Transcript: Regular Council - 28 Sep 2026

Can I test that you can hear me?

I'm I'm going to be riding riding herd here tonight right now. Okay. We've called to order uh acknowledging as always that we're meeting on the traditional territories of the SA nation and we also within the district represent the Shanu on their territories as well. And I think worth noting at this moment that Wednesday is the national day for truth and reconciliation. Um Souk has been marking Orange Shirt Day uh since at least 2017. And uh this year's gathering uh will be hosted as it was last year by the 60s scoop legacy of Canada alongside Deborah Lazar and members of the South Nation. Uh there will be a gathering at 11:30 on Wednesday morning at near the Souk Museum. Then the walk over to Edward Mill Community School. The event will begin at 12:30 with a land acknowledgement, welcome and opening ceremonies. And the afternoon will continue uh through until uh I think 4 o'clock.

That's correct. Yes. So given what we saw in cam loops on the weekend, it's important we get out again and uh make some very clear strong um recognition of uh this uh yeah okay so having said that uh approval of the agenda please. That's councelor St. Pierre Zeber seconded by councelor Betos. Thank you. Adoption of minutes. We We have the minutes of July 27th, September 8th, and September 21st. Councelor St. Pierre, pardon me. Call the question on the agenda, please. All in favor? Yes. Okay. You'll be writing heard on me. Okay. That's how it's going to work tonight. Okay. So, we have the three sets of minutes. Uh approval from Councelor St.

Pierre, seconded by Councelor Hallane. Thank you. And um all in favor? Thank you. Your worship. Yes. Uh sorry, just before you do the adoption of the uh the minutes. So I'll just pretend for a second that you didn't just all raise your hands. Uh I just wanted to raise there was an error in the uh September 21st minutes in an effort to get these out. Uh nope. The September 21st minutes. We um be uh in the rush to get them out in a couple of days after the meeting, there was a typo in section 5.1 uh where the amount is described in the text as $151,621.58.

The correct amount was in the resolution which is $15,621.58. So we will be correcting that in the text of the um of the item. Okay. So that is how it should be presented to you. And then also just separately there was the adoption of the July 27th minutes um done on September 8th which should be rescended due to an error which has been caught and corrected in the revised version which is presented before you tonight. Okay. Thank you Mr. Los. Do we need a motion to amend these or will you just take care of that? Um uh your worship, if you could formally vote on rescending the September 8th adoption of the July 27th, 2026 minutes, then that would be much appreciated while the other ones can be adopted as presented as we have described the changes to you that will be made.

Okay. So, can I have a motion on that? Councelor Pearson and Councelor Betts. All approved. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. a report of the chief administration administrative officer, Miss Gray. But let me just first note that uh Mayor Tate is down and out with the coal today. She is with us online and as deputy mayor, I am here in this chair tonight. Okay. So, hi everyone. I'm just testing. I am here, but I'd rather leave my video off for everyone's benefit. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Tate. Okay, Rachel. Uh, thank you. Uh nothing much to add at this time. Uh just wanted to give a special shout out to um Ellen Lures and the Souk Region Fu Chi. Uh them uh Ellen and her volunteers have gleaned over 5,000 pounds of produce this season in their efforts. So just want to special.

All right. Thank you. All right. So we come to public question and comment period. So this is two minutes each for a maximum of I believe 10 minutes and we will extend beyond that if indeed it's required. So anyone with comments on tonight's agenda? Miss Hall? Yes.

Yes, you got the red light on. Well, you've got two minutes, but we can extend that. Honorable mayor and counselors. My name is Sylvia Hoggrren. My husband Marvin and I have lived in Souk at 6605 Souk Road for 50 years. Thank you for hearing me at this last meeting of your term. I'm here for one specific request and I'd like to explain why I think it's fair and why it serves the goals of your own official community plan. For as long as we've lived here, our 1.63 acres has been part of Souk's town core planned for high density. On that basis, we spent five years working to sell to a developer. Two walked away over delays.

Last October, we signed a conditional sale with a third. The developer started his due diligence last winter and was paying for drilling, tree surveys, and environmental testing. You'll see that work in the photos I've provided. Meanwhile, the new OCP was finalized. When it was adopted in December, our property moved from town center core to town center waterfront. We didn't understand what that meant until our developer told us just three weeks ago. And here's what it means. The core allows six stories and a 2.5 FAR. Our new designation allows for four stories and a 2.0 FAR on on our land. That's 35,000 fewer square feet of housing, roughly fewer homes. And because the building doesn't go up, it must spread over half of the site, leaving far less room for access parking, landscaping, storm draining, water, and etc. And this has caused delays in the plan and the ability to move forward. We front Souk Road.

Directly across the road is Core at six stories. There are two six-story buildings beside us and one below us on the water. Returning us to Core wouldn't change the character of the area. It would match it. It also fits that the council it fits what the council set out to do. Your OCP says Town Core is where Souk's highest density and most new homes belong. You adopted it to meet the need for more homes. I'm asking for a resolution today that council direct staff to prepare an amendment to the OCP bylaw number 800 redesating 6605 Souk Road from Towncent Waterfront to Town Center Core and bring it back to council at the earliest opportunity. I know that the next council would will make the final decision and that's exactly why I'm here today. I've explained how this happened. A resolution from you puts that on record.

So the next council starts where you leave off. My husband and I have given 50 years to this community. We've tried to do everything the right way. We ask the district first. We are working mysterious buyer and we've been patient. Yes, thank you very much for your help. Thank you. So, we as council will be discussing your letter to us as item uh 12 six I think it is tonight. So, if if you can stay around um we we may be able to call you back to the mic as the discussion proceeds. Absolutely. To the corporate officer, please. Thank you. Okay. So, further public comment.

Oh, welcome. I'm a new uh resident of Souk. um coming here since last uh September and we moved to the property that the last speaker uh spoke of uh next door to it and um it's our opinion that um the residents of the building collectively that um a building of so many levels next to us would block our view and that would um deteriorate from Souk proper in the form of too any high-rise buildings, I think, is is is an ugly site. And I think that um our our property um will lose value. And while I understand Sylvia's need to to build higher stories for profit to make the the the property marketable, I think she's going to hurt uh the rest of Souk in the process, including myself specifically. And I I would just like to say that the the OCP uh works for me as written currently. I think uh it was thoughtful. I think the city planners uh you know considered everything. I think they came up with a good compromise at four stories and and that's what I like to say for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Sansbury. Yes, it's a s t-s. That's it. Thank you. we get the clock uh running, please. Thank you. Okay. My name is Keith Ramstead. I'm also a resident of Souk and live next door to the property in question, Mariners's Village. Even though I'm sympathetic to the Hallren situation, um I'm opposed to any changes on this site. I believe uh that the process leading to the decision by uh council to approve the last OCP shouldn't be undermined by uh this type of variance. Secondly, this comes at the end of this council's term leaving it uh in a bit of a rush to make any decision.

I know that in fact you won't make a decision today but you will have a discussion and direct staff regarding this. I think things to consider here is a four-story unit I think we within the core can accept quite easily. We understand the need for densification. Adding two more floors to this seems to be not to the benefit of residents or to the OCP but rather the benefit of the builder and the buyer the buyer of the property because it gives them greater numbers of spaces more profit and so on. I believe that the site of the property um and the difficulty of selling it is not dissimilar to everybody in souk selling property. There's a number of units in our building that have not been able to be sold over the last couple of years simply because no one is buying.

So this seems to be ignoring the fact of all these other concerns. So I I just can't support it. Thank you. [sighs and gasps] Further comments please. You just turned the mic off. You just turned the mic off. Okay, now you're on. Perfect. Uh, yes. My name is Chuck Meisner and I'm also a resident at Mariners's Village. The issue we have is the great thing about Souk is you have mountains, you have water, you have forest, but if you continue to allow these builders to come in and profit by building these highrises, we lose it all and we'll be nothing more than a small little Langford, which there's a great big building on every freaking corner. It's not a very attractive town at all.

We'd be sucking the what what makes Souk a special place right out of it. We have this six-story so-called sixstory building that they built at the corner over there. And when you come down where we are, it's actually eight stories. It's not six stories because you have two levels of underground park, so-called underground parking, but only 30 ft of it is actually underground at the front. So, when you walk out the front door of our house or our condo, I should say, here, you're looking at this. It looks like the CN Tower because Souka is not that type of city. And I think it will can it will take away from not only our view but the added traffic.

I don't know how they're going to figure they're going to get traffic in and out of there without causing a real dilemma. I don't know about the infrastructure because you have to pump all your water and sewage and everything up to the roadway. And it's, you know, I it's not that long ago I read in the paper about the RCMP having a shortage of people and yet we still want to say, okay, let's slap a building on every open spot we can find. So, I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me and I'm absolutely opposed to it. But thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Me. further comments tonight. Now, we do have an opportunity for second time speakers if anyone would wish to re-emphasize what they've said. Okay. Well, thank Susan Belford. No. Okay. Well, we'll close that off. Um, thank you. Now we're moving on to item seven, the consent agenda. Um that the following items on the consent agenda be adopted uh by consent. There they are. 7.2 correspondence. Um I'd like to ask at this point, does anyone have any correspondence to pull from tonight's agenda? Nothing at all tonight. Okay. Then we have 7.3 reported the chief administrative officer. 7.4 4 development variance permit PLN02555 1245 Silverbury Drive and 7.5 759 Maple Park Terrace development various permit for proposed lot B access.

So I should note that we have been given as an item on our desk but not included in the agenda proper or as a supplemental agenda a letter regarding 7.4. Since it's not in a supplemental agenda I assume it's not for discussion tonight. uh your worship. I believe this was sent through uh to be considered as public input which is the section that you've just uh just concluded. Okay.

What a personal privilege. Please use your microphones. I have no idea what's occurring at the moment. Who said that? Oh, Maya said that. Thank you. I did. Sorry. I don't I don't know where you are in the agenda because I can't hear anything. Um, okay. So we're moving into item 8 reports. So 8.1 is 6763 Winona close demolition permit. So over to staff. Uh thank you your worship. Um I think uh everything we need to tell you was laid out in the staff report but just to go quickly over it again. There was a property which was uh sadly damaged quite extensively in a fire earlier this year. Um this uh involved a tragic death and the unfortunately the property is one year in a rears on its taxes which means under our current building bylaws we cannot issue a demolition permit for the property which has been requested and so this report is asking council's authorization to issue the demolition permit with the expectation that that would allow work to be done on the site in order that uh eventually this would make it easier for the taxes to be paid

among other things. And we generally believe it's in the interest of the community for this to proceed. Any questions? Okay. Would you like to read that into the record, Councelor Haldane? So moved. No. Read the read the motion, please. Uh, no. I'm I'm for it. So, well, I'd like process the motion. Can you do that? It's on the screen. that council instructs staff to issue a de demolition permit for 6763 Winona close subject to all requirement conditions being met other than those in section 7B of the district's building by you. Can I have a second please? Councelor Beos. Oh, a question please. I just wanted confirmation that this is a a special like an extremely special circumstance and that it doesn't set precedent for for others when they wish to uh through your wish council McMath the um I think this is certainly by any by any um perspective a very special circumstance um the request council has the authority to wave various provisions of your own bylaws So they have made this request, but just because council chose to wave a

provision in this case does not mean that you would be required to do so in any future cases. I had the mic off again, Mayor Tate, so I'll work on that. 8.2 Employment Land Strategy Tender Award. Mr. Marsh. Yeah. Your worship, members of council and staff and the public. Uh this is a tender for the uh employment land strategy um work. Um we had uh put this on BC bids for a month. We had seven uh biders on this proposal uh or seven proposals uh for this work. Um we have chosen MXD um development strategies or recommending MXD development strategies strategists in the amount of $106,960 excluding GST. Uh the budget for this work is $110,000.

Um consider the uh request for proposal had uh specific criteria that the proponents were looking we were looking to uh judge them by. Um th those criteria included the capabilities and experience uh of the project team. So the types of work that they had done that was similar to this type of work in the past. Uh the experience of the people uh that are part of the proposal. um the approach that they were taking to the proposal like how they were going to go through the process of creating uh this the land employment strategy um and the quality of the proposal um so given these criteria the MXD um development strategists scored highest and that's why staff are recommending they be chosen for this work.

