is can't see you. So she knows to she's in favor. This passes on a 52. Thank you. The next one is the one on the non-binding plebites that council direct staff to bring forward a report on a non-binding plebite regarding continuation of the th road Phillips connector project for community opinion to be expressed on October 17th, 2026. We still have time because it would not be a borrowing bylaw should council wish to advance this. It's been moved and seconded. Does anyone wish to speak further? Go ahead, councelor Betos. Yeah, I I'm still opposed to this.

Again, uh if I go to anything, whether non-binding or binding to the community, I would want to put a dollar value on it. And we don't know what the dollar value is going to be. We just have a rough estimate. And we're talking just about the section from Charters uh down to Phillips Road. Uh so I'm not in favor of it. And uh for me uh I believe that section is somewhere between 22 and $27 million. And I think the uh option uh for the 25 meter could be the 27 or even 25 million. And I I uh I just really think that's way too rich unless we've got some money coming in from another government. And I want to leave that to the next council. Uh you could put a clear a clear question out there. or just be, you know, what do you want us to do? Go through with this? Well, how much is it going to cost? How much are we going to get on grants? I'd rather

have the grants in place and go to the public and say we need to borrow, say, $12 million or $14 million. But to come out there with uh with without a with a dollar value to it, I think we're doing a big disservice. And uh that's not We have an election to run. We need to pick counselors and mayors. and these things are for the counselors that come in. So, I'm okay with talking about uh the gathering place, but we start coming up, but you know, we're here to make decision and we're going to go to the the people for plevvisites on what do you think, what do you think without clear questions. I don't think that's right. I think we need a council to make those decisions and in a couple of months we will have a new one and that's for them to do. So, I'm not in favor of this one bit.

Okay. Thank you. Other comments from members of council, councelor Pearson. Well, again, asking a non-binding website question on such a major undertaking. Um, and and I'm in a complete different position than I think than even though the result will be the same than councelor Biddtos. I think I think that we don't I think we I think that this is our road. This is internal road. We have to come up with a way to do it and I think we can do it affordably. Um now we're going to secure 25 mters of property. We're going to go ahead and do that. I think there's other ways to do it. I think we can partner with people and I think that we can come up with a way more affordable build through there. We're talking about the plebite.

Yeah. And I know and that's the plebite is going to ask a whole bunch of questions that we don't even have answers to. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a design. We're it just again asking another non-binding question. It's I don't it's confusing. We're going to put a whole bunch of questions on a on the uh the ballot. No, I'm not I'm not supporting this. We need to we need to figure this out ourselves. Okay. Others councelor St. here than Baitman. Just like a question to staff through your worship. Uh we've seen a lot of numbers and I think we've had uh quotes and estimates done on these pieces. Uh do we not have some reasonably decent figures on the road section that we're considering in a plebite because I'm hearing we have no information but I think I've seen information. So could you please clarify for me?

Uh through the your worship to council St. here. I believe it was included in the June 22nd report that say give a range from I can't remember the lower number 20 million to 27.5 million just specifically for the CP5 section which isn't the Phillips side isn't the roundabout church roundabout to um the ballfield side. Okay. And so just just to further that my understanding was that those particular numbers were actually um they weren't just a rough guess. They were actually there's a fair amount of assets that's I believe they were yeah it's called a class D. So okay so what's the margin of error on that sort of thing?

Uh I'll defer to Mr. Miller. Uh the class D cost estimate was based on what we would have to do to expand if we went down to a a short uh smaller rightway. the CL it was a class C cost estimate that we put in for funding based off the 25. So those are a 30% contingency and that is what the funer required to and considers shovel ready if you go in with a class C. Okay. So the 27 and a half million is a class C cost estimate that was provided to the funders. Okay. So if I understand correctly, if we retain the 25 m cross-section that essentially was used for the class C estimate, we actually have a reasonably accurate estimate of the cost of that piece of road. Is that correct?

It is. Yeah, I would call it a very accurate one. It's not a class A, but that comes when you actually tender it. So this is specific enough that it gives the funders shy that we have done our homework and we're pre presenting a reasonable project. Okay. So if I understand correctly, we do have good numbers on that piece of road. My next question is why is it just this piece of road? Uh why would we be going to plebite for just one chunk of the road as opposed to the whole thing? I I forgive me for asking, but why does someone have an answer for me on that? I consider that speak to that.

