Well, good e- evening. I would like to call the Langley City April 13th regular council meeting to order, and start us off in a good way by acknowledging that we're on the unceded and traditional territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Musqueam, Semiahmoo T-Wses. Uh, we have our agenda in front of us. Uh, would anybody like to move it? Moved by Councilor Albrecht, seconded by myself. Uh, I will see if there's any amendments required. I'm not seeing any. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? So there's none opposed, so that's carried. Uh, we have our consent agenda. Would anybody like to remove anything from it? Uh, would anybody like to move the consent agenda? So moved by Councilor White, seconded by Councilor Albrecht. Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Is there any opposed? So there's none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. That brings us to our delegation, uh, 5A. We have Miss Cook for the, uh, New Westminster and District Labor Council Day of Mourning. So if you would like to come up and, uh, have a seat, we'd be happy to hear. Whichever you prefer. I like standing. Absolutely. Is it on? Yes? Yes. I hear it now. Thank you very much. Um, I am going to wear my glasses. I had a paper copy of what I was going to say, and then I realized on the top of the paper copy, it said, "2025," so I knew it was about a year out of date. So I then went to my other copy. It's me instead of Kim. Kim's, uh, uncle passed away suddenly, so as a result of that, uh, she texted me and I said, "Yes, I've been here before, so I can actually do this as well." So good evening, uh, my name is Wendy Cook, and I'm a delegate of the New West District Labor Council and a member of the BCTF union. I'm actually on the, uh, New West District Labor Council Executive. So each year, the New W- New Westminster and District Labor Council presents to city councils and school boards in our regions to seek the support and recognition of April 28th as the Day of Mourning for workers killed and injured on the job. We believe workplace health and safety is everyone's responsibility. This year, workers across Canada are reminding... For 146 people in British Columbia died as a result of their work. There were 6,593 claims recorded for serious injuries. Each of these... Fatalities accepted by the worker's compensation, and now it's gonna be really loud, uh, compensate, uh, compensation system. In cases of workplace exposure for to- toxic chemicals, diseases like COVID, or material like asbestos, effects only become apparent months, years, and decades later. Our thoughts and sympathies go to the families of these workers. These are people in your community, and the impacts from a workplace injury go far beyond time away from work. We can and must do better to keep workers safe at work and support injured workers and their families. We are pleased to see advances this year in tower crane safety. Just last month, the government of BC announced they are introducing a mandatory crane licensing and permitting program through WorkSafe BC to strengthen safety oversight. Seven fatalities involving cranes in BC, uh, the past five years prompted action to improve standards and accountability. Crane operation is high-risk work with significant safety hazards, meaning failures can have catastrophic consequences. The action to improve training and accountability did not happen without the solidarity of the labor movement, and especially the efforts of BC Building Trades and the International Union of Operating Engineers, which is Local 115, who participated in the Ministry of Labor's Crane Safety Table, along with industry and technical experts. Unions in BC have fought hard for gains in ensuring appropriate WorkSafe BC coverage, but we know prevention is the most important action we can take, and licensing, permitting, regulation, and strong enforcement are proven tools for reducing tasks and risks. As union members, we also call on our governments at all levels to remove barriers to joining a union to ensure all workers have the protection and the rights that come with union, the union card, because strong unions make safe workplaces. Accountability is critical when it comes to health and safety at work.... as these new requirements demonstrate. That is why, this year, we are also reminding everyone that not all hazards are visible. We must ensure that psychological health and safety is included in efforts to make workplaces safer. Invisible injuries can include things like stress, anxiety, burnout, and chronic pain. And hazards can include threat, threats to air quality and airborne chemicals. Mental disorder in- injuries are caused by significant work-related stressors, included bullying, harassment, or one or more work-related traumatic events. Nearly half of working, uh, Canadians say their job is the most stressful part of their daily lives, and 70% of workers are concerned about the psychological health and safety of their workplace. In 2023 alone, more than 8,500 workplace mental health injury claims were accepted by compensation boards across Canada, and we know the numbers are likely much higher. Psychological injuries are wi- widely under-reported. Workers are discouraged from speaking up, claims are denied, and too many people suffer in silence. On this Day of Mourning, workers across Canada are fighting for better protections against invisible hazards, and hazards that cause invisible injuries. We are calling on all levels of