So I'll I'll begin with a question. Te tell me more about an employment land strategy and what that will mean for the district and and planning moving ahead through your worship. Um the employment land strategy is a a process by which uh consultants will do an assessment of the employment lands, the commercial lands, the industrial lands that the uh district has presently. Uh it'll take a look at our official community plan and our long-term vision for the community and where we're proposing future employment lands, commercial, industrial lands. Um it will then provide uh take a look at the demand for this type of uh of lands in terms of employment in the area. And then it will look at the uh additional lands if necessary given the uh dem demographics of the and the future growth of the community and the need for these types of lands.

um it will then provide uh strategies for either uh providing the necessary infrastructure for those lands uh to provide that employment. Um this was identified in our past OCP as well as our existing OCP as well as your council strategic plan as a high one of the highest priorities in terms of uh work for the their staff. Um we this is a uh a grant that we received for this work. So there's no taxpayer dollars that is being used for this uh work. Um uh so uh at uh like I say at this point in time that's why we're choosing the the the company that chose further questions from council council St. Pierre.

uh through worship and staff. I'm just curious um how specific is this um or how flexible is the process? What do we expect? Like I want to just talk about mixed use in neighborhoods. Is there any likelihood, for example, that they might that the consultant might say, well, you probably should have, you know, a little bit of retail in every neighborhood in order to actually meet the growing community or like how how flexible is this stuff? Is it likely to be anything that's more out of the box or is it simply just an inventory and identifying I would imagine based on trying to be balanced portfolio what we might want to see uh through your worship um there's uh a lot of background work that's done it's not just in Souk but also in the surrounding uh region uh in terms of what the demands are for uh these employment lands. And I think also we certainly made it very clear in our official community plan that um increasing employment opportunities in our community is is a high priority

given the nature of of the the numbers of people that are commuting out of our community. So this is an opportunity to identify um the the the amount of land and the types of land that would be suitable for the given demographics and nature of our community. Um so the the strategy will provide uh direction as to how best to go about providing that land in this community. So if I understand correctly, it's going to give us an idea of the amount, the types, but not necessarily the exact applications. That's for the structuring forms where we want that to be. Is that right? Uh through your worship. Yeah, it will provide uh recommendations for pieces of land that are suitable for those whatever is recommended as as future lands for employment lands.

So, it'll take a look at lands that are appropriate size, that have the right grades, that don't have environmental considerations, that have the proper infrastructure, sewer, water, traffic, you know, all the things that make it appropriate for that type of use. So, they're they will be providing a a list of lands that are appropriate for that. Yeah. Uh ju just a couple of quick questions and thank you for the presentation. So at the end of so so what's the expected turnaround on a uh when would we expect that report? So the uh proposal the request for proposal uh suggested a year and the uh proponents have have provided a year uh time frame for that work.

Okay. So council would expect it. And would that include inventories of different levels of employment like industrial, light industrial, uh commercial, retail, all all it would all be in there in one one piece through your worship? Yes, that's correct. Excellent. Okay. Um Okay. No, I don't have any further questions. I did some research of the company. They look like a reputable company and they've done some pretty good projects across the country. I was looking at the one that they did for Lethbridgeidge, Alberta. Look looked very interesting. similar to what we would probably be looking for. Thank you. Okay. Council of math. And then council of math.

Is it also going to include um the things that the district could do to make the commercial industrial lands more attractive to those types of businesses? Because if our main goal is to alleviate traffic because that's one of the biggest issues here. So if 75% of people here commute and we want to attract and retain that kind of employment here, are they going to include servicing for those properties? Um ways that we can incorporate um what's the term I'm looking for? Ways to accommodate um special employment. So first responders, doctors, those types of things. And when they're developing this project, are we or the future council going to see like at a halfway point kind of what their findings are and so that council can direct a bit more as well for the vision because one of the things that we hear frequently and we just heard tonight is souk's not looking to be a length. So although we already know the industrial commercial is lacking, how do

you capture that without losing the west coast aesthetic? Sure. to your um so absolutely they will be looking at the servicing for the lots um either providing recommendations for service upgrades that would be needed for the lands they've identified or not choosing certain lands because they can't be serviced uh appropriately. So those are definitely um things that will be included in the the strategy. Um it doesn't really look at like design guidelines for these things. um or like a look for it. It's just identifying the the lands themselves that have the best uh opportunities for the types of employment lands that they've identified. And again like um guiding perhaps not an Amazon warehouse like that's not something that we would be really I would say the majority would not be looking for that to be attracted to souk. So how do they how do they adjust their souk like their framework for soup so that you're attracting something that's more complimentary of the community through your worship. So they will

definitely be looking at the background material for our community. So our existing official community plan its goals and objectives and I think it would be pretty clear in our existing official community plan that you know that big box type development is not something we're particularly looking for at this stage. Yeah. And then is there a plan to reconvene halfway through with council for a touch point? Uh yes the sorry yeah through your worship um there is uh numerous touch points along the way. Um they will be meeting with stakeholders in the community um uh business uh people in the community suilders association people that are identified to them as being the key stakeholders in the community. They're having one-on-one meetings with those uh people. They will be also doing uh uh input from uh council from staff. There's going to be a uh advisory committee to them that will prov help you know provide them the information and background material there that that's needed.

Further questions first time speakers. Councelor Hall. So um you said this comes from a grant. So is that grant specific to this or can the grant be used for anything? uh through your worship uh the grant is specific to this work. Yeah. So it was specific to do an employment land strategy. That's correct. And that's what we applied for based on that. That's correct. Because I mean realistically when it comes down to it, we can't predict the future what land owners want to do or are doing. And it seems like an awful lot of money. And when these are private lands, it'd be different if the district owned this property. We're looking for ways to use our own property. But I don't agree with spending 106,000 on a so-called strategist to tell us what you could, should, or would do. I mean, the OCP gives you sort of guidelines on that anyway. And most of the land owners who own any reasonablesized pieces of land for industrial or commercial already

know what they plan on or want to do with that land. We don't need to spend $106,000 to get somebody to come in and say, "Hey, they want to build a shopping center or they want to do industrial parks here." So, I'm I won't be in favor of this. Thank you. Uh your worship, I'm just curious. Um I imagine once the report or once tra strategy comes out, there will be a list about properties because that's what we're talking about here. Uh is there anything that are we concerned about speculation based on you know foreign investors essentially saying you know buy all your industrial land and wait till it goes up in value or just reszone with it. Uh are we having we have any concerns about that sort of thing or any safe cuts if it is a concern uh through your worship?

Um I mean our official community plan already does identify areas for different types of land use. Um so that's something we do as part of our future visioning of the future development of our community. So this is something that is already Thank you. Um I just have a quick question regarding these numbers. So the the grant from the province was for 115,000. The the contract is for 106. Do do we return money to the province of unspent grant funding? True, worship. Um there was an expectation of the municipality doing in uh providing 20% of the the funding and that it's it's um okay for us to do in kind. So the work that we as staff are doing on this is considered our 20% of the uh contribution to the the overall cost.

Right. Okay. because this this grant does include inind work by staff in the amount of 2500. Okay. All right. So, do we have a motion? Can someone move this for me? Councelor McMath, please. Yeah, I would. that council award the employment land strategy contract to MXD development strategists in the amount of 16 $960 excluding GST. Okay. And seconder please councelor St. Pierre. Okay. Any any comments at this point? I'd just like to add that um this employment land strategy was a component of the community economic development strategy that the district developed back in 2022. Um the the community economic development committees both um dealt with this subject and all credit to our CED officer Gail Scott for getting out there and and getting this grant uh which is a significant piece of money. You know, the key here from my seat as the departing counselor is that we must shift and I know all the election candidates are saying the same thing from our residential to a commercial change the ratio, right? And

this this project will um undoubtedly help move that needle so to speak. Okay, further comments? Councilors uh agree completely. The other thing that I would hope would be included in this strategy is basically an affordable housing component for the people who will be employed. So I think that uh you know the idea of if it's light industry or uh you know retail with housing above I think we really need to be thinking again out of the box that we want to actually provide affordable housing at the same time as we actually create the economic benefits that can balance our tax portfolio. So love to see that. I'm sure it'll do a good job.

All in all in favor and Mayor Tate, I trust you will Oh, one opposed. Councelor Hallane is opposed. Okay, we're Mayor Tate, you're still there. Yes. Sorry, I'm still here and I'm just not used to using Zoom on my iPad, so I'm hitting the wrong things, but I'm in favor. Okay, thank you. All right, so we're moving on to 8.3, which is the um municipal municipal leaders advisory team regional coordinator memorandum of understanding. So, I'd like to u throw this over to perhaps Rachel Gray. Yes, thank you. Uh yes, I don't have a big presentation to go with this. Um, as stated in the report, we're just staff are seeking council direction. Uh, the the direction staff or council provided to staff in the past was to enter into a service agreement with this group to provide these services. Um the community social planning council's proposing anou a memorandum of understanding and um in its current form as sitt in the report it's creating additional questions and um council or sorry staff are just unclear on if thisou is meeting the

needs of what council was envisioning when they initially supported the request for funding for this position. Um, so yeah, at the at this time I just would defer to council for any questions you have on this. Staff have numerous questions. Um, and um, if you would like staff advice or recommendation on this that, you know, the recommendation going with council's advice or direction given the staff over the last eight years was to never use tax dollars for wages for an employee. I appreciate this is different and we're trying to be unique and special and fund. I'm not saying it's not about the service. It's just the funding model is proving challenging for district staff to support. I am aware not all the other municipalities while they maybe have signed an MOU. I know for sure one has not uh they have not paid into this. They instead volunteer or community members I guess have have funded it for year one.

That's my chosen. Uh um so so anyways just defer to council for any questions you have or or um any other information I can provide unfortunately. Sorry. Thank you. state. So, I hear Mayor Tate's quiet words in my ear that I should have moved this we get this on the floor first that I'd like to move that council receive a report titled municipal leaders advisory team regional coordinator memorandum of understanding for information. Can I have a seconder on that second? Yes. Okay. And all approved? Okay. It's on the floor. I second for discussion and no and then we're going to ask questions and Okay. And then we'll see where All right. Let's let's move on to Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, please do. Um I guess I was just looking for a little more clarity on because it the premise was great, but the funding model like councelor St. computer and I were discussing is I don't think it's sustainable and for 14 grand less a year it's not clear what the deliverables are for souk specifically and what gaps in souk they're covering and how if if 12 join how does this position triage where the attention goes um so at this juncture I'm I'm more inclined to step away um but I'm also happy for us to send questions for follow-up because those are answers that we're missing.

Uh and uh through your worship uh to councelor Nikma uh that's similar very similar questions to what staff have is um I I appreciate they're well intended but we're struggling to understand the specific rules for souk in this and so um hence why the motion is just receive for information. There's alternate motions in here and as always I take direction from council. So just looking for direction from council on how you would like us to proceed. So I I will point out that there are some recommended motions within the or options within the report including one that would um have staff uh reach out to to uh EMLAT two two of whose representatives are in the audience tonight. the coordinator herself, Miranda, and uh community social planning council's uh Shelley Cook. So, we can have some questions answered if if that's required. The option one uh as I say does uh give staff the opportunity to go out and get all these questions answered. It's quite a an extensive extensive motion which I do intend to

make as the evening progresses. So uh further questions councelor St. Pierre um my question is let's worship to Seth. My question is at this point in time do we know if this position will go forward uh regardless of soup's involvement or not? Uh do we know what like what's the status at this point? Uh do we know anything like that or can I call up Shelly and Miranda please? Miranda Lebert please. Yes. As chair, I'm making that discretion of the chair. Yes. Yeah. He he says so you can um so yeah, thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. Obviously this is uh this is a initiative is representative of years of work that predated our involvement and we are really standing on the uh shoulders of many community leaders who have worked tirelessly to bring the communities uh and the westore suit together to be able to uh to be able to move these initiatives forward. So essentially right now the only group

that has not signed uh is is souk. We've been waiting, Miranda and I had reached out in June prior to actually even taking um the administrative piece on and remained um attentive to respond to any questions to to as we did with school district 62 create an addendum. Right? This is a regional collaboration. uh we have very clear and then again starting in July uh priorities that have specific actions that directly relate to souk and we're happy to provide additional information if given an opportunity to do so. Um so uh in terms of if soup does not step forward and the agreement is not signed based on the previous commitment and again there can be additional pieces um including an addendum that means that we will be going into an election um without that um and essentially I think um I I I don't know what the outcome would be but to me I think that might be right um uh a very difficult thing with new councils to now educate after the council made the the wise choice to support this work

um and to come back and re-educate. This is not about um taking opportunity away from souk. This is about how we are able to leverage um the resources across our region and ensure that we're not just working more, we have a greater impact and we can directly speak and our intention is to be as clear crystal clear both in terms of evidence-based outcomes to to quantify costbenefit analysis and speak specifically to the impact in souk and some of those will be shared impacts across the region because that is the point. The other thing I would like to just say is that we know and people in terms of funders as well as as leaders are looking at initiatives that need to be regional need to look at a systems perspective. That means we are not looking at individual municipalities. We are working at systems across regions and these are the the initiatives that are being supported. I don't know what that would look like to try and support one-off initiatives. I can tell you we would not