I would um I think it was I would go to councelor maybe bait. Did we pardon me? Did you bring that motion forward or no? No. No. It was just did. Oh, councelor Betos did. Okay. For CD5. Well, and the question was why would we just ask the part of it was we've spent significant time, money, and resources on this connector. Is this something that the community wants us to continue doing? So part of the rationale for going to a plebicide is I is to ask the electorate, is this something that you feel should be a continued priority of council? It's been out there since I've been elected. Various elements, different grants have been applied for, some received, many not. Uh and yet we continue on. But is this something that the community actually wants us to continue doing? That would be the intention of the plow site.

Okay. because I I was curious because it's late at night and I do get fuzzyheaded at this point in time, but we've been talking for a long time about a $50 million club site and so on and so forth. That would be the whole buildout. Now we're down to one section. I understand that it makes a lot of sense because it's actually the internal road connection that would actually basically connect Phillips to the rest of Suit, which is actually what we need. The rest should honestly be the province of responsibility. I just may have missed the meeting or the minutes when we decided that the plebside would be only that's all I'm curious about is that did we decide that at some point?

Well, this would be the case if this had passed um at the time then staff would be be working on a report and bringing that back. So, I don't have that answer because it was defeated. So, it just stopped. So, that that we don't know yet. So, why have them do work? Like that's why we would the motion is to direct staff to do a report to come back. So, we don't have enough information to make a decision. So, we're not going to get staff to get information. Okay, cool. Right, Counselor Bettos. Oh, sorry. Baitman then Bettos. I I just have a quick comment and the reason I voted in favor of this because I want to see the report. It's simply asking us for a report on a non-binding plebicide question and um I I think let's make our decision when we see that report.

We can we can reject reject modify or approve accordingly but we need to see the report. Yeah, it's just information. We haven't decided at that to have a public or not. Councelor Betos. Yeah. Other than getting very very frustrated re redebating things over and over again. Uh we had a very robust discussion last time that uh the $50 million because we didn't get the grant and uh well we we don't have the grant in time to to to ask the question. So right now we don't have the grant. So, I mean, when we talked about it, and I'm pretty much sure we were all in agreement that if we went to the public with a $50 million ask without some grant funding, it would be dead in the water anyways.

And none of us had the appetite for a $50 million project. It was just not feasible with the amount of money that we can borrow. And we debated it and debated it. And then we came down with the option of doing this CP5 or whatever it's called which was the most crucial part of getting done and it came in between 20 and 27 million and so we sort of decided that we need more information on that. Now what it goes back to uh if we stay with the 25 meters you know that's fine by me but now we're going back and looking at the whole bloody thing again. I mean where the hell have we been? Would I waste my time? Last time we debated this to this this length and then now we're looking at it again. We made these decisions.

Well, I'm starting to get a little bit annoyed at this. I mean, just asking people to speak again and then I'll recall the question on this on whether or not you want staff to bring a report back on having a plebbeite. No, again, it's the clock's running out. this enough of of this stuff and uh we the the election is very much aware of of what we want to to accomplish and uh uh this isn't doing us any good. No, that's fine. Councelor Pearson. Yeah. Um again, um I agree with everything Councelor Benos just said. Plebite's not going to give us anything that we don't know already. You know, I I've brought it up multiple times. We have we have a 4,000 plus signature petition already in in our hand. People want the traffic improved. All kinds of debate. It's gone back and forth, but we have information in our hand. People want traffic improved. I don't know if the throughpro is going to be the silver bullet that does it all, but it's been in our plan since I think now 1999 according to councelor Haldane, but it's been in our

plan. So, let's figure out a way to get it done. And uh I don't need I mean yeah ask the public any any nice questions you want but again we have all that information. So anyway seems like we're going around in circles. Yeah. A Victoria council meeting. I take that back and I think it's it's impolite to say that of Victoria. No. It really is. Um I will councelor Haldane. Did you want to speak? Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, so 27 years we've been going through this. Our transportation master plans, all of our OCPS have all had this road cross-section in it and been supported by every council to date. So are we going to have a plebbeite every time we want to decide to build any piece of road in Souk or any section of road? I doubt it. So a plebite should be about the dollar spent, not on the road itself. Because the road's already been in the plans. We can't keep saying, "Oh, we're going to keep going to the public." The public has all the ability to come to every transportation master

