Okay. Uh, Councilor James, are you there? Yes, I am. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Uh, so we'll get started. I'd like to call the Monday, June 15th, 2026 council meeting to order and start us off in a good way by acknowledging that we're on the unseeded and traditional territories of the ... Uh, we have an agenda in front of us. I'd like to move it. Is there a seconder? Seconded by Councilor Wallace. Any further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So there's none opposed, so that's carried. Uh, I'd also like to move that we commence the Committee of the Whole. Uh, is there a seconder for that? Councilor Albrecht. Further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried. Uh, that is onto item 3A, bylaw 3304, 2026 to 2030, financial plan amendment. So this is an opportunity for people who are attending to provide, uh, written feedback on the amendment, and it looks like we have some speakers, so I will turn it over to Ms. Kenny for the first speaker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's David Stingle. You'll need to state their names and addresses. And just remember to, uh, push the button to speak. This one here? Perfect. Hello, Council. Uh, with respect to item seven, workforce succession, strategic capacity and temporary coverage, let's be candid about what's being proposed, an additional $600,000 in administrative spending. Residents have already absorbed approximately 35% in tax increases over the past four years. By some measures, that figure would be even higher, were certain operating costs not being funded through reserves. At a time when affordability remains a major concern, taxpayers deserve a clear justification for every additional expenditure. The report states these funds are required for succession planning, temporary staffing, special projects, which positions are anticipated to require coverage. What special projects are being contemplated? What measurable outcomes will taxpayers receive in return for this investment? Administration has already expanded significantly on a per capita basis during this term. We also employ one of the highest paid CAOs in the region and provide the highest may- mayoral compensation levels relative to population size. Before approving another increase, council should demonstrate why existing resources are insufficient. Turning to item eight, the financial plan amendment relating to legal fees and labor matters. When I appeared before council during the discussion the 2025 financial plan, I expressed concern that the litigation budget would prove inadequate, and unfortunately, these concerns appear to have been justified. The city now faces litigation from the casino landlord and litigation arising from the code of conduct process involving Councilor Mac. Regarding... Regardless of one's views on the underlying disputes, residents and taxpaying business owners are entitled to ask a simple question. Why are legal costs continuing o- to escalate? At a previous meeting, Councilor Mac stated, "I did wanna mention..." Quote, "I did wanna mention that I put forward a deferral motion during Monday's meeting. I had hoped the council would support an open house so that we could ensure that members of the public had been adequately heard, and that unfortunately was voted down." End of quote. Those comments became the subject of a formal code of conduct complaint and subsequent investigation. Unless there's other quotes that I'm not seeing... I mean, if, if, if there's other quotes, I'd love to know. The public would love to know. Taxpayers have spent substantial public funds instigating a councilor, investigating councilor who has expressed disappointment that an open house was not supported and noted that a motion had been defeated. The mayor had the authority under Section 48B of the Code of Conduct Bylaw to dismiss the complaint at the outset. Instead, the matter proceeded despite legal analysis that reportedly raised charter related concerns. Checks in- Checks... Section 35 of the bylaw states that nothing in this bylaw is intended to affect the council members rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 65 further provides if any portion of this bylaw is inconsistent with federal legislation, the portion of the bylaw will have no application to the extent of the inconsistency. Given those provisions, residents may reasonably question why public funds continue to be expended litigating matters that concern political expression. I am also very concerned by the appearance of inconsistency in the administration of the code of conduct process. In one matter, Councilor Albrecht's comments were found to be defamatory, but protected as fair comment. In another, findings relating to Councilor Wallace were resolved in a manner that accepted her explanations regarding intent and understanding of the code. Yet a councilor expressing disappointment over the defeat of an open house proposal became the subject of a lengthy invex- investigation and ongoing litigation. Similarly, a complaint filed by Councilor Mac against Councilor James was dismissed under Section 48B on procedural grounds while