be able to get funding. Miranda is right here can speak to the this the priorities that have identified with health with the school district working cooperatively across the region as well as specific benefits and outcomes directly for Souk. And so I I I urge you not to be scared of what comes through this action. be concerned about what comes if you don't take this action and work with the rest of the region for the betterment of children, youth, and families. Yeah, I will note that we within the five-year plan, we have made a two-year commitment to this project at four for uh 14,400 which is per capita uh representation of souk in the west shore. And uh when we did make that uh decision back in March, we did frame it as a service agreement. Hence staff are doing what they need to do to ensure that this particular service agreement lines up with all of our other service agreements. So I think um yeah, I won't make further comments at this point. Uh council St. here. Um my understanding when this was previously discussed is that the regional model was

meant to allow for uh better advocacy work with other levels of government in addition so that the needs of youth across the region including souk could be better identified and larger grants uh more systemic approaches to actually tackling issues that are affecting youth and families could actually be used to support the work across the region which of course includes souk. Uh my understanding having said that and I'm just I'm just putting this out there because I do agree with the position the need for the position the absolute need for the position because otherwise we have fragmented tiny voices yelling at the federal government of the province and they could so easily ignore that which means that our needs fall through the cracks because all of us are just one district so on and so forth. Having said that, I'm a member or I was a leazison for the Salvana prosperity partnership which has a similar model where the funding comes from local governments and the sad truth is that

with every election is terrifying because you're concerned that your funding is going away. Uh because people can change their minds then who knows what happens. Uh I believe we should follow through on our commitments so we can make sure this work advances. I'm curious as to whether or not there's any intention long term to see if you can secure safer funding as opposed to having to go hand in hand to 13 different local governments every election and convince everyone again that protecting families and youth is a good plan. So just curious do you have about right um thank you thank you very much for the question and and certainly you can appreciate the amount of capacity that's involved in ensuring that every council across the region is educated. We have already submitted over $150,000 in funding proposals. Um, and we just got started. Uh, as an organization, we do not rely on government funds. Um, we certainly utilize government funds. Uh, but we access funding across um, our spectrum of opportunities. uh we've already um leveraged the opportunity by

including the Ministry of Child and Family Development in this work directly as well as the regional director for BC Housing. And so the potential impact here is significant and through this work, everyone is watching to see what the outcomes are because they know this is the approach that needs to be taken. Our desire is to ensure this is funded long term and we recognize the various um whims of government, right? We we are on the cusp of a provincial election. This is about the health and well-being of children and youth in our community and we take that very seriously and we ensure that what we're doing is not a oneoff is not just an opportunity at some ego project to just try and bring people together to feel good. This is about outcomes, demonstrable benefits, and evidence-based practices that will that will have the results that we will not see any other way than taking this approach.

It's a reminder that we have litigated this matter at a number of meetings already and we have reached the decision that we want to support you for two years. And now it's a question of how we frame that in a uh service agreement and option one in our agenda does have this opportunity. So I hope we can get to that soon. Now councelor Beettos and then councelor McMahon. Thank you worship. Um, I guess I guess I have a bit of a problem here in that I hear the passionate plea and you know I don't uh wish to get into any great details about that other than our staff said that they had trouble with thisou and they weren't happy with it and they wanted to investigate it further. Now I'm not an expert back here when it comes to this sort of stuff. So I rely heavily on what staff says. So I would like staff to uh give me an indication of what sort of problems are we

encountering with this uh because I'm sort of in the middle. We did look at this in detail at some time and then now it seems that theou isn't what we thought it would be and uh so we're looking for option one a two-year pilot initiative option two seek clarification before proceeding or deter deter to the incoming council uh and I heard staff say that they're they're looking for some clarification so please comment staff uh thank here worship to councelor Betto Bettos. Um so some of the concerns include as stated I'm sorry I'm just scrolling through the report here. um that we're again per council's direction on many different things in the past community grants other service agreements is what's the benefit for souk specific souk specific souk specific so in its current form we don't see any s specific stats or metrics or kpis again so we can work with them on that um and enhance that so it's just again the we there's questions around it's not now just the $14,000 there's staff time and capacity involved.

There's they're asking for a council member, I guess, to be appointed to their um committee. Uh so that is not formally in place currently. So there's a whole governance question that staff now need to get into with this um association and if council is going to be officially involved in that. What does that look like from current structure? We the corporate office and I have questions on that. Um the other piece is um again it's just the serious concern about funding for wages. Um and I'm concerned about creating an employee employer relationship if we're on record funding wages and then other municipalities drop off per councelor St. Pierre. Does the district become the last person holding the responsibility to pay this person? Um again that's a legal opinion I I'm I'm going to have to receive. Um and again it's just a general concern with council's intent with service agreements was normally when you want a service we go to the community and ask if anyone's interested in providing this service and then council should properly assess the proposals and so this is kind of happened in a reverse way. So it's just

creating additional questions and then again there's staff capacity on top of the governance as well as the communications and the other piece of it. So that's more than just the funds that are available. And so I was just curious where this lands in the council priorities for the new council because it's more than just funding them $14,000 every year. So through your worship, uh it was quite quite a long reply. That's fine. That's what I was looking for. But you you mentioned about legalities and that sort of perked my interest. So, you're saying that uh we would have to check on the legal matter in case other districts dropped off and then were left holding the bag or I'm unsure. That's I just have this question as an accountant, as somebody who's been involved in HR for numerous years. I know employee employer relationships are very complicated and CRA Revenue Canada has taken, you know, pretty aggressive approaches in the past to the district and specifically since I've been here, there has been a former contractor that was defined as an employee and it was a low dollar, but we

had to go and pay CDP and all of his stuff for them. So, right now I don't have an answer to that question. So, I would need to seek some further. That's just one of the many questions I have. Thank you. Now, I'm just going to quickly interject. Now, if we proceed with option one, that will give you the time to get your answers addressed or correct questions. Correct. As always, I take direction from council. So, if council's direction is they want more staff time, more tax dollars with legal opinions and and other fees dedicated to this through option one, then that's what staff will do because we won't be able to provide a service agreement or an MOU to council without getting external legal advice at this time. I don't feel comfortable putting this iteration forward. Um, and so and then there's just the staff time to follow up with the group and get questions and develop metrics and KPIs that we think council would want to see for seek specific.

Well, how unfortunate this didn't come up at budget time when we had those discussions early and councelor do and I'm not sure who has the answer to this. Do you does every single other municipality that has already signed this agreement, do they have a service agreement or do they have anou? I would defer to the group. My understanding is Machosen was not allowed to sign theou because it was volunteer. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Um because it was the money was not funded by Machosen directly. It was so I'm curious how the advice I received from MHosen directly was they were not allowed to sign the MOO because the mayor was not contributing the funds community members are contributing the funds. So I it seems odd to me different setup and so I'm aware that Highlands and Colewood uh I'm not sure the other parties I haven't I never heard back from Langford. I never heard back from Cowwood. I only heard back from uh Machosen and Highlands when I reached out. So, Miss Cook, could you explain the Machosen situation for us? Uh,

yes. Um, a request was made to the Machosen council. Uh, the mayor was, uh, strongly supportive. Council chose not. community was very um upset and people in attendance came forward with donated funds recognizing the value and because it came from community and donated funds from community members the it was not required and the mayor was not required to sign on. It was a conversation we had at length. Every municipality has signed on. We've been waiting for some time and we're hoping uh to have a conversation to provide more information. So we wouldn't um maybe be having this challenging conversation at this juncture. So you have community raised funds from MHosen rather than the municipality of Machosen paying for it. So do you still have a signed with the m municipality or is it a little slightly different agreement? Uh so the mayor has chose uh not to sign that but they're actively involved and continue to be very much involved in the initiative. It was

because of how the funds came. I can get clarification from the CEO as well as the mayor and provide that um as well as their strong support of this and this not being a reflection of that. I can feel your passion and and I love it. I I'm okay with passion. Um for us just so you don't feel overwhelmed with negativity either is that we are all beholden to the community. So if I am in the grocery store and I get pulled aside and someone like I need to make sure that I can be articulate and justify and explain this is why XY Z and it's also in terms of the CEO like her number one job is to protect us from a legal standpoint. So it's not nobody is against the premise is pure of course it's just those pieces have to be protected for souk and just to zoom out further there's lots of times where we found we've joined groups and souk has been an afterthought and it makes sense based off density and different

community challenges with budget restrictions and everyone has financial challenges as you probably know better than anybody it's makes these even more under the lens for us. So, we just want to check the boxes. I understand like the time constraints and the and the stress and all the work that's gone in 100%. I just want you to know where this group is coming from, too. So, it's not against it. It's just looking for and you've probably explained it a hundred times, but if we can just have clear like clarity on those answers and if it's that we can't do it through anou because this district thinks that's not the safest way to protect us, then maybe we can find another avenue. not necessarily the end of the road.

May I respond? Uh I we have very specific um so this is part of the work we came on in our role uh in July. So very recently um to actually start pulling we took documents from across the community uh and to build the priorities and there are specific outcomes already identified for soup souk. If you're interested in hearing like some tangible examples of which we are happy to directly report, we would have happily provided some really strong guidelines, some information in advance of this meeting um to ensure that council of course you have to ensure good dollar for value for souk. understand that uh and we are passionate about ensuring that this is again not an a yearly thing or every two years to come back to council and say you know we're starting from square one one we will come back and again when you saw the reporting and the accountability back to come back and talk about the outcomes but we already have wonderful

things we can share and articulate um and again could have done that a lot more so uh if we had a chance to do that in preparation for this meeting. Mhm. Um but if Miranda is allowed, she can certainly speak to some of that now or we can provide that in writing because souk is a priority for us 100%. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Um so I'm up to speed on everything. It's clear as mud for me. So you mentioned children and families in this whole speech and and what specifically are are we advocating for or what not because I don't understand pretty much any of it at this point. So what what's the deliverables? What are we what are we getting out of any of it?

Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you um for your worship. So something that we've been looking at is we are comparing a lot of OCPS. We're looking at strategic plans from all the municipalities as well as um evidence-based documents um initi indigenous planning documents and gu guidance from island health. Um so with that information we've been able to outline three strategic priorities that we're focusing on. Um so priority number one is really focused on safe spaces and communities built in with youth in mind. Um, so as we're seeing the decline of third spaces, we're seeing a lot more youth that tend to default to online spaces or less safe areas that they go.

Um, so we're looking at ways where we can integrate more youth friendly planning. Um, so one great example is Melanie Aldorf from Sea Park in Souk has available space. Um, so we're connecting her with other service providers to try to make safe youth spaces in Souk available um and accessible to Souk citizens without having to go into other municipalities and be able to access those services locally. Um, we also have a second priority which is youth belonging and participation. So, as you guys were mentioning, there was a lot of issue with people leaving Souk for employment. Um, we're also seeing youth leave Souk to go seek higher education and then not return back to the community. So finding ways that they can be engaged in community life, um which could include potentially in combination with work link through Souk, um a youth and young adults employment hub where they can be connected to available youth employment opportunities within the community and be able to start building up those um concrete skills and Yeah.

Yeah. And so this is um a project that we've already been in correspondence with them with. And so that would be another direct deliverable for Souk. Um, we also have a priority surrounding access and navigation of services. So, we're seeing there are a lot of services that are available to youth, but they don't have as much of a use if the youth can't access them directly. So, um, they may not know about them. They may not be able to afford them. Um, transportation may be an issue. So, so something that we've been exploring right now is expanding the coordinated ID services program to be able to serve youth to access ID directly out of the SUK ICBC.

Um, so this would bring a service directly into the community and youth would no longer have to leave to be able to access it. Um, and for things like ID, it's such a gateway to other services. They needed to apply for a bank account, to apply for education, to um, get a driver's license. You need to have ID to get a bank account. Um, and so being able to bring such a vital service right into the community would one get rid of the transportation barriers. Um, and two make it so that youth can access those other services locally. Okay, that that works. I'll just remind council that in our report tonight uh we have um the actualou itself uh which does indicate that um our power power duo here will be back in January February to do a report and they'll come out and do an annual report and there will be regular reporting back to the district advisory team regional coordinator work plan and that's a two-page document as mayor Tate's designate to to this municipal leaders

advisory team. I was attended the meeting on Thursday where we received a whole whack of additional material demonstrating what's been accomplished in these first three months. So um there's there's no question anyway. [clears throat] Have we all had our questions? Uh well let's let's get something on the floor. Uh first this motion that's on the screen. Um, and I will again move it that council receive the report titled municipal leaders advisory team regional coordinator memorandum of understanding for information. So I've moved it seconded by councelor McMath. Thank you. And all in favor? Yes. And opposed? I'm looking at you Herb. Okay, he's fine. Okay, good.