plan that we vote in and every OCP we vote in and they've never said anything about not wanting this piece of Phillips Road or Through Road to connect. And it just comes down to that same old thing. I mean, we're going to go to the public to ask them and they don't have all the information that we have. So, how are they going to vote on something they don't understand? We don't even know what the real costs are going to be anyway. Who are we kidding here? and there's a pretty good chance we're not getting all the road dedication that we're going to expect, want, or ask for.

So, I'll be voting against this. Okay, go ahead. I just have threw you a question to staff and uh if if we do get this report back and we vote accordingly, will there be a couple of like solid plebsite questions included in that report that we can debate and consider? Uh through your worship to councelor Baitman. Uh yes, if council if council directs staff to bring back a report similar to the gathering place, um the report will include some background information and um options for potential motions for council to consider. Um as Mr. Laos indicated, you know, time is getting tight, but uh for a for a non-binding plebite question, there is still uh time if that's council's will.

And we'd get this back on July 27th, wouldn't we? Possibly because then we're into September. So maybe that's the So yes, it would it would have to come on July 27th. So uh we would move that to the top of the priority list. Councelor St. Pierre, uh just to confirm I think I'm confirming what councelor Bait was asking, but and again confirming what I think Mr. Miller was saying. Uh we would likely to have questions with numbers, firm numbers attached uh in terms of the road section that we've been looking at or a number of options. Is that correct? uh through your worship to councelor St.

Perry. Uh yes, that's correct. Uh a report coming back um could include um you know options for questions uh options for financing. I don't believe financing has to be included in a non-binding private. However, however, if that's council's desire, staff will 100% uh ensure that that information would be included in a report that council can uh include and then provide a bit more clarity on, you know, CP5, CP4, CP6 to your to your point. um the focus changed to CP5 more recently. It it had been the whole all three sections. That's just a more recent shift. So, um we can provide more clarity on that should that be the direction of council.

Okay. Because as it happens, I agree with councelor uh Bettos that we're not likely to get through without some grant money. But at the same time, I think that uh residents are expecting some movement on this and are expecting something to come forward and they're expecting us to do some work. Uh, I tend to agree that may not make a huge difference, but it makes a huge difference if we actually find out what they're willing to do and what they're not willing to do because then at at worst we have to go to the province and say, "Listen, we can't do this without help." So, councelor McMath, I think this publicite question in particular is redundant and I think we all know that it's one of, if not the biggest issue for residents here. Um, and I had a question. If this gets moved to the top of the priority list for staff to get it through on the next agenda before summer, what falls off?

Good question. Over to our CEO. uh through your worship to counseling math. Um I I can't say for sure at this time obviously um we it depends on council's uh direction. If anything, you know, because we are getting to the end of term, there is multiple important reports for council to consider regarding the sewer costing and other things. So if anything, I think this will just be extra time and overtime for staff to complete this work. I don't know that there's too much that can drop off the priority list. just we'll move to you know 1 A and 1B because we also need to bring or need council direction on the sewer utility building mo uh billing model as well before the end of this term. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Um I'll just make a comment that last time I had voted in favor of this and this time I am voting in opposition to this. Uh I still think asking the residents is always good. There's unique opportunity. However, we're going to have a busy ballot. We have just approved a plebite question and I think one on the ballot is great and that should be a good focal point. Uh I'm aware of about 26 candidates uh already for mayor and council. Uh four for mayor and uh 21 for counselor seats. Whether that those all turn into actual candidates, I don't know. Uh and I don't even know about the school trustees. So, we're all potentially looking at a couple of pages for a ballot potentially and it may be less. I'm just saying uh great to see such enthusiasm in local government. So, that's exciting. But adding another plebside question, it may need several pages of ballots which could then get really confusing. Uh we