the substantive allegations were not addressed. Whether one agrees or disagrees with any individual councilor, the principle... The public expects the rules to be applied consistently and fair treatment. Equal treatment is a foundational principle under procedural fairness, and rather than continuing down a costly and divisive path, councils should consider whether the public interest is best being served by resolving the dispute, re- reviewing indemnification decisions, and amending the code of conduct to better protect democratic debate and participation. Councilor Albrecht received indemnification following procedings- proceedings involving the Local Government Act. Other elected officials have similarly benefited from indemnification protections. Residents deserve a clear explanation for any differences in treatment. Finally, with respect to item nine, th-... policing arbitration and mediation. Council is proposing to draw approximately $900,000 from future police cost reserve to fund ongoing negotiations, arbitration and mediation relating to the policing dispute with the township. Taxpayers deserve greater transparency regarding this expenditure. What specifically accounts for the $900,000 figure? What services will be purchased? Who will be retained and compensated? What portions relate to legal services, consulting services, expert reports, mediation and other professional work? Has any of this funding been allocated towards feasibility studies, facility planning, architectural work, communication services or related projects? Residents should be provided with a detailed accounting before such significant reserve expenditure is approved. I would also note that during a public meeting last year, the mayor explained that discussions with the township leadership had been largely left to staff. Given that substantial costs are now being incurred, residents are entitled to ask whether every reasonable effort at direct political engagement was exhausted, before matters escalated to this point. The public expects leadership that prioritizes re- resolution over conflict, cooperation over confrontation, and the stewardship of taxpayer dollars above all else. Thank you. Uh, thank you so much. Uh, with that, we'll go to... Do you have a point of order? No, just response. Oh, okay. I think, um... What is the procedure actually for this? I will ask. Do we go through the speakers and then we have a time for council afterwards? Um, well, this is the time for the public to provide their comments, if they're seeking clarification. Yeah, if you have a clarification for Mr. Singal. Um, to directly address a question that was, um, answered specifically, there were four comments under question, um, that I've been investigated for. Number one reads, "In terms of policy recommendations, I offered numerous amendments to the financial plan, which would have permitted us to retain capital reserves and get us closer to delivering these amenities. Not one was supported by the council maj- majority." The second quote was, "Additionally, I have attempted to refer numerous development applications back to staff to amend amenities or request community amenity contributions proportionate to the value being created with the application, also bringing us closer to delivering on these facilities. Once again, of the numerous referrals that I have made with this intention, not one has been supported by the council majority." The third quote is, "Instead of addressing our core needs, uh, we have budgeted this year to provide a podcast, more bike lanes that 0.2% of the population uses daily, and six-figure investigative studies for projects that we lack the financial capacity to build over the next decade plus." And then the final quote, which you already said, was, "I did want to mention that I put forward a deferral motion during Monday's meeting. I had hoped that council would support an open house, so we could ensure that members of the public have been adequately heard. This was unfortunately voted down." Uh, that was the subs- that was the substance of the complaint, uh, made against me in its entirety. Uh, thank you. So with that, uh, we will, uh, have Ms. uh, Val Vandenbroek. Uh, oh, I see, and then it goes red. I was looking for the red button. Thank you, Kim. Uh, hello everyone. I'm former mayor of Langley City, Val Vandenbroek. Um, democracy is supposed to be the foundation of a council. To me, there is no democracy in this chamber, especially when staff members become politically involved. But, here we go again, I could read you the playbook for Councilor Mack, because it's the exact same thing they did to me in my final year. (deep breath) Nathan, Paul, Rosemary and Terry. Oh, hi Terry. In Castlegar, right, you moved a year ago? And again, (smacks lips) uh, moved, everybody covered for you. Uh, no bi-election, no democracy. And still collecting a wage courtesy of my tax dollars, not living in the city of Langley. It's all personal. Using taxpayers money to fund your smear campaigns. You did it to me, you did it to Randy Kane and HAMPES, and now you're doing it to Councilor Mack. I have recent FOIs from Paul's