government to treat psychological health with the same seriousness as physical health under occupational health and safety and workers' compensation legislation in every jurisdiction. Ensure that workers are protected across Canada, no matter where they work or what sector they work in, and require proactive risk assessments and prevention plans in every workplace. Develop and implement a national strategy to ensure compliance with C190, the Convention on Workplaces Free from Violence and Harassment, and ensure strong enforcement through sufficient unannounced inspections. Education is an other key to prevention, especially for our young workers, with 12% of workers injured in 2024 being under the age of 25. Teachers and support workers in schools and programs like the BC Federation of Labour's Alive After Five are critical to making sure young workers are not only safe at work, but also face life l- uh, als- also not s- face lifelong impacts from preventable workplace injuries. Since 2001, the BC Fed Occupational Health and Safety Center, with funding from WorkSafe BC, has been developing and delivering leading edge occupational health and safety training for young workers and adults, and this now includes mental health first aid. I don't mean to interrupt you. I know, I only have so much time. But, uh, I will, uh- I know. I will ask council if they would like to, to move, uh, an additional five minutes for Ms. Cook, seconded by Councilor Wallace. All those in favor? Opposed? It's unanimous. Please continue. Oh, thank you very much. U- it's almost done. April 28th is the Day of Remembrance, and I know that the Langley City Council has always done things in regards to April 28th, so I'm well aware of that. But i- it's a call to action. We owe it to the workers we have lost, we owe it to their families, and we owe it to every worker still on the job today. Safe work must mean safe for both body and mind. Um, I'd like to conclude by inviting you to the Labor Council's, uh, Day of Mourning. Although, like I said, I know that you also do something, but it's Tuesday, April 28th at, uh, 11:00 AM in Westminster Pier Park in New Westminster. And if you wanna look at links to the event, you can see it on the Labor Council website, and, um, and, uh, everyone here today can help make a difference. Uh, be safety conscious, support accountability measures and health and safety education in our workplace. Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation. Uh, and just as a note, like you said, uh, we will be, uh, having a moment of silence at the next council meeting in recognition of the Day of Mourning. Uh, we don't do proclamations, so unfortunately that's something we don't do, as per policy of the city. Uh, and we will also be observing that one minute of silence as staff, and I believe we have a flag raising, as we've always done as well, in the city. So, thank you so much for that information and, uh, stick around for a minute, there may be some questions or comments from council. Uh, feel free to grab a seat. That might be... Okay. You can s- sit there in that chair. (laughs) If you don't mind. That would be amazing. Thank you. Councilor Wallace. Thank you, through the mayor. Thank you, uh, Wendy for being here again, and for sharing your message. I think that what, what really struck me is the psychological health and safety, and, you know, talking about chronic pain and the mental health piece. I don't think people realize that enough. And I was just wondering if there was information or handouts or...... anything on this new initiative as far as the psychological, or, or the educational piece of that? Because I think it'd be great for the city to have, um, some educational literature in regards to that piece. I will. I have none for you today, but I will make sure that I get as much information as you can, 'cause it is something that's, uh, uh, is something I definitely think we have to start focusing on. Yeah. Really appreciate you being here, thank you. Thank you. Uh, any other questions or comments from council? So I'm not seeing any. Thank you so much. Have a great rest of your evening. Uh, so with that, we are onto council member reports. So our next meeting's April 27th, followed by May 11th. Do we have any council advisory body updates? Councilor Wallace. Yes. On, on behalf of our Environmental and Sustainability Committee, um, that, uh, Earth Day will be happening, a celebration of Earth's Day, on April 25th, from, uh, 11, 10:00 to 2:00. So its, uh, focus is on environmental action and awareness. It is taking part, place in Douglas Park. There will be a car seat recycling area, um, an upcycle challenge, so if you haven't got your upcycle challenge done yet, we're still waiting, and excited to see your upcycle challenge. Um, and a bike valet and, uh, uh, 25 plus community organizations doing a variety of, um, environmental action and awareness and education and fun and games. So come out for that day. Thank you. Thank you so much. Councilor Albrecht. Yeah, I'll just, I'll just add to that, and I, I want to thank my co-chair for, uh, doing this. I also want to thank our committee members for, for being so active, as well as our partner, LEPs (coughs) excuse me, uh, who put a lot of time and effort into organizing. So there'll be hands-on workshops for kids' activities, and it will take place throughout the day. We have an indigenous plants and garden seed giveaway, uh, a Strider bike tryouts for the young, uh, uh, little ones, so that they