might have the record as the longest one. Not that we want that, but I think the voting machine can only take so many pages at a time. In terms of referring to a petition online by an AI generated whatever that means nothing to me. Anyone around the world can sign a change.org petition. It doesn't validate souk residence. The last time there was a referendum on uh this connector. It failed in 2005. My memory is correct. Yet council has continued to work on something without electorate approval actually because they voted no. And then uh everything has changed since then. So now development has also changed and has sprung up in places that were not then designed for development. So that changes everything. But in this case I would say we are out of term and out of time. I won't be in favor of adding another plebite. We have one that is a I think well done well put together unanimous agreement around council to advance that. So that's exciting and we'll just leave this be. I'm just glad that a design has been done and then we

can say we've actually concluded decisions on that and that is that. So on this one I will call the question. All those in favor councelor Baitman is in favor opposed. Councelor St. Pierre Bettos Pearson Howane and councelor Mcmath is in favor. No opposition opposed. Okay. I couldn't see your box. So, I just wanted to double check. Okay. So, that is defeated and we're moving on. So, into our new business section of which we don't have any in terms of notice of motion. Sorry, we do. Okay. So, this is Oh, okay. This is the new business one. Okay. I wasn't uh completely sure. Oh, we'll let counselor Baitman leave the room. We'll find you again afterwards.

And here is the Okay, Councelor Baitman has exited again. Uh the motion here is that council supports in principle the securement of the 32 acre property at 7107 Dear Leap Road called Eagle Bluffs Forest for the purpose of protection as a publicly accessible nature park and for its ecoourism opportunities. Councelor St. Pierre is moving that seconded by councelor Pearson. Would you like to speak to it briefly? uh there's a huge amount of support in the community. Uh they've done a lot of work and I think that when there are people in the community that are actually participating in democracy at a really fundamental level to actually provide public amenities and do this kind of heavy lifting, uh we should support that because it's actually work that we need done and they're willing to do it. Uh, I think we could be good partners for them and it looks like they're actually looking at bringing a lot of people to table to make a lot of people to the table and partnerships to make this

happen. I look forward to seeing what can happen. Councelor Pearson then Betos. Um, no, it's an exciting proposal and it's being led by people in the community. Um, they didn't come in asking for money or in any way, shape or form. So if uh this can be added to an amenity in our community, um I think it's incumbent upon us to support things like that. So it's a it's a it's a good ask. Councelor Betos. Yeah, I concur. I think it's it's it's well done. Uh I'm very impressed with the the people that are putting themselves forward to to make this happen. Uh as long as we don't have to go to a plebite about it, I'll be happy.

So uh yeah. I know. Uh it is a is a wonderful area down there and if it goes it worries me because it's a agricultural land and if somebody wanted they could cut every damn tree down tomorrow. So uh yes I'm glad this group is looking at it and I think we offered them whatever support we can. Uh I won't I'll speak to the second part in a minute but I just in favor of it. Councelor Haldane any comments? Favor. Okay. Um I'll speak in favor. Uh I think exceptional work has been done as many have said this would be when opportunities like this emerge uh we need to pursue them. I'm grateful to the community organ the community members that have organized to do this work uh on behalf of the community and uh and those today and those to come. This is a a very important piece of property. So I'm fully in favor of this.

I will call the question. All those in favor? Uh, none opposed. So that's unanimous. The next part would be that a council member be selected to attend a roundt to help design a pathway towards park creation. Uh, I will move that and seconded by councelor St. Pierre. Uh, this is an ask of the group. Um, I will put my name forward for this. The rest of you are all running in this election. I am not. I say that many times. I'm not and I would be available to do this and to report back to all of you. Secondary councelor St. Pierre. Nothing to add. Councelor Betos.

Yeah, once again I feel that that council should be appointed by the next uh the next council. I appreciate your offer to uh I'm not so sure how often they're going to meet in the next little while. Uh I I if you're willing to put yourself forward, I'm almost okay with it. But uh that that that's really a question for the next council and see who they have and there might be somebody very well suited for that position. I'm not sure much is going to happen. Uh you know, we're in uh mid July, August, we shut down. Uh people are on holidays. So, uh, if the the mayor wants to put herself forward, then I'll support it.