There's a point of personal privilege. Chair, is there another motion on the floor? Like we receiving we're discussing that we have and have called the question. Where are we now? Well, we have received it for information. Okay. And we are now I am bringing forward option one, a two-year pilot initiative. Has that been seconded? It hasn't yet. Has it been read into the record? Sorry, the room went quiet. I still see the guest speakers uh our guests sitting at the table. So, I'm just calling a point of privilege because I don't understand what's happening. Okay. I thought I just explained that we have No, but there was no So the we're on to a a new motion then or the next order the next item in the agenda and at this moment based on the staff report option one and it's now on the screen. Can you see the screen Mike?

No I I cannot. I see the room and I see myself unfortunately. Uh, so I don't know what's on the screen and I wasn't sure if you've moved on to the next item on the agenda or if somebody read something into the record without their microphone on and I can't hear what's on what's happening. So I don't I cannot follow the bouncing ball at all because I have no idea where the ball is. Okay. All right. And I did have my mic off for about 20 seconds there. Okay. So on page 111 of the agenda, Maya, you will see Mayor Tate, you will see uh option number one.

And um shall I read it in? Okay. Yeah. This is why folks, you need to read things into the record. It's not just for me, but it's for everyone else viewing this YouTube and anyone else in the future that wants to know what's going on. Okay. So, option one, two-year pilot initiative that council confirm its March 23rd, 2026 direction to provide $14,400 annually. The upto is in fact an addition by staff. It was in fact we indicated 14,400 annually for two years towards the MLAT regional coordinator position as a proof of concept initiative and that staff negotiate an agreement that clearly defines the services to be provided to the district including souk specific deliverables, measurable outcomes, reporting requirements and municipal staff commitments and that the agreement include at minimum identif ification of annual deliverables benefiting SUK residents. Identification of Souk specific initiatives supported by the coordinator. Reporting on grants and external funding opportunities pursued and secured. Identification of service gaps, duplication or efficiencies identified through regional coordination. Reporting on coordinator

activities and resources attri attributable to SUK. identification of district staff resources required to support the initiative and an evaluation of the initiative before consideration of renewal. Now, this is not a motion of mine, but it goes on and further that staff report back to council before the end of the two-year term on the outcomes achieved for souk, external funding leveraged, staff resources required, coordination benefits realized, and any identified service overlap. And further, and finally, that any continuation of district funding beyond the two-year pilot period requires further council approval. So that's the motion. I'm looking for a second. Seconded by councelor St. Pierre. So just to to quickly motivate um it strikes me that this uh confirms our our budget.

Point of order, chair, I'm really sorry you're doing phenomenal job. I would just suggest you that the two guests resume their seats back in the audience uh so it doesn't appear of any influence of council. I'm just giving you that outside perspective. Thank you so much everybody. Thank you. Thank you chair Jeff. You're a rock star. You okay? All right. So, in the motivation here, um, yes, we made a commitment back in in March to do a two-year trial period, just as this motion states, two-year pilot initiative. I think this will give uh staff the opportunity to to really get into the weeds with um with uh Miss Cook and Miss Lever. And um I think it's important as they continue their work to uh to confirm our commitment as a district to this very important work which um I have motivated on at previous times uh in this chamber and it's effectively something of an experiment where a regional souk and the west shore coming together to try to do

uh good work uh good proactive largely upstream work to um to uh capture our our vulnerable youth to support our uh youth serving organizations and to coordinate across the region and uh the mayors of Cwood, Langford, Highlands, Machosen and myself as mayor Tate's representative all think that this is a great idea. We we thought it was a great idea. I think we voted unanimously on it back in March and um yeah, I think that this is and again I think the the upside for for the coordinator and the community social planning council is that you have you have encountered a district here, a local government that really does want to to do thought the eyes, cross the tees, make sure that this is in fact a solid agreement because ideally this position will be in effect for many years to come and I think it's important at this you know this opening era to to get it straight. So that's my councelor St.

Pierre uh I'll start by saying that um actually I'm just going to say we need to actually meet our commitment to an opportunity that the local governments have already embraced. Uh every community is facing high costs. Everyone's taxes gone up. Everyone is strained. But children and families in some of these homes that are paying higher properties are often those who pay the price with no food, no services, no third spaces, they're the ones that fall through the cracks. And the consequences, you may not see them right away, but I can tell you right now from working in the downtown east side, where some of these people land, costs are extreme to all of us. If we don't actually have a coordinated service that actually caches people and provides the right sort of support when it's needed and points people in the right direction when they need to know where it is, you're actually increasing our taxes down the line in policing and in every other way. This is a stitch in time that saves us money in a huge way. We've already made the commitment and for

God's sake is $14,000 a year, which is so much less than we're paying for cops and every other thing. Um, so I'd also like to point out what this is going to do. We're looking at identifying gaps, reducing redundancies. The amount of money that was spent in the downtown east side on people trying to get a bus ticket from 16 different administrators just so you could actually do something right was crazy. We actually need to save money by being more coordinated, smarter, less salowing, putting things where they need to go. This is what we're talking about here. Now, I don't like the funding model because I think it's fragile.

But if we're serious about stopping human suffering in our communist responsibility, we have to invest upstream. We have to sue needs to be part of a regional opportunity. We're part of this region and not stand in the way of it. Thank you. So, I have uh Mayor Tate has her hand up and then councelor Mcmath. Okay. Thank you. I think I have it. Uh just a few points. I'd like to thank everyone involved for their the upstream work and the work that they've been doing. I think we all are in support and appreciate all of that. uh this has been it seems that the last you know councelor Baitman has done a phenomenal job attending all these meetings and I think that's pointing to the exact challenge is that it is up to councelor Baitman or any designated counselor to find the time to report out at a council meeting at the end on the work that's happening. So the intention I think of theou and this approach is to

formalize it more so there's better transparency and accountability for the time and effort that is spent there and it puts less onto the individual counselor to recall and report out on every detail because that in itself is a lot in terms of theou and the service agreement the district of souk has matured beyondus and line items that may be whereas I think perhaps some of the other municipalities ities. It may be their first time implementing such a tool in these approaches where we've used them and had them for a long time here, but as we're growing, it's timely to formalize these and to put more structure on them so that when one council bridges to another, there's an understanding and a record of the work that's been involved. And that provides the taxpayers the report outs on dollars spent. And you've seen that this is a bit of a change management piece because it's something we're going through with all of our groups. We've done with many ever since that's what led us for clarity. We need a policy around the

service agreements, how we go about them and so on and so forth. This initiative has been loosely taken to taken up by many organizations within our community. So you've heard C Park mentioned worklink probably the library SD62 and other service entities that are here on the ground right now but there's been no formalized structure into capturing the work that they're doing within our community. So it is my opinion that if we don't sign off on this fine we pledged the money but now we don't know how to spend it because there's no framework to do so uh then it doesn't get spent. It's likely the work will continue on anyway because youth don't care where municipal boundaries are. The downside is that we'll never have that accountability that we're asking for when we need the data, when we need the numbers because this approach would enable that to be the piece that's in place. That's why there's a need for a service agreement.

There's a need to have a coordinator to pull all this together. And so that's the whole intention. So it is something new on a subregional brooch. Um there was a reference to Machosen and I appreciate the efforts of concerned citizens involved who together fundraised and and to provide the actual dollars needed. However, that in itself is subject to those individuals carrying on. There's no framework, there's no structure, there's noou there's no data, there's nothing. It's sort of like okay here's some money but what is the framework? So I don't while there could be strong support from some individuals, it doesn't show strong support from the municipality because the council was will unwilling to enter into the terms for whatever reason. That's theirs to explain. Uh but I'm in full support of this approach. I recognize that we're at the end of a term, but this is a time to bridge over to the next term to let the council then be aware of the work and the effort that's gone into date so it's not entirely lost. And then as indicated

in this process uh the individuals will be presenting to the next council orient and some may even be fully aware of all this work anyway and I don't know what that orientation is going to be um but at least then it provides for structure accountability and transparency going forward um which otherwise we'll never have and it'll set us back because how then in your are we going to pick this up again. We probably won't, in which case it'll be, to councelor St. Pierre's point, it'll show up in RCMP data and then we're dealing with a reactive expensive problem as opposed to a more progressive upstream impact of some nature. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tate. Um, Council McMah. Everything in premise makes sense. It's just the legal implications is that's the piece that I'm stuck on. So what I would like somewhere in here is I'm I'm fine with advancing the direction and but whether that's anou that is a service or if it's I want to know exactly what ship this is going in so there aren't later down the road legal implications, tax implications, issues around the district paying for a salary. um those pieces that is that's a big deal to me. So the initiative is great, the tier commitment I'm fine with. It's just how this is being put together. That's where I would like it to come back. So I'm not if it's there's a flag on the play from staff about concerns over that. To me, it's worth getting the opinion so that we can give that funding but in a way that protects the district. if that makes sense to you.

Well, I I'd like to ask um our CEO her thoughts on what councelor math has just said. Uh through your worship to councelor McMath, I think as I stated at this time, I don't know the answer to that question and I apologize that I don't have the answer to that question at this time, but I simply don't. So, I don't feel comfortable giving advice one way or the other. the the advice or sorry the advice and recommendation staff gave numerous times was this is not the as councelor St. pair say this is not the right funding model for this service and it's going to create a lot of complications and I appreciate the well intentions but I I just that's my personal opinion on it but I take direction from council so at this time I don't know the legal answer so if we get a legal opinion I know you guys have so much on your plate there's like an election going on silly season there's so many things coming so many things consuming how long is a

turnaround for a legal opinion uh through to councelor Mcmath. I'm not sure. It depends on realistically could we if council supported this motion. I I'm not sure. Apparently um they have s specific deliverables they can provide. So maybe this will go a little faster. Um you again we'll take direction from council if we can try and get an opinion for the October 5th meeting. I mean we can we can endeavor that. I just don't know the answer at this time. I haven't reached out to anybody and incurred that cost yet. So, so in terms of process going forward, if if we do pass option one tonight, uh I assume a report will come back to the new council, correct? With with a service agreement and or the fact that you could not reach a service agreement and that there were implications terms of time and cost and legal concerns.

uh three can you can I maybe I just need to talk to our corporate officer for a second about that I don't say again I I would like to just confer with our corporate officer first before I go adding okay let's take a few minutes break okay and we'll reconvene at 7:25 thank you 7:30 it has been recommended Okay.

Susan will take her seat and we'll be ready to go. Okay, we stand with a live motion on the floor. Uh do we have any further um comments? Oh yes, you're right. Thank you. Uh thank you. Uh thank you for the time just to confer with Mr. allow us here. Um so based on how this motion is worded, presuming that staff can um achieve council's desire for s specific deliverables, um we wouldn't envision uh bringing this back to council for before it would be approved because it's in theory improved in principle and as long as we can come to that agreement then um it would be supported for the mayor's signature to be put on the service agreement or orou or whatever this agreement ends up being at the time. Um, however, I guess the difference would be unknown at this time is depending on the legal advice received, that might change the direction, but I don't know that today. But if the legal advice didn't

raise any uh additional red flags, then this agreement would just proceed as is. It would not necessarily come back to council before it's entered into. Yeah. Councelor Betos and Mcmath, could we not change the the first motion to be subject to maybe it's there already subject to a legal opinion and then and then if we pass it on option one and the legal opinion goes against that then that's the end of it, right? Um that is an option of council. Okay. I don't know if they would be considered a friendly amendment. I I'll defer to council on No, but I would think that uh Craig says no.

I guess you worship I still have the floor. Uh I guess I'm struggling between one and two. Uh I hear what staff says and then I hear what council McMath is saying and she has some misgivings about this too. So if we went with option one with that amendment uh subject to legal review uh then I would be much better with going with option one. So what do you think? That's that's good. So I think we have a live motion on the floor and if it's repeated a friendly or would you like to make an amendment? Maybe in the microphones would be starting. Thanks. Phone's on.

Yeah. I'd like to make I don't know. I need some clarification from a corporate officer. Uh can I make a a friendly amendment or an unfriendly one? Doesn't matter. An amendment. Yeah. Um through your uh through your worship, the rules of procedure is set out in the souk council procedure bylaw and the uh Robert's rules of orders which are incorporated when those rules are silent. Uh the concept of a friendly amendment isn't a thing. Uh it's all just an amendment or not. So if council wish to move second and vote on an amendment that doesn't negate the uh the motion then you are entirely free to do so but you would always need to move second and vote on it and it would be the chair's ruling on if it completely negated uh the original motion or not.