computer, township work computer. So, so, I, I mean, uh, obviously... I, I'm, I have a right to speak. I just want you to tie it back into the financial plan. I have a right to speak, and that's what I'm doing. To the financial plan? That's exactly what I'm doing here. So, I'm hoping you can tie it back in. Thank you so much. I have recent FOIs from Paul's township work computer, with confidential City of Langley information and a planned attack on me that is available for anyone to see. The township, personal. You will continue, or will you continue spending money on mediation with them, or are you gonna stop it just like those who were in mediation with me stopped, right before COVID? And after you falsely accused me and Murray Power, the OIC of the Langley detachment... S- uh, so again, I'll have to ask you... I am getting to my point here. ...to, to the financial plan, please. Uh...Why are you interrupting me? Uh, because I've heard advice from staff that we just wanna make sure that this is tied into the financial plan. And it absolutely is. I'm not hearing that quite yet. And that's what I'm speaking to. Did you want me to start over so I can say the whole thing at once? So, after you falsely accused me and Murray Power and the OIC of the Langley detachment and the ma- members of the Langley detachment of being thieves, which was proven false after four investigations, and after false information was provided by council and staff of the day. All information available. It... And absolutely no wrongdoing was ever found. So how much money did you folks spend on that too? And all personal. The gaslighting, the attacks, the verbal attacks, the phys- the two physical attacks I endured, the blackmailing, dealing with intoxication. Richard Penner was absolutely right in the newspaper, his comments. This, "We will work along with everybody." Yeah, you'll work along with everybody as long as they do exactly as you say. And there's a reason why I currently have a complaint with the BC Human Rights Commission against that council of the day in the city of Langley and the province of British Columbia, which is also available. So how much money are you spending on that and not telling the public as well right now? In 2022, I went on the Jass Johal Show and I stated how concerned I was about the finances at that time. And I was brought in by staff and told to keep my mouth shut. Again, here we go again with Councilor Mack. Personal. The city was debt free until this slate came along. I'm concerned that you are continuing to borrow money at an alarming rate. We have no decent SkyTrain plan. We have no animal shelter. We have no senior high school. We have barely any green spaces, which you're wanting to take away. And we pay twice as much now for our garbage with half the services. We have no RCMP detachment and yet you have a huge amount of resources up there that you're not even using. And I haven't even scratched the surface on that. 'Cause really, you honestly owe the Langley RCMP an apology. And all these things, they affect my property value. That's why I'm here. So reach your agendas, do your jobs that we're paying you to do, and stop using my tax money that I work a regular nine to five job at to pay, that is the highest in the lower mainland. Um, stop using it to fund your campaigns for reaping vengeance on those that don't follow your personal agendas. Thank you. Uh, so with that, we will bring Mr., uh, Ric Orlando. I didn't actually have anything I wanted to say, just signing in. Oh, okay. Thank you. Uh, I think, uh, it's Ms. Simi, uh, Rapport? Is... Okay. (sighs) Good evening. Mayor Nathan Bahal, Councilor Paul, Council Terry James and Councilor Rosemary Wallace have been the central decision makers in Langley City government for years. All of you guys have been here for more than two terms. Here we are, residents are now being asked to approve $500,000 for legal, employment and investigation matters, and another $900,000 for policing arbitration and mediation matters. That is $1.4 million, not for roads, not for parks, not for services. For conflict, for lawyers, for investigations, for arbitration, for disputes. And taxpayers are expected to pay the bill. We have a right to ask why these expenses continue to arise. The same elected officials, Nathan, Terry, Paul, Rosemary, were part of the previous council during the highly public dispute involving the former Mayor Val. Today, residents again being asked to cover significant legal and dispute related costs. Mayor Bahal often speaks about collaboration and relationship building. Yet, under his leadership, residents- Point of order. ... have watched ongoing legal disputes- Uh, excuse me one second. Point of order. Uh, yes, Councilor Wallace? Um, can I excuse myself until the... Oh, I mean, anybody is allowed to re- retake their... I will excuse myself. Oh, you, you can just... Uh, you can actually just leave. Thank you. There's no official process. I'll be back when we're done. Okay. Uh, please go ahead. It's sad that when we have to say facts, you have to leave, because we're not lying here.Mayor Bahal after sp- often speaks about