And I'll just say I'm in office until November 2nd. Uh, my exit doesn't happen until the next mayor takes their oath. And meanwhile, this group is continuing to advance and to move this work. It's not a council committee. It doesn't require council schedules. I'll be available and I'm not going anywhere. So unlike everyone else that gets a vacation, I'm not taking one for a while until probably over the election because I don't want to be here for that. So um we I've already connected and uh we'll remain there. I'll report out if there's anything and then gladly transfer the next all the information to the next mayor should be they be interested in it.

So on that note, um I'll call the question all in favor and that's unanimous. Thank you. Can we have councelor Baitman return to the room? We have the next one here is just in time for councelor Baitman because it's his notice of motion that has come forward now. Uh this was your notice of motion from the last meeting. So I'll do you want me just to read it in? Sure. that the district enter sorry that the district enter into discussions with the souk community association regarding its January 17 2026 request for new service agreements for Fred Mill Park and Art Mers Park with the proviso that rate increases for user groups at these facilities be kept to a reasonable minimum.

I'm gonna recuse from you're okay. Councelor Haldane is declaring a conflict and leaving the room. Uh seconder for this will be councelor Pearson. Okay, go ahead councelor Baitman. Okay, so I want to immediately amend this based on the new information received tonight. Um and that would be to first of all state it was January 19th, 2026 was the committee the whole meeting at which the community association made its presentation. So let's change it to January 19th. and also eliminate the final after Art Morris Park full stop. Okay, that would be my my initial amendment and then I will speak to Okay. Um once we just see the amendment.

Yeah, it's just January 19. Uh January 19th you've got and then we're ending the motion at Art Morris Park. Full stop. Okay. So the rest of it would be removed. Okay. Um you Okay, that's been moved and seconded. You're proposing an amendment to remove that. Is there a seconder for the amendment? that's removed. Would you like to make any comment on why that's being removed now? Well, just basically the fact that it's the Fred Milan Park Society that deals with the user groups at uh Fred Milan Park. I'm I'm not sure who runs the Art Morris Park. Um however, um in this context, um yeah, I think this is a good starting point for Okay. Um motivation.

We'll just go to staff. Uh, sorry, apologies. I just wanted to clarify because I thought I heard earlier it's not the safe community association. I thought it's the friend Milan Park Society that runs the fields and the funding and the lighting and the So, I just wanted to clarify. Do you want to add community association and the friendmill park society to this motion because they're two separate it sounds like it's two separate bodies and potentially so I'm not trying to confuse the issue I just no you're making a very good point so into discussions with the suit community association and the Fred Milan Park Society we don't have a we don't have a service agreement with the no you're right the Fred Milan Society I think it's the case where the land owner is the Sue community association and the original ask for lighting I believe came from the Sue community association so perhaps that would just be a good place to start without the Fred Millan Park society I don't think that's necessary at this point well why yeah so let's just

let's remove that Fred Millan park society for now yeah that amendment is never has not been moved or seconded. So, that can come out. But on the rest of this, it's just I'll call for a um Did you want to add anything about the amendment to remove that language? Councelor Pearson, I have some more information, but I'll wait till microphone. I do have some more information that I'll share with everybody when we get to it. However, I think that the the district should enter into discussions with the Sou Community Association regarding its January 19th, 2026 request for new service agreements and then end it right there.

Yeah, that's good. So, like take out Fred Mill Park and our take all that out. Okay. So, that's um Would you deem that to be a friendly amendment? Okay. So, we'll take strike all that out. Okay. So, I'm going to call the question on the amendment just so we can clear it. All those in favor of the amendment, right? Could you read it again? I can't see it on my screen. You Sorry, Councelor McMath. You can't see it. That's correct. So could you just read the latest amendment like the full motion uh that the district enter that the district enter into discussions with the suit community association regarding its January 19th 2026 request for new service agreements full thank you and staff just shared that screen that's helpful thank you okay so we're clear so I'm going to call the question on the amendments all those in favor of the amendments and that's unanimous okay Okay. So, now we're back just on this matter here. I'll turn to councelor Baitman.