Okay. I'd like to make an amendment that uh we option one with subject to uh review by uh legal. Okay. Okay. So I guess now we So that would be a final and further clause. Yeah, we got to amend the main motion. I think the amendment could be introduced uh and the staff negotiate an agreement subject to legal review that clearly defines that negotiation. the staff would have to come up with the wording. But uh All right, then that would satisfy me. Well, not entirely, but I mean I I think a leap of faith $14,000 is not the end of the world, but it all adds up and precedent adds up.

My apologies uh through your worship to uh councelor Beto's u just the intent of this motion. So if we were it to to insert language to make it and that staff negotiate an agreement subject to legal review satisfactory to and would that be satisfactory to council in which case we would have to bring it back to council or satisfactory to staff in which case we would not need to bring it back to council. I would be happy but satisfactory to staff. There's no time to come back. Yeah, sorry, Mayor Tate. Um, and everyone else. So, we have an amendment. The amendment now is live. Can we have a vote on that? All in favor? Yes.

Councelor Hallane is against, so that carries. Um, now back to the main motion. Amended. Yeah. As amended. All in favor? Yes. And councelor Haldane is opposed. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. We have We're moving into bylaws now. uh 9.1 fees and charges amendment bylaw number 951 2026 and I believe this is a housekeeping matter. Um Mr. Lois or Miss Lou uh through the chair. Yes, it's a housekeeping amendment by re removing obsolete clause clauses that no longer apply. So that seems pretty straightforward to me. Any questions? Of course. So move So moved by Dane, seconded by St. Pierre. All in favor? Yes. Okay. 9.2 Community Sewer System charge bylaw number 952 2026.

Uh this is an adoption. We have a mover for that, please. Councelor St. Pierre, seconded by councelor Betos. Yes, there's a question here from council. Um, for the bylaw, I was just curious. I have a couple questions actually. There's a quote that says 49% will see a decrease. And I was wondering if you had a breakdown of which properties you are referring to because when I run the numbers, at first blush, it looked to me like homes with internal suites would see a significant reduction, but um, single residents with no suites, um, they would possibly see an increase. So just curious you walk me through it a little bit through the chair. Um it it depends on the usage I believe. Um for um a a single family home with a suite for example two people lives in it and they're very frugal and they always think about conservation. Yes, their um uh the utility bill will will decrease.

It depends how many people live in that house and how they consume water. So but but the uh the data presented uh I believe um many of those 49% that will see a decrease are the houses with uh uh legal suite. Yeah. Okay. Because the in the current in the existing parcel tax, regardless how many people live in the legal suite or not, regardless how much water you use, as long as you have a legal suite on record, you pay additional charge. So, we eliminate that system, right? It was like 1.7 or something, right? Um and then my other question is there is um a piece in there. So if you have a physically separate suite, you get charged a second due du there's so many acronyms. What's the reason for that?

Uh for example, in the rental through the chair in the in the rental apartments across the parking lot here. Um typically, for example, two or three people live in one suite. Um it's really the equivalent amount of water consumption compared to two or three people living in the house because we are using winter water consumption as the base. We eliminate the irrigation water consumption. Basically it's it's your your um daily living consumption, right? As as to to calculate uh uh the uh sewer usage regardless you live in a rental apartment or live in the house. Really the consumption per family is similar. So if I own a property and I have one main residence on there and then I have an auxiliary building, I will be charged two edus. Correct.

Yeah. Let's go to Mr. Miller. You spoke at great length about this on September 8th with the consultant. So please please capture what's missing your worship. I'm trying to hide back here and you probably uh the logic is if it's a suite it would be accommodated within that dash in that single family home. If it's a separate structure that has its own water meter which most of them do that is how we're using our proxy to figure out what that cost is. So if it has its own water service, it will probably have its own sanitary service and so therefore it is treated as a separate charge.

Um may I ask a followup? So well I have a couple more. Um if a property has that same scenario, but they're both serviced by one water meter, would you remove that charge or would you retain that charge? Again, we would look at the situation to how the building is set up, but uh like the director of finance pointed out, most an apartment building only has one service both for water and sanitary. So again, we're looking at the equivalent dwelling units because that is the mechanism we're being able to use to figure out uh what to charge. Uh I'll leave that for now. And then the 1.65 um$165 cubic meter, what would trigger that fee to change?

So say for example, you project X amount of water usage, but then at the end of a year you find that we've actually used less. So how will you what will trigger the adjustment for that? The adjustment would happen during the budget process. So wastewater will look at what its expected costs are to uh staff costs, chemical costs, electricity, determine what that cost is plus an asset management cost and then set those the parcel not the parcel rate the I can't remember what I even called them. is being a walls. Um or me uh the one everyone pays. Um yeah, the fixed charge because we went through several iterations. The fixed charge and then the usage rate would be adjusted to make up to cover off that cost that we're expecting to see in this year. So if chemical costs go up astronomically, we will have to adjust probably both of those as we go along.

If consumption goes down, um again, it depends. If consumption goes down and our costs still go up, then we'll probably have to raise the rate. So it will be an exercise we go through every budget year to determine what those are. So the $1.65 65 cents that is in the bylaw right now will be adjusted every year either up or down depending on what our costs are going to be and your winter council McNav I I really have to interject at this point uh Mayor Tate has her hand up and um and of course we we've had some very substantial agendas um and reports from the consultant and I think many of these questions have been answered at that time as much as I'm really appreciate the refresher they weren't I went through all of them.

That's Oh, you did? Okay. Yeah. But I'm happy to wait and come back. Okay. Come on back after Mayor Tape. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to hopefully provide some uh clarity to councelor McMah. So in the presentation and some of our questions there was the the staff have mapped out all of the usage and some are very high and they are working with those particular homeowners directly because it's potentially that they have a severe water leak on their property. So those properties will be paying higher unless the water rate is resolved. So those are being done. In the case where there's one meter to multiple dwellings, then they in theory would pay more because they're w it's based on water use and not the parcel tax. So rather than equally everyone in the system paying the same, it is more equitable. So now those using the sewer more as shown through their water may pay more.

Let's say you have one residence and you've been paying two parcel taxes, but you don't have anyone living in your suite. Maybe you're using it as a home office and you have one meter servicing your property. Then you potentially could pay less because your draw on the sewer system is less. That's why it's going to depend on the uses and then it'll capture uh business use where potentially there's one line with many sub entities running off of it using more of the system but paying one fee. It's more equitable across the process across those in the sewer specified area as opposed to equally we all pay the same parcel rate.

uh that is my motivation for being in support of it is it's user pay similar to a utility. So in the case of the water in the and that's where the CRD monitors this as well and at the end of the year if they see that a household is using more water than normal they do reach out to that homeowner or flag it so that there's an opportunity to look for a leak on the property. So this would be the same and then every year the fixed rate should this bylaw pass will be adjusted to reflect what everybody has to pay into to keep the whites water going and then it would be the uh the other piece will be depending on individual homeowners.

So as people save more water in theory you would receive a reduction in your wastewater bill because it's all connected to the water use. I'm in support of adopting this. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Tate and Councelor Mcmath. Just couple couple more, please. Then I'll call the question. Yeah, I did already know those pieces, but thank you. Um I just last question, swear to God. Um the winter months that you base the usage off, will those change as well with the budget cycle? Your worship to the council. No, those are a set time frame that we've worked out with CRD um to how they monitor and those ones aligned with that no irrigation or minimal irrigation time period. So, we won't be changing that time frame. That will be our standard for the time being unless it's proven that it's not as accurate and then we'll come up with something new.

Great. Thank you. Okay, Councelor Haldane. Okay, I I think I was the only one who voted against it when we got to this point anyway. But again, I'll reiterate 50% of the nation's wealth is owned by baby boomers. 10% is owned by millennials. This is this whole setup factors in families who are going to get persecuted for having children and having more people and they have no money. So the baby boomers are the ones who have all the money and we're going to give them the break because there's only two people living in a house as opposed to four or five or six living in a house with a younger family. That's the only reason I don't agree with it and it's the only reason that I'm not going to vote for it. So just reiterating that again not we're not not voting for it for any other reason than I just don't think that it's proper for the younger people who are trying to make a go of their life and family and we want people

to have kids and they're going to be penalized for it. Thank you. Okay. Um, councelor Pearson. Yeah, just one one question through the chair to director of engineering. In the event and finance in the event of a catastrophic failure where we had to rack up a big bill, does the interest on paying because we don't have it exceeds our our reserve funds and it let's say the digtor blows two times in a week or and and something happens and we we incur a two or three million bill is that interest part the interest on that repayment is that part of the for the following year through the chair I would imagine. will go for uh council's direction. If council approved the budget to pay for those interest, yes, then we will levy through this system. If council said you don't levy, if there's other ways to pay for that debt, then we'll just follow council direction. Yeah.

Yeah. You know, sitting on the CRD water board is they they have the perfect model. Whatever the costs are, they just divide that by the number of units that they sell. So conservation actually gets punished right because the cost of the operation never goes down but the water usage can go down and in this case if people save water but the costs go up they actually get you get punished by using less one of the drawbacks of that system but we have to go somewhere right so thank you okay so we've we've gone through this at some length and this is good I I know that there will be public facing communications materials explaining to to everyone in the sewer specified area of this new system and like all things including the OCP it is subject to amendment after after we have some traction and direct experience with it.

So um on that note let's have a vote on this. Um all in favor and councelor is against. All right. Thank you. So now we're moving into item 12 which is correspondence. We begin with item 12.1 removal of soul park bench with memorial plaque in Eeken Park. And that is councelor Pearson has held. Yes. Through the chair to staff. Have we got a progress report on the bench in Eagle Park? Uh through your worship council Pearson. Uh yes. I can confirm it either has been or is being installed um through the memorial policy um as stated uh she just needed to wait for the policy and and process to be finalized and so we've reached out to her I believe and and are collecting the funds and we'll be installing a bench um as per her wishes.

Thank you from Miss Parsons uh thanking the district for that work. Okay. Now number 12.2 AIC attendance and costs to district and this is pulled by councelor Betos. Yes. Thank you worship. I just want to make a clarification. Uh in the letter it states that I uh I did not pay any taxes in this tax cycle one. That's not true. I did. So I just want to bring that uh you know that's how things get misinformation in the community and it is not true. I when I bought my house I had to pay for the taxes that remained a part of the year. For those that don't know I now live in Sun River just down the street.

Okay. You know, I don't believe I received the previous item for information. I did not. So, do we need to go back in time? Rewind. Uh, if you would like to, you traditional in Souk to receive all of these letters individually or if um if it's the will of council, you could receive them on mass at the end. I'm not sure the level of discussion intended. Let's do it on mass at the end for something a little different. Okay. So, we're going to now move on to item Oh, councelor McMath. Um, I had a question for 44.D. The request for the info was submitted a long time ago and some municipalities in their Sophie, they'll share either a generalized council breakdown or an individualized council breakdown.

So, I was just curious um if we could do that. Um, and then if we can just share the info with this resident. Uh, three years to council McMath. I I believe the slight complexity with this is past practice for the district is it's always one year out before because council has up to a year to file claims for these expenses. They have they can offer to refund and and pay back the district. So normally on our annual review process when the Sophie is getting prepared is when we send the expenses over to council, get them to confirm they actually incurred these costs, ask them if they're interested in refunding anything which has occurred in the past um before the Sophie gets finalized. So I I believe that's the complexity is for the expenses for 2026 AIC. We normally wouldn't be confirming for council until next year. Are you refunding any of this? Is there any um fees you you want to pay? Are you okay with these costs? So it it feels

slightly out of order for the district to confirm costs that we don't know for sure are the actual costs. So normally we have been deferring to council to confirm that with members of the public in advance of 2026's Sophie being published next June. Got it. So individual basis because you don't want to say oh it was two grand for conference travel that and then at the end when the Sophie comes out it's more correct or more or less. And and to add to the confusion and as far as the details, we we publish what is legally required to be in the Sophie, I believe it would be up to council if they want more details published in the grid on the on the annual report that we can definitely um incorporate that into future reporting. Okay. Thank you.