can, uh, learn some, uh, uh, bike safety. Um, basic bicycle repairs, uh, will be there, and, um, yeah, I just wanna stress, we do have a free secure bike valet service for everyone that attends. And that's the r- our report. Awesome. Uh, just before we go back to Councilor Wallace, did anybody else have any updates? So seeing none, Councilor Wallace. It is still on, um, Earth Day. Because I wanted to say, stress, um, the importance of the work that the Langley Environmental Partnership Society does, because they're basically, um, putting, putting a lot of work into this with the staff, engineering staff. So I just wanted to give another plug even though, um, Councilor Albrecht did, but the, the amount of work that they do for this event is incredible, and we're very fortunate to have them. Thank you. Thank you so much. Um, so I think there's no more updates, so we'll move on to item 7A, bylaw. So it's the Community Standards Amendment Bylaw, that the bylaw cited as Community Standards Bylaw 2028 number 3075, amendment number 2/2026 number 3338 be read a first, second, and third time. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Councilor White, seconded by Councilor Albrecht. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? There's none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. Uh, next item, Affordable Housing Reserve Fund Bylaw, that the bylaw cited as City of Langley Affordable Housing Reserve Fund Bylaw 2026 number 3320 be read a first, second, and third time. I'll move that. Seconded by Councilor White. Uh, just a quick comment. Um, the bylaw is pretty basic. I know that a lot of the meat's in the policy, um, as we approach that, if councilor, if council gives it a first, second, and third reading tonight. Uh, I would love to see the policy have a little bit more oomph around the ensuring that the funds collected from this can get used to ensure the building of those 20% below units. So I know you had some bullet points. Maybe something could be a little bit firmer there. So I'll just leave it at that. Anything further? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? There's none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. So we're at final reading for the Development Application Procedure Bylaw, that the bylaw cited as a Development Application Procedure Bylaw 2026 number 3335 be read a final time. I'll move that. Seconded by Councilor Albrecht. Further discussion? Councilor Mack. Uh, thank you, Mayor Paul. I had expressed concerns during the last meeting, um, regarding this specifically. Some of the language, um, in provision 4.6A allows stacking right now, of variances. Um, I have concerns about the language that remains one or more variances that could be, um, approved by staff as opposed to coming to council. Um, 'cause the stacking, I think, could cause a, um, application that might vary quite a bit from the intent, from my view. Um, I do also have concerns about the fact that at 12 months after an application is approved by council, that there could be a request 13 months in moving forward, from an applicant to get a variance on something such as parking or otherwise from, uh, members of staff. I have concerns about that. Um, and I do just generally on principle, while I want to support efficiency, I think that everything is in balance. And the reality is that when we get variances that come forward to council, we have a, a public-facing process that we go through. We discuss these as elected member, uh, members of our community, and we're accountable to the public. I think that if we are approving variances, especially the potential to have, um, several variances stacked, that should be coming through our elected representatives, not, um, in a delegated fashion. And I do think, um, this is not at all expressing that I think that this would happen with our staff, because I respect our staff. Um, so it actually wouldn't be necessarily about staff, but I really wouldn't want our staff to be in a position where they could get pressured by applicants. And I think that right now, becau-I think that the, uh, bylaw as it currently sits doesn't give enough protection to our staff, so that they might not get pressured by lobbyists or et cetera. So, I- I'm not gonna be in support of this. Thank you. Uh, any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Is any opposed? So Councilor Max opposed, so that's carried. Uh, that brings us onto item 8A. So it's the community emergency preparedness fund application grant. So the recommendation is that city council support the application by the Langley Emergency Program on behalf of the City of Langley for a $40,000 grant from the Community Emergency Preparedness Fund to engage a qualified external consultant to develop and support the implementation of a comprehensive emergency plan for the alertable notification system. Uh, mover, Councilor Mac. Seconder, Councilor Albrecht. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? There's none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. The next item, again on emergency management. Uh, that city council support the application by the Langley Emergency Program on behalf of the City of Langley for a $29,800 grant from the Community Emergency Preparedness Fund for the purchase of equipment, supplies, and training for the Emergency Operation Center. Moved by Councilor Wallace, seconded by Councilor White. Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. That brings us on to motions. So over to Councilor Wallace. Thank you. Through the mayor, um, taking action for mental health MICR unit pilot. That council directs staff to work with the Langley RCMP to develop a budget to fund a mobile integrated crisis response unit pilot program for a period of one year, which would include one regular RCMP member, once- (laughs) one specialty-equipped police cruiser, and one psych- psychiatric nurse. That council directs staff to develop an e- evaluation criteria to measure the outcomes of a one-year mobile integrated crisis response unit pilot program to be endorsed by council. That council directs staff to work with the Township of Langley to optionally co-fund the mobile integrated crisis response unit pilot program for a period of one year. That council affirms that the mobo- mobile integrated crisis response unit shall respond to calls in both Langley City and the Township of Langley. That staff present a one-year mobile integrated crisis response unit pilot program proposal to council for consideration during the upcoming fall budget cycle. That if a one-year mobile integrated crisis response unit pilot program is funded, staff present an outcome report to council based on a one-year mobile integrated crisis response unit pilot program evaluation criteria endorsed by council within six months of the conclusion of the pilot program. Thank you. Uh, is there a seconder? Seconded by Councilor Albrecht. Councilor Wallace, did you have anything further on that? Um, yes, if I may, could I read the background because I think it's- Uh, sure. ... important for our, um, audience and, uh, timely in the sense of having our presentation that we had this evening. Mo- mobile integrated crisis response team, MICR, partnering with a psychiatric nurse to respond to mental health emergency. Car 67 is a mobile specialized crisis response unit operating in the Fraser Health region, including areas surrounding Abbotsford, which pairs a police officer with a registered psychiatric nurse. They provide on-site mental health assessments, crisis intervention, and referrals aimed at reducing emergency room visits and connecting people to the care they need. Many communities smaller in population than Langley already have Car 67, or MICR unit program. Chillo- Chilliwack, estimated at 112,000 people, and Squamish, approximately 24,000, both have a program. Langley City and Township have a combined population of approximately 190,000. The Langley RCMP have already bought an equipped unmarked car for the program, and the detachment's mental health liaison unit is ready to go. Langley RCMP already take part in the Langley Interagency Frontline Table, LIFT, a regular meeting with other local agencies advocating for individuals and families at risk. Similar to LIFT, there have been many individuals, groups, and organizations advocating for better outcomes, serving the community, and helping to create safe spaces for those struggling with complex mental health needs to receive the help they need and deserve. Langley City's Ci- Citizens' Assembly also called for a MICR program. Though there has been ongoing advocacy from community organizations, our local MLA, Jody Tour, and local governments for the provincial government to fund this program in Langley, the province has not yet committed to funding. A pilot program would serve... L- w- wait, sorry. A pilot program would serve a few purposes. It would get this critical program started more quickly, and it would support the development of a business case to strengthen future provincial funding requests. Fraser Health define... Fraser Health defines a mobile integrated crisis response unit as a unit which responds to individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis, provides crisis intervention, risk assessments, and referrals to mental health professionals and/or victim services. An MICR unit also provides assistance to the RCMP officers dealing with situations involving domestic violence and serves residents of Surrey and ƒ' and Tsawwassen First Nations. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, is there any further discussion? Councilor Mac.Um, thank you. Through the mayor to Councilor Wallace, and I'm not sure if you're able to answer this, but my understanding of why there may be some challenges with the micro, um, staff position specifically with the city funding it, is because they wouldn't necessarily have access to the Fraser Health data sys- like, data system. Um, and so I just had a question because my understanding is that we could potentially fund this position, but they wouldn't necessarily have all the health background data. So I'm just wondering if maybe in your consultation, that's something that you've been able to, um, get more information on? Yeah, if I could refer that to staff. I just know in talking to the superintendent that he says they have everything ready to go, and the one piece they're waiting for is the psychiatric nurse piece. Mm-hmm. So I'll, I'll leave it to our staff. Yeah, through the mayor to Councilor Mak. Thank you. I believe we can have access to, um, the data from Fraser Health. I know our manager of, uh, s- uh, strategic initiative and social planning have, um, ongoing discussion with Fraser Health, uh, and through the coordinated access program and other programs that we're partnering with, um, I believe that we can have ac- get access to those data. Okay, thank you. So then just as a follow-up, 'cause my understanding in talking at our Healthy Community Partnership is that that might be an issue. Um, I myself, you know, even just in frustration have gone, gosh, is this a position that we should just go forward and fund? Um, and I, I, you know, appreciate the advocacy around the table. 