Okay. So, this this motion arose in the moment um following the Souk Soccer Association uh presentation to us and their requests um for for uh district funding and or um that the district move ahead and build its own um souk and sea park owned and operated facility. So the key to me was that I I came back to this presentation by the soup community association back at that committee the whole meeting. It was a particularly good one. I felt um I I do have the I took screenshots of each slide. Um and I can state here that the community association was seeking at that meeting new service agreements for Fred Milan Park and Art Morris Park at $35,000 each. and that aligns with the 35,000 that goes to the community association uh to the community hall currently. Um Ms. Ber and Dave Pollola came to the meeting and spoke to us and made some some rather telling points that uh Se Park does operate own and

operate every major facility in Souk except Sea Park and that um other municipalities of course uh through their taxpayers and their budgets are funding uh fields, stadiums, arenas, uh courts um uh machos pays according to the presentation um $1.5 to2 million a year to maintain its community hall and fields. Uh View Royal pays 2 to three million annually for um for municipal sports fields and amenities and that these new agreements would um I'm sorry I didn't share this ahead of time. I did. Yeah, we we didn't receive a a follow-up uh copy of this, but um we are proposing a partnership agreement aligned with the district's 5-year financial plan at 105,000 per year.

That's for the three uses. Um this provides predictability and accountability for both the district and the community association. Um the funding is structured to support base operations, facility maintenance, safety, and capital readiness. uh ensuring our facilities remain safe, accessible and grant ready. Um anyway, this is the sort of material that in a future sitdown between the district community association um can discuss and and evolve this this uh situation. Interestingly, the difference for the for the Souk Soccer Club from its $12,000 a year, I believe the number was previous uh field rental up to the 52 is approximately $35,000. So I was thinking if these service agreements went ahead therefore IPSO facto um the Sukarker Club could could get a uh a more more realistic for them rate.

Now knowing that Fred Mil part society as as was explained to us uh at the meeting by uh by this association representative um so it it it's it's it needs to it it's it begins a conversation that is long overdue in this community there there is a need for the community association and the district to collaborate on delivering recreational services to the community and that um I believe that this would begin the process of this conversation and um it might provide some relief for souk soccer as as we move ahead. I don't know how that would look but at least this would begin the conversation.

So that's my motivation. Okay, thank you. The seconder was councelor Pearson. Go ahead. Yep. Um and and good because I think this discussion is long overdue and these these negotiations. So this came out of obviously u the presentation by Souk soccer. Um after that meeting um the acting president who who who made the presentation to us he's he's in vacation he is currently on vacation and he's in Portugal and I had a zoom call with him on July 3rd um in which um he agreed that uh a sitdown meeting between Souk Soccer Souk Community Association and the John No Fred Mill I was going to John Phillips, the Fred Millan Park Society president. I had a conversation with him today at 5:00. I talked to Pete McCay on July 3rd and then I talked to actually I talked to one of the representatives of U from Souk Community Association and they've all agreed up after July 24th to sit down and have a discussion upon Mr.

McCay's return. A lot of misinformation, a lot of things have gone online and I want to say clearly it's been unfair to the suit community association. They fund uh Fred Millan Park Society. They hand out the the money towards soccer and and youth sports. So again, um I'm all for this motion, but it it should be known that they're they've all agreed um to sit down and have a discussion around funding, what what are the requirements, and then I think that information should flow back to us, and then we can more wholesomely decide, you know, the support. It's it it is long overdue to support community association. But but again I wanted to make sure that the point is out there is that we do not want to ever harm this organization that has been giving us tremendous support for 90 years. Is it 90 years?

So and and we've enjoyed an amazing organization. So it sometimes three three parties are not all talking to each other at the same time. then the information flows out and I'm extremely happy to hear that they're all going to sit down and and discuss hash out their issues and so and I thank you councelor Baitman for bringing this motion forward because it's long overdue. Okay, other comments? Uh no, thank you both for the just the outreach that you've done. Uh a new service agreement though, you know, would be in order. Uh it just may not be in time for registration of soccer this September because that's when the se like registration is on now uh for as soon as September. Uh and that's when the season begins.