Require a uh amendment to the um travel expense policy. Wait a sec. Sorry. I I'm rewinding. Forget I said that. Let's move on. Okay. Um, we're moving to 12.3. No parking zone on Hudson Terrace. And this is councelor Pierce. Yes. Just after reading this letter and then driving up to Hudson Terrace. And I was seeking some clar or clarification through staff. um is what is because it's mentioned bylaw enforcement in this area and I was trying to figure out what what are the what are the challenges um with this area and what does bylaw enforcement look like I because I'm hearing it from a resident. So uh through your worship to councelor Pearson um I do know that a number of complaints have been made to my bylaw team uh regarding parking on Hudson Terrace. I'm just looking right now through um some of the regular uh scheduled updates and pass ons I get from my officers. Um which basically uh this was more of an issue in around uh

August. Uh I haven't had too many uh complaints that we've received since then. But essentially our parking policy uh our enforcement on parking issues is uh the same as it is on all other matters. It's a reactive process where when residents call in or write in with complaints, then the officers will go out and investigate and we typically uh give a reasonable amount of time after first off confirm that the vehicle isn't moving and then we'll attempt to contact the owner uh regarding moving it uh if if something is being left there for a significant period of time. Okay. And thank you. Is and so it it it implied in this letter that the bylaw was out there. Are we are we um issuing fines with regards to parking because I don't think we have an actual parking fine bylaw other than maybe the B law has worship to councelor Pearson that souk is not currently a member municipality of what's called the bylaw notice enforcement scheme um in order to be

able to leave a ticket on a dash then um when the owner is not present then you need to be a member of the BNE um as otherwise the types of tickets which we are able to issue must be served in person to the owner um or the person doing an offense. So it is not currently permissible in Souk to just leave tickets on vehicles as part of municipal enforcement. Right. What we can do is provide education and ultimately if something is left for an extended period of time then we will tow it if the um attempts to contact the owner are unsuccessful which can of course be rather more expensive than any ticket that can be issued. Right.

Okay. Um thank you. But you're aware of this area and some have we done anything to take any steps around the parking or is it just seem to resolve itself as a result of construction? Thank you chair. That's my last question. uh through your worship. Um as I uh said, parking is a matter that we um basically deal with in responsive to complaints. Obviously, if there are lots of complaints coming in regularly for a single street, then that might result in um say patrols swinging by that street more often and seeing if there's more work that we need to do on education enforcement and seeking voluntary compliance, which is where we uh we tend to start start seeking. Um but we have not uh had some kind of an organized blitz on trying to say go by every day and make sure that things are taken care of.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And councelor Mcmath, do you recall the original reason why parking isn't allowed on one side? You were through the counselor. Uh the reason why is a local road. They're generally about 8.5 meters in di uh width. And in order to make sure that a fire truck or an ambulance or a garbage truck can transit that area, uh we only allow parking on one side of the street. If we put it on both sides, it becomes very narrow and it would be hard to deploy say on the ladder truck outriggers as we go if it needed to go up there. So, it's more just to provide access to services that are provided to our residents.

And the fire department does Hi. [laughter] Um, we'll do like a field inspection potentially. Um, if we're aware of an area that's been of concern of people parking illegally, then uh our crews will go and check it out. Um for us it is we are over width compared to a regular street vehicle. Um our most vehicles have to be 8 feet wide. Fire trucks typically are 9 ft wide and then if you've got a a ladder truck with stabilizers out makes it considerably wider than that. So and because of the design of a fire truck if you go down a street and there's cars on both sides you won't be able to physically open the doors to get out of the truck. So, um, that's where the challenge is for us and that's why we're quite cognizant of what where people are parking and the areas that are a concern. If our crews notice concerns in on different streets that are narrow, then we will bring them to bylaw as well

and uh try and get some enforcement done. So, Hudson compared to Braillesford, what's the difference? Off the top of my head, I wouldn't be able to tell you because I don't know what the other one is. So again, I'm just going by the typical dimensions of what a local urban street would be with no curb and gutter. So the minimum for a truck is seven or 7.5 meters on each. Um, let me just double check something. we would want to at least have a a minimum of six meters clearance um in order to allow the fire trucks to move up and down. So, if we can get more uh we would again because we're trying to ensure that there's access to get up there to do it. Um and it's you have to remember when you put vehicles on both sides of the street is also it's a great traffic calming issue.

Uh it's one way to do traffic coming, but it does make it hard to access with a large vehicle. Um and you'll find, as the deputy chief said, uh you can't get out of your vehicle. So if you're doing garbage collection and you have both vehicles on both sides, you won't be able to get out and do that work. And again, on an emergency side, they'll have trouble deploying out riggers or just even moving up and down that street. So, it's more with uh availability that drives these things, but we don't know. Basically, what I'm saying is can we do a field run with two vehicles or like vehicles on each side to show like these residents that they this is why the parking the ban is there because that seems to be confusing for them. And then there's a request for parking, allocated parking on Braillesford uh with the gentleman who came in on this street. Uh after we gave him the explanation, he was happy with uh our

explanation. And we generally find that once we explain the reason why one side is and one side isn't. uh there isn't isn't the need to demonstrate why it's hard to get a fire truck down both with parking on both sides of the street. Great. So, this is no longer an issue. As far as engineering is concerned, no. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? No. I I'll just note we have the steeplechase cautionary tale always here in the district and great to see that that lesson has been learned in this particular case. Okay, so we're going to move on to um 12.4 West Coast Oil Pipeline Mayor Pro Major Projects Office outgoing correspondence. Mayor Tate.

Oh, this is just here for council's information. Move receipt. I'm assuming it's seconded. Uh, and just to speak to it, councelor Baitman assisted with sending out the letter per council's previous resolution. So, we figured we should include the package here in the materials. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I did have a couple of comments. Um, now that it has been moved for receipt, um, this letter, uh, clearly states the historic record of Souk's opposition to increased tanker traffic and our continued deep concerns with, uh, increas further increases. It also reiterates, as the motion requested, the concerns we raised in 2023, namely that Transport Canada ban tanker traffic on nights stormy enough that response vessels are not permitted to sail and that other levels of government provide coastal communities with funding, operational, and logistical support so we can be fully prepared here in Souk for a spill. Uh the mayor also states in this letter that given the lack of fiscal reform in how Ottawa and the province provide stable long-term funding to municipalities that quote the

mayor respectfully requests that a proportionate share of revenues generated by the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline and should it precede the proposed west coast oil pipeline be dedicated to frontline coastal local governments such as the district of souk. So, just wanted to make that clear. Yeah. So, that's that. That's received for information and we'll just vote on that. Yes. Okay. A new item on this uh updated agenda 12.6660. My apologies, your worship. 12.5 the outgoing UBCM follow-up correspondence would be the next item. Yeah. Okay. 12.5 outgoing UBCM follow-up correspondence as Mr. Lois just said. So we have uh six letters here uh which um capture the uh district's um views and opinions following the meetings with ministers at UBCN.

And um they're there in the record. Uh each one has a wealth of uh information and and uh district uh perspectives on some key issues that are front and center with the community, including some smaller issues like contaminated soils and which is not a such a small issue given that it costs up to four it cost $450,000 to ship our contaminated soils from the charter rebuild to Nanaimo. Um, so I'm I'm wondering council, how do we want to pro progress with this? Because councelor Pearson led the delegation over uh the pro contaminated soils. Councelor St. Pierre over food security or food um food waste. Councelor Betos uh led the delegation um regarding Should we just receive for information?

Let everyone go home early and we'll get on to Sylvia's. Mayor Tate has her Mayor Tate. Thank you very much, Chair. Uh just the intention of including this here is that we sent out as you know and just to button it up. Council together made the request to have the m the meetings at UBCM earlier this year. Uh indicated what they had hoped to cover at said meetings. Staff then provided the briefings. We were successful in the meetings and then we had the meetings and then the writ was drawn and now we don't have ministers. So just to sort of complete the file and for the next council to on board here's the work that we did in terms of advocacy maybe there could be a sample uh made of like the request the brief the we got the meeting here's what we did at the meeting here's the letter that we sent and then the next council when they form and discuss advocacy can

at least pick it up and determine okay now do we follow up do we agree with these points and then put a request in to meet with the relevant minister whenever it is that minister is known. Um I don't know when or who that's going to be and don't know that anyone else does either given the current state of affairs. So it just completes it. Perhaps residents or others uh when candidates of a provincial nature come door knocking or you as candidates are asked what you're doing, you can at least showcase the work that's been done or follow up on it in some way that these were um this was our intention recently, but now we don't have an administer responsible. So that's where it just it closes the file on our end. And I'll leave it at that cuz I guess we'll just see what what happens in the next while. Goodness. Thank you.

Yeah. So motion to receive. Thank you. Um and we need a seconder for that motion to receive. Councelor St. Pierre. Now we have some further comments. I believe councelor Pearson. Yeah. Um through the chair to uh Mayor Tate relying on your wisdom here, would it be appropriate for us to table those letters and and then when we know who the new ministers are, just send them out as a refresher to them that we've done that. So through through the chair too questions. Yeah, we could take like we could this could be postponed to the next council. So then at least like to a date like they could then we can move it second and then a decision could be tabled until such time that their orientation is complete.

Uh and that might happen sooner than the province uh actually forming government because someone needs to potentially do that in some way shape or form. Uh but also the letters may change because the ministers and their mandates and their folios might change like we've seen ministry of transportation is minister of transportation and infrastructure or transit like I don't I can't even fully remember the whole and that's all potentially going to change um but it could be a starting point for a future council but I think our st and that's where Um, I think it's fair to say that one of you will be back at this table. Um, and so you could we could uh ask staff just to bring this as a package as an orientation agenda item at a future council or a decision on like voting to receive this could be postponed until such a time that that council receives it. And then they might but then they'd have to potentially change the letters because the ministers might change and their folio or their

description might change. Sorry, I'm I hope I'm not confusing this. No, no, never the case. CEO Gray. Uh thank you, your worship. Um just to maybe add some point of clarity, these letters have already been sent. Um uh normal course of practice is we would just send them you know as a quick follow-up so time doesn't get lost and and memories don't fade. However, obviously the complexity of calling a provincial election um has meant so we've sent these just in in the hope that they will be passed on to whoever the new minister is as well though obviously can't guarantee that that would happen. Um once uh the election is finished, um staff would anticipate rescending copies of these letters and or as mayor Tate advised um updating as necessary uh to whoever the new ministers are. Presuming this is these are still the same priorities of the new council and all that um all these still align. Uh staff would definitely anticipate addressing these to an individual and sending them at a future date.

So, but the these letters included in the package were just here for information and have already been distributed um to the email addresses in the letters. Thank you, chair. Can I just add one more thing, please? Sorry. I'll just add Okay. Yes. Thank you for that. That they're sent. It's just the one thing I've learned that it seems to me they'll be received and shredded on the other end. And I only say that I'm guessing is because we've made a request to have an updatedou with the Minister of Transportation many times with different ministers and that's not happened. And so I had thought that okay they would just like the folio would pass similar to our work. We pass it to the next one for they can consider. I don't think that happens. I think it just ends up in a shredder and the next minister starts all over again because they really are looking at me with an empty file and a blinking eye and I'm like, "You've never

heard this request before and yet it's in the previous letter uh that the district asked for with the previous minister who's no longer there." So, it just seems to keep disappearing. So, that's why persistence and patience on the local government side at least may actually get something somewhere. and I'll stop complaining about it. Thank you for that reality check. Yeah. Um, so we have I think a few councilor St. Pierre, then Pearson, then McMahon. No, not not Pearson. Council St. Pierre and you. Uh, three worship question for staff. Uh, I'm thinking that we must have advocacy files perhaps with corporate services. Uh, what's our process for the handover at our end? you know, given that there's no guarantees who's going to be at the table, you know, like how how does this continue in terms of organizational memory?

Um, I don't mind taking that one. Uh, so this is goes with along with council orientation. So, um, this would come with what after the election's over. Uh, staff would be presenting to council. This is what we currently have going on. This was council's, you know, here's council's 2027 strategic plan that carried over into 2027. These are initiatives. here's the advocacy letters that go along with that and then you know advise council of based on this these are the next short medium long-term action items for these item for these uh advocacy pieces and can then confirm with new council is this still the priorities uh so it'll become again with orientation and strategic planning uh this will be a main topic one of the main points of conversation to confirm super glad we're not using the provincial model excellent That's basically what I was going to say. The Strap plan has like 29 references to the advocacy pieces and it lists all of those ministers and then that carries over beyond the election date.