'Cause I think as a council, um, as well as with MLA Tour and (indistinct), other, other individuals in the region, I feel like we've all collectively been trying to advocate for this. Um, but of course, I just wanna make sure that, um, uh, the position would be fully autonomous and, and as effective as, um, a micro position anywhere else. Um, ultimately, from my view, supporting this motion is to give staff direction, and we're going to get a service level enhancement inclusive, uh, included in the next budget cycle, which would thir- have a business plan and more information. So I'm, uh, in support of us getting more information. Um, although I will say, I, it doesn't really bother me, um, accepting any downloading costs, but I do appreciate that it can build a business case, and if it's a short-term cost that can help us mitigate, um, our other calls for service, say, with the bylaw department or in other areas, I think that it might be offset, um, and it has tremendous benefits. So I think that overall, it might be, um, it might be a good tool, even though it's downloading. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, is there any other discussion? Uh, Councilor Wallace? I'm just gonna say simple, it is about saving lives, and there's been lives lost because of where we are at, and, uh, we've been waiting way too long, so, um, we need to move forward. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm not seeing any other questions or comments. So, oh, Councilor White. Thank you, Mayor Paul. Um, just a comment. I'd like to see some additional correspondence, um, relating to the province, some of the steps that we're taking, um, based on the decision that they made back last year to, uh, basically reverse their stated, uh, commitment to the Langley area, um, City of Langley and Langley Township. Um, I think it's important for us to be upfront about saying, uh, th- this is enough of a commitment and a priority to us that we are assuming that responsibility, um, and we're looking to them for furthering their commitment to us and keeping that on the radar. And I'd just like to thank Councilor Wallace for bringing this forward. I believe it is kind of priming the system for us to get something so vitally needed off the ground. Uh, it gives it that impotence to just g- get things off the ground. So thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, so with that then, I think I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? So there's none opposed, so that's unanimous. So on to item 9A2. Councilor White. Yeah. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Um, Langley's long-term, uh, beds. A recommendation whereas in September 2024, the Province of British Columbia announced a commitment to fund 300 new long-term care beds on the Langley Memorial Hospital campus, with an estimated cost of $240 to $450 million and a planned opening by 2030. And whereas long-term care wait lists in BC now exceed 7,000 people, average wait times have increased by more than 200% over the last six years, and approximately 5,900 patients waited in hospital beds last year for a long-term care placement at a cost of $1,200 per day, compared to $294 per day for a long-term care bed, um, placing significant strain on the acute care system. And whereas Langley is among the fastest growing communities in British Columbia, with a rapidly aging population, with Langley Memorial Hospital currently operating with only 200 long-term care beds and an accelerating pace of shortfall of beds, which is wholly insufficient to meet the current and projected demand. And whereas British Columbia's 2026 budget reduced provincial health capital funding by four billion and has paused or delayed the construction of seven scheduled long-term care projects across the province and not provided subsequent release of, of information on the budget allocation confirmed project timeline for the announced 300 bed commitment at Langley Memorial Hospital."Therefore be it resolved that Langley City Council direct the mayor to draft and send a formal letter on behalf of Langley City Council requesting a clear written and publicly accountable response within 30 days of the following: the current status of the provincial commitment to deliver 300 new long-term care beds on the Langley Memorial Ho- Hospital campus, whether a business plan has been completed and, uh, uh, approved by the Ministry of Health and Fraser Health Authority, and three, a confirmed project timeline with milestones, including a projected construction start date and opening date" to the Honorable Josie Osborne, Minister of Health, copied to, uh, the Honorable Brenda Bailey, Minister of Finance, the Honorable Bowen Ma, Minister of Infrastructure, and Jody Baltour, member of Legislative Assembly for Langley-Willowbrook." Thank you. I'll second that. Uh, is there further discussion? Uh, Councilor Wallace? (laughs) I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. It, it is really important in the sense of our seniors and the need for our seniors and, and what was promised. So, thank you for bringing this forward. Yes. Uh, thank you. So I'm not seeing any other discussion, so I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Unopposed, so that's carried unanimously. So item 9A.3, which is a reduce local street