Um, so I'm not 100% sure of like what can be done sooner to address the increase in registration fees. They don't worship. I believe they said the soccer people said they were okay for this coming. I can't hear you. Okay. The microphone wasn't on. What we just heard was that for this season it's fine. It's more next season. So there is time. They're okay for this uh this llama. So they were looking for the future as opposed they have the money now. Uh they're okay. So I see. Okay. I think so. Yeah. The urgency is not there. It's not for this particular registration system. I think that I think right now is our is our turn to step back. Let that other discussion take place and there may be there may be other asks from different organizations but let that flow first.

That would be my kind of recommendation. Yeah. No, I think that that would be great. Uh and then I think in opport and that's where I think um you know there there needs to be what the district needs to do like at one point we provided the 700,000 or 800 thou I can't remember the dollar amounts no it was higher than that we was all we started with 400,000 towards the all weather field but then it advanced it was around 700 or so because we couldn't use the lands that were held in reserve reserve for the Sun River is tied specifically to that parcel of land. Uh but we did it what like the former community works or gas tax funding of the time went for the all-w weather field replacement. But I think in this case it's just what contribution could the district do uh to help with the uh the lights and the field because at some point the field will need to be replaced

again. Like things just have a life and what does that all look like going forward? uh and the lights as well. If there's no lights, there's no soccer, there's no nothing. Like it's you can't play without them. So that is an important element as well. Uh and there's an opportunity. So this Okay, I'm just glad. Okay, for this season we're fine and then this will fall into play and then it's timely to look at at new agreements anyway. Okay, good. Right, call the question. All in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you. We'll have counselor Baitman return to the room. Uh we're sorry you are in the room.

Sorry councelor Haldane to be returned to the room not councelor Baitman. It is coming on at 10:30. There is a um one letter chair if I may. Yes. I apologize. I don't believe when we got to item 12 notices of motion that any councilors were given the opportunity to say if they had any new notices of motion. We went straight to item 13, motion. Oh, I jumped right at it. Are is anyone Does anyone have a notice of motion that they wish to read into the record? Oh, I have about seven. I'm just kidding. No, I don't have any. I'm not doing that. No, another pleite. No, I don't have any. So, we'll move into the uh 14.1, which is a letter that was pulled uh funding gap for the Mist program. Uh so the motion would be to receive moved by councelor Betos who pulled it seconded by councelor Baitman.

Go ahead councelor Betos in the microphone. Uh yeah, this was correspondence that came in, but it's uh on behalf of the the mayor, I attended a number of sessions quite a while ago now and had the mobile youth service team and and uh explain what they do and uh uh theme a counselor uh social worker and a police officer uh go intervene with some of these young people at the beginning of some problems and is able to uh they do very good work. And what's happened is uh the federal government has pulled funding from this program and so they have a shortfall and they're asking each of the uh municipalities that still are involved in this and another wrinkle was that uh um two have pulled out central sanage and Langford. So we have Victoria Sanichoke Bayold Soup North Sis Machosen in Highlands and we they want to come up with $150,000 to play to pay uh this uh worker uh that is necessary for this team that the federal government was picking up and it no longer. So, I just

wanted to bring it uh to council for discussion because uh it does affect our community and our youth in uh in trouble. Uh and what they're asking for us uh is of this $150,000 we pick up 5.3%. Victoria picks up 43%. Sanich 35% Oak Bay which are similar size as us 6.7 Equiml to 6% Machosen one and Highlands one. So uh that's what they're asking for us and I just want to bring it to council to see if there's any appetite to coughing up seven and a half thousand for a year to support this program. Okay. Thank you councelor Betos. Um there was a notice of motion that received same day consideration at the Capitol Regional District Board meeting. Uh, and that was for a staff report to come back um about looking at whether or not the what that could be uh whether or not the capital regional district could fund this uh because every everyone there is representative and so I don't have that report but there was a same day motion that was read in at the start of July. So that report now though won't come back till

September. So I I don't know what that means in the meantime. I don't know either other than I'd be happy to hear back from the report because I guess if the CRD takes it on, we will have an assessment with that too. But I suspect it'll be a lot lower than what we're asking now. So I would be willing to uh postpone this. I don't know how the procedures work. Guess we have that staffed if we could bring that back in September. Yeah. So maybe a motion to table one meeting, isn't it? Postpone to uh to the next meeting when the CRD report is available.