Good point. Okay. So, we do have that uh motion on the floor uh to receive. Uh can I have a seconder for that? Councelor McMath and um all in favor? Yep. That's carried. Okay. So, we still have to receive for information some of these earlier ones, but let's let's get to 12.6. This is 6605 Souk Road. Request for sightsp specific OCP alterations. And I'm not sure who pulled this for Mayor Tate. Was that um you or I could begin by just asking staff um you've given a due consideration um what would be the process um with this file and this request from our resident? Yeah, through your worship. Um so this uh particular property has uh a resoning application uh that we're in the midst of processing right now. Uh they applied formally although they've been through some pre-application uh process prior to that. They officially applied in June for this reasonzoning application. Um we uh have been working on the basis of a four-story uh elevation and plan with the applicants. Now when I say the applicant

uh the person that that spoke earlier about her property that she has um developer who's acting on her behalf. So it's Ironclad is the developer. Um and so uh although in the pre-applications uh over a year ago there was no set sort of sorry on the uh the sto number of stories in in this area. Uh with the new uh official community plan in December of this last year um there is a fourstory maximum in this area uh along the waterfront south of Souk Road. It was uh determined that there would be up to six stories off the sides of Brownsy Boulevard going down to the water. Uh east and west of Brownsy it would be four stories and uh west of Ed McGregor Park it would be three stories. So sort of a high point at Brownsy and then sort of working its way down. um that was uh so that has changed the designation of the property in the sense that it's more specific about the height limitations uh

south of Suit Road. Um so we are going through a reasonzoning application process right now. Uh we've been working with the developer and the applicant with that fourtory limitation at this stage. I don't know how that four stories impacts their ultimate decision to purchase this property or proceed with the application, but that's what we've been working towards thus far. Um, so I, you know, if they, if if council wanted to consider an official community plan amendment at this stage, um, either you would get the applicant, the property owner, to make to add that to their resoning application that they want to do an OCP amendment to allow for the six stories in this location. Or it could be something that council uh wants to take on and say, "Well, we as the district of s council are going to instigate or start a application process on behalf of this property owner." Depends on how you want to do that. Um but uh it obviously isn't a simple uh amendment because this is something that's gone through a lot of public process over the last 5 years

and uh there was clear direction from the community that they wanted to reduce the building heights you know going down to the waterfront. Um, so it is a fair comment from the property owner to say, well, I have, you know, six-story buildings all around me. Why am I individually being punished for uh this? And so, it's not that we're looking at her property individually. It's the whole waterfront south of Souk that is got these new height limitations. So if we were going to look at her property individually as an amendment to the OCP or it would obviously set a precedent for the whole waterfront. So it's not [clears throat] something that is just a quick little, you know, edit or amendment. It's something that would have to go through public hearings and processes. Um but uh that that's they could add that OCP amendment to their existing resoning application and it could go through together if that was uh something that council wanted to consider or the applicant wanted to consider.

Um council, do you have questions of Mr. Marshall? Yes, Mr. uh Mr. Councelor Pearson um through the chair to to the director of planning. So when I look at the um the designation the town center waterfront is designated by visual and by physical right is that the that's the definition I think that councelor McN just looked up. So that town center waterfront is the designation on that property. So it's it's not just the physical touching the water the visible to the water as well. Okay. My second question is is is this one of these ones that is instream or almost like I know there's a technical date because you mentioned June of the application but what about when a when a purchaser buys a piece of property? what like when they make an offer to purchase and then there's that gap of time in there. Is that something that we should consider as in good faith? I guess that was my question. Chief, do you understand my question?

Yeah. I I mean the the the length of time between the official community plan being amended in December of 2025 and this application being submitted is six month period. That's a fairly lengthy period of time for uh you know that to come to light or to be considered. So um until you actually apply there's there's no instream uh consideration. So my question goes then where like what somebody like these are big projects. This is not like the mom and pops kind of subdividing one one lot off. So when you purchase a piece of property I understand is that you go you make an offer they agree and then the due diligence starts and that due diligence and you know sitting here at council table it that takes that there's this window of time and you know you say six months between OP passing and then the actual application but how does that person who buys a piece of property like they have to you know they have to do the ground testing they have to do all of them there's a ton of you know as you

know So where where does the district do we show leniency on on that because like I I understand that that came last October like almost a year ago and it takes that long to get through the due diligence piece but again when do you make the application after you've done you can't do an application till you've done your due diligence as as a big project like that. I don't know if I've asked a question or not or not. Is it is it something that council and the district staff should consider in these when you buy it right in that window, you know what I mean?

Like people are going to work on that property, they're going to do their due diligence, which I've mentioned a few times. Um and that is sort of elastic that that time frame from helping me to understand that uh there are legal time frames and And if you have an application instream, well then you've applied before the OCP got amended and your application goes through that new adoption of the new OCP. Then there is some consideration of the fact that you're in stream. The fact that you're considering purchasing a property or going through conditions of sale of something is not something that we as staff or the district would take into account. It's really about when did you apply for that applicant? When did it become a formal application? Because you can imagine there's lots of people I I don't want to diminish the meaning of it, but kicking tires on properties. And so until you actually physically apply, you know, we have we we can't consider it instream, you know,

and and I and and I fully understand that. What about on this due diligence piece where you know where there's equipment there there's significant costs that and I understand in this particular case excavation costs drilling costs all of these things that's not kicking the tires that's sort of moving you towards that final like it's again in in my in my brain I've got this moral compass saying okay you know this is the same developer it's not a new developer they they bought this piece of property or they put an option to buy this We did buy an option to buy. Then they started pouring money into it.

And that that seems to me that's a bit of a trigger for me on a on a personal level that they're serious. If they get to the gate and then they don't buy, well, you know, they lose all that money. But if they still keep proceeding along because the designation of the land has changed in that same time frame, but they've never wavered from their their intent, I guess. Is that something and you must have come across this? Yeah. And I mean they it's not like they've just found out that it's four stories. They've known or you know since December and we've been working on a four-story height limit with them. And so it's it it in what I'm dealing with right now is not a six-story building.

I'm dealing with a four-story build because that's what they're presenting to us. If they said to us, we can't make this work at four stories. We have to go to six stories and we want to go through an OCP amendment in order to do that. Then that's the prerogative of the property owner and the developer to make that you know known and to uh provide the proper process to go through in order to achieve that. Um, at this point I haven't heard the developer say or the applicant say that they can't do it with the four stories and that they want to go through an OCP amendment. In fact, I don't think they want to go through an OCP amendment. Um, so because they realize that there are concerns from surrounding neighbors with and they don't want to go through that that process, I'm guessing. But so, uh, we're there's we've never been dealing with a six-story development. We've never been presented with a six-story building in this application.

We have councelor Mcmath and councelor Boss, but councelor Mcmath first. um the town center waterfront um three stories versus four stories are they considered one group or how do you differentiate between that transition? I can't recall. So the uh three stories on the west side of Ed McGregor Ed McGregor so Ed McGregor is the defining boundary boundary. Yeah. Uh on the east side it's the edge of the beayshore development. It goes to to yes a different designation beyond that right Brownie Peak. Um but how is that captured um in the OCP? So it's it's it's verbiage sorry through the your worship. It's verbiage in the OCP that describes the waterfront designation and outlines these building heights with those specific markers and civics. Yes. Okay. So, they're considered one group.

Even though there's a three three story versus four story, it's the same group. Okay. And then how many properties that have that definition? How many properties are there? How many parcels? Uh yeah, I I don't know. I I'd have to count where I'm going with it is like the notification process. So like the 10 parcels with 10 owners versus 30 parcels with eight owners where they have to be notified. No, like the land parcels like my understanding and maybe I'm wrong is during the OCP process when you have like that that change that adjustment there there's a notification system where if it's 10 parcels with less than 10 um individual owners, you need like 10 of 10 for it to become an exception or notification, Right.

That's that's what I'd like to know. Okay. So, through your worship, um when you're going through an OCP amendment where you're talking about the whole district of Souk and you have that many, you don't do individual notifications to every single property for a public hearing. um or in terms of the uh changes that are being proposed, it is notifications that go into the newspaper that advertise for the public hearing and provide the community with an opportunity to speak to any of the changes or to the new OCP and that's the public's opportunity to speak to those changes. So, it's not an individual mail out to those properties. I thought and maybe I misinterpreted it. I thought there was a clause that if it like for that specific group to transition to that different classification that there is a clause that if it is less like less than 10 owners then there is a clause where you would have to individually notify property owners. So it's not so the open house and those

things those would qualify as like the public hearing and that's what makes it an exception. But for for this specific example that if there is less than that then it doesn't qualify for that exemption in which case you would have to individually notify the parallel owners through your worship. Um, so there were a lot of changes that were made in the OCP from the previous OCP and so we didn't just like there was complaints about the waterfront property owners not being individually uh notified about changes to the DP areas along the waterfront. Um they there there are lots of people that can be impacted by an official community plan. But that would be an exception because it's over that number.

That's why I was wondering what the number is because if it's under I thought then you do have to individual notify the DPA makes sense because there's was well above that but this I I'm not aware of a clause that like that. Um, I'm certainly that's the case with a resoning application for a specific property. Uh, if it impacts surrounding people, but I I'm not aware of for an official community. Okay. For now. Thank you. So, councelor Betos and then Mayor Tate. Uh yes, thank you worship. Uh through staff, um just for for the sake of the applicant in the room here, uh no CFB amendment is made. If one was made tomorrow, what would be the time frame of having that because I I don't know off heart. I know that there has to go to a public meeting and uh public hearing and things like that. Can you please just outline the procedure when uh an OC amendment uh would come forward? Did somebody answer that?

So, we usually say it's sort of 6 to 12 months for a reasonzoning or OCP amendment application process. They're going through a resoning application presently. So, um it's not like we would start from day one to start a brand new OCP then because it's the same application basically, but uh they'd be looking at say six months from this point in order to go through the process and I it would be a difficult process because I mean I'm not sure how we would just look at this property in isolation. It would be a an issue of do we want to open it up to reooking at heights of buildings in the whole waterfront district area and what are the pros and cons and like I think it would be difficult to just do a one lot you know amendment. The reason why I asked that is because the the person was here tonight talking to us and uh the feeling I got from uh her is that uh she was looking for some relief like in the next week or two. But it it doesn't matter.

It doesn't uh uh if we go through the procedure and we we're stuck with a lot of procedure, you're looking at months and and not days and weeks. So there there is at this point in time, as much as we're sympathetic to it, um it's not an easy matter of just uh saying, "Okay, we're just going to do this one property and it still has to go to public hearing, still has to go through all these hoops." So it's not something that we can do instantaneous. That's what I'm confirming. Okay. Thank you. You're nodding your head. I assume that's a yes. Thank you. Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Um Mayor Tate and then Councelor St. Pierre. Thank you. Um perhaps our planning staff can confirm with me. Um in terms of the building height, my understanding in the in the older OCP was that buildings on the south side of Souk Road or Highway 14 are maxed at four stories. Buildings on the north side could go up to six. and that Mariners's Village had its own unique comprehensive development zone that gave it the height that it has. And that with the new OCP, the exception to that would be Brownsy area being able to peak at six and then sloping downwards as you say. So now I'm a bit confused as to an OCP change if this property had always been capped at four stories.

It could appear that it would be higher given its proximity to Mariners's Village and that that OCP was paused. That's a different situation where back in that 2009 term the or 2010 or whatever year it was adopted in 2010 the OCP process was paused. Mariners was reszoned and then it resumed itself after the fact. So then it would appear that everything on that south side could go to six stories. So could you please clarify that or did this then change with the OCP? Mr. Marsh. Yeah. Three worship. Uh so in the old OCP it didn't specify building heights. It just said in the downtown the town center uh that that it was a four to six story height. So there was no clarification or details as to where the six and where the four. There was reference to the town center plan which again is a whole other document uh from 2009.

It actually designated this area's townhouse. So um you know it would have been a much lower height uh as part of that plan. But the um the old the the the 400 the last OCP uh was not as specific about the building heights in specific areas. It basically just did the sort of catchall four to six story height consideration in the town center. I understand. So it wasn't that specific. Okay. The other Oh, that's unfortunate because then the other confusing part with the town center plan is that the town center did not extend this far and that was raised during the resoning of Mariners's Village. Uh, and then the town center boundary extended past Mariners's Village uh towards Souk Elementary. But it was a lot like it extended out. So, I'm just sharing this for council's sake because that's I can see the confusion here. Um maybe it's just my confusion, but certainly why it would give the impression that a building that the property in that area would be able to go to six stories because of that, but it wasn't specific.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, Mayor Tate, I too had that thought that it was four. Souk Road was the divider and anything south of Souk Road was four stories. North was six as you said earlier. Now, who who's up? Councelor St. Pierre, thank you. Your worship. Uh, I'm personally not sure where I would stand on either four or sixtory. uh given that the fourth story actually covers more ground and actually covers more land uh than the taller building and it's surrounded by other buildings, I don't know where I would want to stand on that. And that having been said, that tells me that this is likely to be pretty contentious. And I don't think that at this point in time we're in a place where we should be handing this to a new council where you don't know if the council itself is going to actually be in favor of the amendment because if we go through the whole process of a public hearing um wasting the

applicant's time, money, effort, and then the council actually has the final determination says, "Nope, we don't want it." What a waste. Uh, I think this really should be put a pin in it and this should wait for the next council because it's not going to be completed by this council at this stage of the game and it's going to be up to another council to make the final determination and we don't know who they are or what they want. So, that's my thought. Theo Gray, apologies. Um, just wanted to clarify council's entering into quite a conversation here. I don't know if there's any motion on the floor. So, just curious. Does council have a proposed motion or is this just received for information?