speed limit. So that's on the floor 'cause we deferred it. So it's back 'cause it's been moved and seconded. So I'll open it up for discussion and comments. Councilor Albrecht, and then we'll go to Councilor Salian. Yeah, I'd like to, um, propose, uh, an amendment, uh, on the, "Therefore, be it resolved that council direct staff to include a capital item in the 2027 budget for council's consideration to develop a slow streets program as recommended in Section 4.2 of the priority policy and planning actions from the Langley City Transportation 2050, Langley City's Transportation." Uh, and for clarity, I'm assuming you want to strike the current- Yes. ... therefore and replace it with that? Okay. Is there a seconder or do you have a point of order? Yeah, point of order if I could. Um, I do think that just respectfully, the recommendation and amendment changes quite substantially from the original, "therefore be it resolved". Um, and we haven't had the opportunity to cross-reference exactly the section that is being referenced right now on the fly. Um, I think it systemically changes from, um, or differs from the motion, and it would be, uh, likely ruled out of order. I can find the section or council procedures by law, um, if you'd like. I, I, I think that it's... Uh, I think it's a fine one, so we can continue with the amendment. Um, I don't think it's... Yeah, so it's a valid amendment in my mind, so. Uh, so is there... I don't think it was seconded, so is there a seconder for it? So I can second the amendment, and then is there further discussion on it? Yes, Councilor White. Thank you, Mayor Bahal. Uh, through the Mayor, um, yeah, in terms of the amendment, um, I did actually, uh, go through and read, and it's clearly stated within Transportation 2050 plan. It's identified as a priority policy, um, that's outlined in Section 4, as you've said, Councilor, um, Albrecht. Um, for me, uh, again, this is an issue of, um... This has been... Uh, the issue of speed within our community has been ongoing for quite some time. Uh, I believe back in 2021, we, uh, received a report from, um, the director of engineering then at the time on, uh, speeding within our community. Um, we recognize it within the context of the transportation plan. I would like to see it, um, uh... Well, I guess my question through the mayor to Mr. Pollock would be, um, whether or not there's been, uh, an identified time period, even, uh, within 2026, now that it's implemented, whether or not, uh, the, the project priority, um, was, um, in motion, where it might be at in terms of timing. Do we have to wait to 2027? Is this something that's in the works currently, first? To the staff. Thank you. Through the chair to Councilor White. Um, as council is aware, the staff set our work plan early on in the year, and we have a pretty full agenda. So in this case, it's certainly a worthwhile, uh, exercise, and as one that has been mentioned is recognized in the transportation plan. This is really a matter of resources within the city at this time. Um, there are a lot of projects that are well underway, and, um, I do think that if there was a desire to implement it this year, that we'd have to have a re- resetting of some of those priorities. I do think, uh, that the suggestion to include it as a capital project is certainly a reasonable one, but, uh, we're at the, uh, at the wishes of council. Thank you. Uh, not a follow-up question, just a comment. I appreciate, uh, um, the information that you shared, Mr. Pollock. Um, I agree with the amendment. I would support the amendment myself, um, understanding where we are at with our priorities within, um, engineering. So thank you very much.Thank you. Um, and just on the speaking order for myself, I'm supportive of the amendment. Again, we know, uh, it's important for us, it's a priority, but we need to get it in the plan, and I think that's how you do it. Councilor Albrecht. Yeah. That's, that's where I was going with this thing. Ag- again, I, I think it's an important issue that we need to talk about, uh, and by having it identified in the 27 budget process, it makes sure that it stays on the ra- ra- radar and gets done, uh, as soon as possible. I, I don't, I think it's too late in the year for us to, to maybe be making that kind of change in 2026. Thank you. Uh, so if there's no other comments on the amendment, I'll call the question on that. All those in favor? Any oppose? So Councilor Mack opposed, so that's carried. So back to the main motion. Any further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. Oh, Councilor Saliam, go ahead. Um, I'll be, uh, voting against this amendment based primarily on what staff have mentioned about, uh, the increased staff time for this, even incorporating into the capital plan. Um, I'm, I'm personally just concerned about the, the viability of enforcement. I don't see, um, what resources would be required to police the side streets of Langley City with a 30 limit, 30 kilometer limit. Um, even my own residential neighborhood near a park zone, I, I see enforcement very rarely. And so in, in my mind, this is something that is not going to be particularly enforceable, and so I won't be voting in favor. Thank you. Uh, any further discussion? Councilor White. Uh, thank you, Mayor Behall. Through the Mayor to Councilor Saliam, um, there is, uh, ample, uh, um, follow-up reports that have been made both in Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, some of the other communities that have been operating with