Okay. I think that may be the the better way and then we can determine what that outcome is. I'm happy with that. just that will again more information is better and I'm glad the CRD is taking that up because it's well we don't know yet it's just a staff report it did receive same day consideration getting some consideration and that's what I'm interested in okay so a motion to postpone has been put forward is there a seconder for that by councelor St. here. Any comments that will now preside over any other discussion? So all those in favor of postponement. I have a question. Thank you.

Following the report the next CRD report. Uh the board is meeting a bit. looking at what we just agreed to that council sorry that council defer this item to a future meeting but it was meant to be a meeting following the receipt of the report to this of the CRD right yes well I think it's more once we know the outcome of the CRD board meeting okay I had a question I don't know if there was a lag you worship the motion I heard was that the item be postponed to the first souk uh council meeting after the CR report is received Yeah, which is which will happen on September 9th. Sorry, go ahead. Councelor McMath, in that CRD report um for their request for information, are the questions being asked about how missed triages um who and where they attend? And does it also include how many calls for service they've made to Souk?

I don't know. All that was considered at the board was there was a debate on whether or not to to give it same day consideration and the motion was to direct staff to report back. That that's as far as it got. What I would like is if we could send a letter to Mist asking for those pieces um because it is a wonderful program. However, sometimes when we contribute to these um groups that cover larger service areas, Souk doesn't um typically always get as much attention. So, they'll for they'll focus on uh like downtown Victoria and those pieces. So, it would just be nice if we could have the data to justify um the rates that we're looking at right now.

Okay. I'll turn to councelor Betos. Yeah, just for a background information, when I was attending those meetings with the the district uh the mayors uh that are all in this uh miss program and the chiefs of police and all of them, they had all that all those stats and uh I I don't have them in front of me. I have them in my notes, but uh Souk was very well represented uh for the number of calls and it lined up with what we were uh our percentage of of the bills. So, but that information is available. Um, yeah. Would you mind sending it to council?

Well, it's not current. The the one I have is we would have to ask again, but what I'm saying is they track they track those numbers. They have those numbers. Oh, perfect. So, it's an easy ask. My numbers I have are out of date, but what I say I asked exactly the same question you did because again I am aware that sometimes suit gets left out of things and uh the amount of calls they were doing here uh was the correct percentage for what we were paying. So uh but we we can request that I would probably in September I would ask for that. Okay, I'll turn to councelor Baitman.

Yeah. So, I'll just note that um the Victoria Family Court, it's been the you know, this advocacy for Mist has been what we've been doing for the last six years. And we've we had a a presentation just two weeks ago where Mist spoke uh to our representatives of federal MPs um Stephanie Mlan and Will Greavves, their staff attended um and we did discuss this municipal finance strategy. Councilor McMath is absolutely right. We need stats and uh stats package uh is I believe going to be created. So that that information ideally will be available through the CRD initially and we'll be seeing that in the uh the report that comes back.

Okay. I think more to come come September when we actually see that report. Okay. And I realize there's no motion on the floor, so I'm just going to move on. Uh there is no items removed from consent. Uh council verbal reports. I think everyone is getting a bit late. Uh so that moves to us to adjourn uh to the closed meeting that council closed the July 13, 2026 meeting to the public pursuant to the following subsection of the community charter. The time being 10:45 p.m. 91A personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer. Employee or agent of the municipality or other position appointed by the municipality. E. The acquisition, disposition, or expropriation of land or improvements that the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interest of the municipality. And I'll just share once we open and close. I'm going to ask staff if we need to deal with anything in a time-sensitive matter. And then as

we are still meeting in public, I will then say that we should just schedule a special and camera meeting potentially following our committee of the whole next week given that it's a bit late. But I'll I want to open and closed so I know if we have any time sensitive stuff we can deal with it. Okay. So that's the motion. Uh moved by St. Pierre and seconded by Bettos. Otherwise to those of you in the room, thank you for being here tonight. We wish you a good night and we'll see you soon. Take care. All in question, all in favor? And none opposed. That's unanimous. Thank you.