Well, I'd like to um I'll motivate on this, but I I'd like it received for information at this point. Thank you. Secer, councelor St. Pierre. And just to motivate, it seems we you know, I keep hearing this expression, process is our friend. And um as Mr. Marshall says, there is a resoning application in stream. Now um the the applicant and the developer does have an option here to step forward and request a formal variance and OCP amendment. Um which would trigger a a public hearing in about six months I believe approximately. And um hence that's where things stand that potentially mi Mrs. Hoggrren um well I don't believe that's process which is my friend in these least last moments I sit here.

What's that? That was the end of my motivation. Oh, at my discretion. Yeah. Yeah. Come on up. [laughter] No. Okay. Wait. I I've made that decision. Discretion. Let's be friendly in this chamber and hear from you, Mrs. Algrren. At the mic, please. Could you The challenge that we have are facing right now is the fact that that the delays in moving forward with the fourstory that they are zoning for is that the fourtory spreads out on the property and takes out half of our land. The 1 point sixtory acre and the sixth story going up makes it easier for parking and because there is the determination to have commercial on the ground floor on the buildings. There is the complication of that there's storm water. It's these issues that have delayed this to the point where the we we received um a message today from the uh developers that they um they are devaluating we we're coming up with we were to move forward with the financing and they've devaluated our property. So

what has happened to us being boxed in with six stories on two six stories on the east side and one in front of us on the water suddenly we are devaluated and they can build a sixstory across the street. So it's a hardship and if there was a chance for a variance I don't know that that's possible but that's all we're asking for. We've gone through tremendous stress with properties. Even our driveway, we had to pay the city $15,000 just to get a driveway in when mariners went in. And and we've had um countless um uh disappointments. The last people that wanted to build a hotel on our property, they hired a company to see what kind of risk it would be and they came back saying that it was it was high risk because the district was in disarray and there were too many delays. The company before that pulled out because of that.

So we are in a position now where we have serious buyers whether they build four stories or six stories. We would just like the city to work with them and every obstacle they come up with with the mo well it's not your problem theot but I went to the MLA's office because it was held up there and then they moved it forward and then Sue put it back and it just goes on and on and we're very frustrating. We're in a times and we need to retire. Yeah. And I'm just asking for your help because that's what we the last 50 years we do. They wanted high density where we are now. And now you're saying just because we missed it. I didn't know about it till three weeks ago. Um December. I mean, we were caught up with one of the developers, um, real estate fellow we were dealing with. He passed away. So, things got muddled. We missed it. We know it now. It's probably, you know, it's late, but if there's any way

we could get an amendment today, then we could um have it on the docket for when the new council comes and then we could deal with it. Whether they would approve it or not, that would be up to them. But at least we're hoping you can. Thank you. Oh, microphone. Um, thank you very much. And so to be soberous, but we've heard very very clearly. Yes. So I'm sorry about this. You you had such a magical property, the tea house, the gardens. It It's been a big part of Souk for many decades. So thank you for your stewardship of that. But can I I just need to finish.

Yeah. I'll just quickly address that. If Marguson House, which I operated a tea house, we had a law office there. If that could have continued in some fashion for souk as a as some draw for future reference for his history or whatever. Um Chris and I went through that and I talked with him about that and what came back to me was that this property is designated high density in the core. It's close to the bus, all the shopping, everything. So that's where we had to release the property that we loved and cared for for all these years and just give it over to the district.

Now the district is devaluating our property [clears throat] and leaving us in a mess. I'm sorry. Um I think [clears throat] as as Mr. Marshall says there's a process and I think it's now in your court. I council cannot give a variance tonight. We can say that for sure. Oh, you may but I'll I'll go to council uh CEO Gray first and then I'll come to you. Oh, sorry. Sorry, I'll just be real quick. Um, in order to move this forward, I think the concern from staff is Miss Hoggrren, there is a disconnect between the direction Miss Hogrren's seeking and what the district has received from the developer. So my suggestion would be perhaps that Miss Hoggrren, her developer, meet with district staff all together at the same time so they can all hear the same information and make this request official because it's putting staff in a very difficult position when we have assigned authorization to deal with one developer and now the owner is in front of council asking for something

different that we have never once seen a design for a six-story building. So that would be my suggested course of action for Miss Hoggrren is she have a meeting coordinate a meeting with her developers uh herself and district staff to get clarity on what is the request um at this time because it was never a six-story request as far as I understand. Thank you. Very wise advice councelor St. Pierre and just councelor Pierce just very briefly uh I I feel awful for you first of all but sadly we cannot because the OCP is a very big document that requires public input we we just we we simp we simply don't have the ability as council to create a change in the OCP like that we just don't have that ability it's not possible uh legally according to the province that calls the shots we cannot do it for you Okay.

No, no, that took freaking 20 years. No, I'm just kidding. But it took a long time. Yeah. Okay. So, we have councelor Pier Pearson and then McMath through the chair to our CEO. would be appropriate for um council to consider a motion to uh schedule a meeting with our planner and the and the owner and the the applicant. Could we Could we do that? Would it be appropriate if I made that motion to schedule a meeting to get this all ironed out? If there's an application on the horizon for something different, wouldn't it be nice to get everybody in the same room so that we could do that?

that that I would I would make a motion to that effect, but I want to know if if the CEO can uh sure through your worship to councelor Pearson, I'll start on my initial thought and let Mr. Lawis confirm if I'm correct. I think the challenge in a motion like that would be we can't force somebody to meet with district staff. So, council could pass a motion reject uh requesting that, but um I think staff has had numerous like we have met individually I believe with Miss Hoggrren and Ironclad on numerous times. So my suggestion would be a joint meeting. So council could pass a motion, you know, suggesting a joint meeting, but um I don't know how enforceable it would be if not everyone wants to meet together.

Envision a followup back to council so that we get the clear picture because you know I'm getting lots of different information tonight. Yeah. Well, again, we defer to council. So council would like to pass a motion just uh indicating it's important for staff to try and coordinate this meeting. We're happy to do that. Otherwise, I I would assume Mr. Marshall will reach out and try and coordinate such meet. Thank you. I found it. Um, it's uh 466 and it's just that um what I' what I'd like to know is is that change in the OCP restricted to just those properties that we discussed or is there more properties beyond that where it qualifies for that exemption?

Like I just want to make sure we weren't required to do individual notification based off the personal and owner amount. I'm just trying to count on a map in my head the number of properties and I don't know how many would be affected at this point. So, I'd have to take a look at a map and actually physically count. Okay. All the properties. And it's um So, it's Yeah. 466 um subsection 7. That's the one I'm talking about. Anyone here? Can't auntie or anything? We're not talking right now. You're not talking? No. Mayor just asked. Typically, we're looking right now for a motion to have three parties meet. Yes. To get on the same page.

Okay. And then perhaps after that meeting can or the applicant or the property owner can come back. Okay. Would one of you two like to test a motion then? Yes. Okay. Let's receive this for information first. All in favor? Yes. Okay. And now uh a follow-up motion that council direct staff to invite the property owner and the applicant for a review and clarification. current regarding 6605 group something like that. Sounds good. Mr. Lois, did you capture that?

My apologies uh anyone who's listening. We're just having minor technical malfunctions. It's good.

That's being moved by councelor Mcmath and seconded by councelor Pearson. And you are welcome to motivate. I think we're good. It's good. Yeah. So, any comments? I'll I'll just state that I I think it's great that council is eager to see a resolution to this and that so much so that we're formally requesting that a meeting proceed. So, let's have a vote on that. All in favor? That's uh unanimous. Carried to receive for information items 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3. So, can I have a motion for that, please? Councelor Betto, seconded by Mcmath, and all in favor? Yes. Okay. You have no items removed from consent agenda. We're now moving into council verbal reports.

So, yeah, councelor St. Pierre. Um given that one of the members of the audience of our in here was involved with this particular resolution, I wanted to confirm again in public that our resolution with asking the province to update the legislation around manufactured homes to provide more strenuous protection when redevelopment is happening and clarify that it's an important asset. Uh did actually get passed by the assembly. Uh lots of other good things and good work happened. I think we start early and late and it was good. But um I think that was the highlight and that's because we got some right here. Councelor St. Pier Pearson St. Pearson.

Um yes uh UBCM was a wonderful conference. Did lots of things at UBCM. Uh this past Saturday I attended the community health network update. Uh thank you councelor Baitman for for bringing that forward because it was a it was a good session with a lot of a lot of people in myself and councelor St. Pierre and there and mayor tape. So good good session lots of good dialogue around things and the common theme that I picked up on was communication and and the advantage of people being able to communicate through hubs and face to face. So that's it for me. Thank you. Any further comments?

Oh, yeah. Tell us more. Oh, we were all there, were you? Yeah. No, no, it's just that we did the uh shovel turning with the minister for the new medical building and uh providing they still allow it to happen after the election, it'll be good. I think every all everything is signed. It's ready to go. It's just a matter of start clearing if I I believe that's the sometime uh later this month there'll be clearing. It was good. Councelor Halding. No. Uh C Mayor Tate, do you have anything you'd like to share? Um thank you. Uh the highlights of UBCM are in the package in the previous items that we talked about. Uh sorry I'm so under the weather. Um I'm just uh my main comment is it's just a big scrambled mess with um with us in two elections. So to the candidates, I'm I'm really feel for you uh at this time.

Uh it's happens. It is what it is. But it just I just feel that the advocacy effort uh at UBCM is lost. Um although what happens just for the benefit of those listening or interested the resolutions will be picked up by the incoming UBCM executive. Now anything that's passed including the one that we submitted that councelor St. Pier spoke to will then be packaged and sent to the relevant minister responsible whenever that new minister uh is affirmed and then the membership or the UBCM on behalf of the membership will pick it up from there. Uh and then similarly to our advocacy files. So I think at least we can put a package of you know what has been effective to date so far uh to the incoming council.

Um but I just you know wish for those of you running I just wish you well in this with uh this is bizarre political happenings occurring at the same time. Thank you. I clearly have a lot of opinions on the matter but I'll save those for myself. Okay. Thank you mayor and thank you for your comments to open the uh the health summit on Saturday. you were you were in somewhat better health then and you spoke very eloquently and well to k kick off that event. um that event which is hosted by the Souk region community health network they will be creating a final report which will come to the new council in uh in likely I don't know when but it you will see it shortly and it is going to identify gaps and opportunities for health and wellness in the souk region expanded uh BC ambulance service being one uh that that came up strongly among many over the course of the Okay. Um I attended the Souk Legion 100th anniversary event on September

12th. That was um Mayor Tate um was also there speaking eloquently. Um there was the the beautiful new mural. I I love that Souk is becoming a bit of a mural town and the Legion's mural created by five artists. Um it's it's quite beautiful. Um it was the open house for the gathering place. Uh I participated in Souk's third annual grand parade along with um several of us councelor Pearson for one um soup food cheese harvest festival last Saturday I think it was or two yeah last Saturday uh can all candidate speed date was was quite fascinating and good to get to know some people I didn't know and just my comment there is that was dramatically underattended people, people of Souk, where are you? This is an this was an opportunity and neutral grounds for um for to meet the candidates over a 2-hour period. And uh that was um yeah, interesting to me. But there are upcoming events. Of course, a week from tomorrow night, we have the event at EMCS. And then uh later this week there

is an event that um a uh local group tax I think they're they're called has has organized at the community hall. So please by all means get out to those events and vote uh mindfully and well and as I say vote often. Um and finally UBCM that was for me it was the resol the highlights resolution sessions the ministerial meetings which we attended as a team. It's always f felt feels good in those moments to see souk unified and and um pitching the woo and uh the workshops and qual quality time with the CEO and our our uh our council. Um there was there's a lot I've got a full couple of pages here of notes on what I could talk about, but time is short and um it's nine o'clock. So at that note, call for an adjournment from councelor Mcmath.

Oh uh my apologies your worship. Um so section 15.1 is not specifically adjourning this meeting itself so much as adjourning to a closed session of council and there's a lengthy section to be read out for that. And your predecessor said that we didn't need to read through all this motion. So I will just ask for an adjournment to to a closed meeting. What's that? Okay, then you go ahead and read. Councelor McMahon, that the meeting be closed to press and public at 9:02 p.m. under the community charter section 90 bracket 2 be the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations. I between the municipality and a provincial government or federal government or both or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.

And I said, I that's so funny. Two, between the municipality and another local government or between another local government and a third party. Or three, between the municipality and a first nation or a prescribed indigenous entity or between a First Nation or a prescribed indigenous entity and a third party. Thank you. Well read. So we have a seconder for that, please. Councelor Pearson. All in favor? Okay.