this program, um, and, uh, they have found it effective in terms of particular, uh, uh, methods of, um, uh, enforcing speed. I'm not sure, uh, the, the specific details of how they, they are enforcing it, but in terms of the follow-up of incidences and, um, such, uh, as a result of implementing the slow streets policy, they've found it to be, uh, effective in producing the end result that they were looking for in terms of less incidences, uh, within their community. So, um, I don't know what the particulars are in terms of how that's being enforced, but I do understand that, um, that is the end result that's being experienced in the c- communities, so... Awesome. And we'll go back to Councilor Saliam, but we'll go to Councilor Albrecht first. Okay. Uh, thank you, Ma- uh, Mr. Mayor, and, and thanks for bringing that up, Councilor Saliam. Uh, I too have concerns over, uh, reality, a- and the cost for that. Uh, but by having it into our, uh, budget process for next year, we can have a, a deeper dive and have a better understanding of what those cost implications will be. Without having that, that exercise done, uh, it's gonna be hard for us to determine, you know, exactly where we wanna go with this thing or, or to, uh, to s- say what level or extent or, or, uh, magnitude, uh, to have the, uh, implementation of this in the community. Because, uh, the stats all show it, but reality is another thing, and I, and I do appreciate that, so thank you. Thank you. Uh, Councilor Saliam. Thanks. Uh, Councilor W- Uh, Councilor White's comment reminded me, uh, at the time back in October, I remember asking the question whether we have any information from ICBC about the number of incidents that have occurred where cars have hit a pedestrian or anybody in any of our side streets, where this would actually be affecting, and I was told that that would be, uh, collected. I'm, I'm not sure if that's been the case, so I'm not sure if, uh, there's been any, uh, gathering of data or if that's possible before the budget, at the very least, if this passes. Uh, thank you. And just as a note, I know the information is publicly available on ICBC's website. Uh, Councilor Mack. Thank you. Um, through the Mayor to staff, um, with the amendment, can we please get, um, some idea of which streets are gonna be covered by this? Is it all residential streets? Uh, over to you, Mr. Pollock. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, through to the councilor. The focus on slow streets is largely on residential streets. There are, um, certainly provincial-wide initiatives, um, through UBCM and a number of municipalities that are looking to have the province address the, the, the standard speed limit throughout, um, throughout the city. It is a default 50 kilometers at the moment. The intent and the research that I am aware of to date is that cities are focusing in on the lower classification residential streets for the implementation of slow streets. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I think that as a follow-up, um, I probably more align with Councilor Saliam. Um, I have concerns right now about the staff time this will take, reprioritization of our other priorities. Um, and I think lacking, um, data that's been presented to us that demonstrates that this is a requirement exactly on this timeline as it's now being proposed, um, I have concerns. The original motion was for staff to prepare a report exploring the option, which I think would have outlined various different considerations, potentially different streets. Um, whereas now, it is for staff to explore and essentially be prepared to implement or at least to prepare, um, a item in our, um, service level enhancements, and I find, um, that to be, uh, fast-tracking this priority over others. Uh, I know that I have put forward, uh, motions and have been critiqued for reprioritizing or making dictates to staff, um, and so I think that I'm gonna defer, um, to that rationale right now. Uh, thank you. Uh, is there any other comments? Um, so I, I will, uh, add that I'm supportive of this. I think it aligns exactly with what we unanimously approved, uh, for our transportation plan, so it's just putting in something that we've all agreed on. Uh, for me, uh, it's, yeah, I'm supportive as it is written because I think at the time, we didn't have it in the transportation plan. Now we did. So I don't think we need staff to explore this because it's already in our transportation plan, which is why I'm supporting it. Uh, any further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question on it. All those in favor? Uh, opposed? So Councilor Saliam is opposed and Councilor Mack's opposed, so that's carried. So that brings us to 9B. It is just a release of information, so that's there. And so that brings us to s- correspondence for 10A. Uh, I'd like to move, uh, or refer it to staff so they can provide a response to Metro Vancouver. Is there a seconder? A second by Councilor Albrecht. Further discussion? We'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? So none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. And then for the second one, uh, again, I'll refer it to staff for a comment to Metro Vancouver. Seconded by Councilor Wallace. Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Councilor Mack's opposed, so that's carried. That brings us to the end of the meeting, so I'll move that we adjourn, uh, seconded by Councilor Wallace. Uh, call the question. In favor? We are adjourned. I'll see you. Bye for now.