collaboration, relationship building, yet under his leadership, residents have watched ongoing legal disputes, code of conduct investigations, public conflicts with the township mayor, and a RCMP policing dispute that is now requiring nearly $900,000 in arbitration and mediation cost, and tens of millions of dollars later separating RCMP shared services from township. Leadership is not measured by press releases. Leadership is measured by results. The results before us tonight is another request of taxpayers to fund the consequences of conflict. We are in a recession. Families are struggling. Businesses are struggling. Many residents are cutting back just to keep up with the rising cost. Yet, here we are again at Langley City Hall, where we are being asked to absorb the financial consequences of disputes that should have never reached this point. The public deserves accountability. The public deserves transparency. And the public deserves a leadership that resolves problems, before they become expensive. This report reflects a failure of Mr. Bahal's leadership as a mayor, and the same pattern of power struggles and politics of Councilor Terry, Councilor Paul, and Councilor Rosemary. You guys should be ashamed of yourself. (applause) Thank you. Um, so we have Ron Bergen. Good evening, Mayor, Council, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to share a little bit of my concerns about this budgeting, uh, new budgeting request. Uh, I really believe that, um, if we're spending more money on legal bills, et cetera, to, to fight disputes, I think we need to spend more time, money, and attention on building relationships. Uh, I think it's well-known that all our neighbors, uh, do not have a great relationship, or no relationship with this mayor or council. And I think we really need to, uh, improve that. And maybe that takes change. Maybe it means that some of us readjust our attitudes and our priorities towards the people that we s- apparently say we serve. So this kind of funding, I really believe that our residents deserve, uh, to know transparency, but also to know a detailed estimate of where these $900,000 is really going. Um, and I think we need to get to the table, and we need to stop this fighting with the township. And we don't have a great relationship with the City of Surrey either, and to me, that needs to be a priority of the, uh, next four years, that we start be- fixing our relationship and our reputation within the region, because I think we're missing out on a lot of great opportunities, uh, to expand, to improve, and make the city a better place. But the toxicity of what's going on right now is not to the advantage of our residents, and I really believe that we need to reevaluate ourselves and our attitudes about what we really want. And do we really want people to be happy with what we do? That's what we need to spend our time and energy on. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, and with that, then we'll also get to Michael Highland. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Looking at through the budget amendments that are proposed tonight, Amendments Eight and Nine are particularly concerning, as they are both for large amounts, and go essentially to legal fees that could have been avoided. According to CEO Francis Chung, the 500K in Amendment Eight is in addition to 380,000 already spent last year and this year, in regard to a code of conduct complaint over free speech. Why does Mayor Bahal think a code of conduct bylaw section trumps the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms over speech? Section 35 of the bylaw actually says, "Nothing in this bylaw is intended to affect a council member's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Yet the mayor is lining up to spend over 800,000 fighting Councilor Mac's right to free speech. The money for this fund is coming from the capital works reserve. So while our streets are crumbling and our pipes are failing, we're gonna take another 500,000 that could go to infrastructure repair, and spend it on lawyers to prevent freedom of speech. The director of engineering told me they know pipes need replacing, but don't have the funds. I can tell you where to find half a million. This is appalling and irresponsible waste of taxpayer's money. It is frankly disrespectful to the taxpayers. Remember who you were elected to serve. Amendment Nine is for another 900,000 to mediate and negotiate with the township over policing. A letter from the province states clearly that they have no part in the decision to de-integrate, yet the city insists they are waiting for direction and approval from the province. How much would it cost to actually respect and work with our neighbors? The 900K is coming from future police cost reserves. What public safety measures are we giving up in the coming years to fund this inane squabble with the township? Or is this merely deferring a tax increase to future years when we'll need to replace those funds? Thank you. Thank you. Uh, so I just want to check if there is anybody else, uh, who hasn't signed up that would wish to speak. So seeing none then, uh, that brings us to the end of the committee. So I'll just move that we rise in report. Uh, is there a seconder? Councilor Soliam. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried. So that brings us to the consent agenda. Would anybody like to remove anything from it? Councilor Mac? Uh, thank you. I would like to remove, um, bylaw 4B1. Uh, financial- Yep. ... plan amendment. Thank you. Perfect. We'll add that to the beginning of the bylaw section. Uh, so with that, would anybody like to move the consent agenda as amended? Councilor Albrecht, Councilor Soliam, further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. Our next meetings are June 29th and July 13th. Is there any council advisory body updates? Councilor Wallace. Yes. Thank you, through the Mayor. Um, just as far as the library go- goes, just wanted to announce that they will be having a repair café June 27th from 10:00 to 2:00 in the library. Um, drop in and help rep- for repairing anything that needs, um, fixing. Um, our volunteers will do their best to repair small appliances, clothing, toys, household items, and more. Supplies are provided. However, if you repair... if your repair requires a specific piece, please bring it, if you wish. Um, and this is in partnership with Langley Environmental Partnership Society. And, uh, as far as the Zero Waste Committee goes, an update. Um, solid waste management report, Metro Vancouver, um, the update is on the website, and, uh, there is still room for feedback, and, um, until August 1st, if you wanted to add some additional comments to that. And then, uh, a pilot project, um, window glass, uh, will be, um, happening at the Langley Recycling and Waste Center as a pilot project. Thank you. Uh, thank you so much. Is there any other updates? Okay, so seeing none, we'll move over to the bylaw section. So we do have our first bylaw, that the bylaw cited as financial plan 2026, 2030, bylaw 2026, number 3340, amendment one, bylaw 3340B read a, a final time. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Councilor Soliam, seconded by Councilor Albrecht. Uh, any further discussion? Councilor Mac? Uh, thank you, Mayor Nihal. Through the Mayor to Mr. Chung, um, regarding number nine, the 900,000, could we please get a breakdown of cost? Um, 900,000 is quite a large, um, f- sum to ask for, and it seems like it's a pretty generic catch-all description. Uh, Mr. Chung? Uh, through the Mayor to Councilor Mac, $900,000 is just a cost estimate. Uh, we don't know exactly how much it's gonna cost to finalize the mediation and arbitration process with, uh, the Township of Langley. There are actually two issue. The mediations related to the police service agreement that we have with the township, that, uh, the township has terminated. And also with respect to the medi- uh, arbitration, it's related to the agreement between the city and township for the, uh, RCMP building. Uh, so we're going through that process right now, and, um, there's been a number of hearings so far between, uh, the cities, uh, council, legal council, and the township's legal counsel, as well as considering the legal reports from both sides. We are moving into, uh, another hearing with arbitrators coming up in July. And then finally, um, the arbitration will be before the arbitrator either later on this year and early, uh, next year. So there's going to be a significant amount of costs with respect to the booking the, the venue, um, the, um, the, the cost to retain the arbitrator and court services and the legal counsel from both sides, actually. So, uh, that $900,000 is just a cost estimate. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and then just as a follow-up question, um, how was this cost estimate derived? And I guess this would be from... Generally speaking, there are quite a few large chunks, and is... was this, um, based on legal, uh, opinion, or is this, um, from yourself, Mr. Chung? Who made this cost estimate? Uh, through the Mayor to Councilor Mac, it's based on the... what has incurred so far, in terms of legal costs for the mediation and arbitration up to this point. We know there are going to be additional costs involved, like I said, be- due to actual arbitration process. So, just based on the, the figures that we have, uh, experienced the last year and a bit, and we came up with this cost estimate. Okay, thank you. Um, and then I know that, um, should the integration proceed, we do have, in 2027 and 2028, our financial plan borrowing, but we don't have any feasibility studies or any next steps regarding the potential standalone, um, City of Langley RCMP detachment. Are there any feasibility studies or any other items separate from arbitration and mediation that are included in this 900,000? Through the Mayor to Councilor Mac. No, we don't. Okay, thank you. And then, um, I know that, um, Peter Fassbender has been given a, uh, consulting contract, um, this term to provide strategic communication and media relations services to the Langley RCMP detachment. So I was just wondering if he was going to be taking lead, um, potentially or if, um, there's going to be any tender for cons- consultation, um, or consultant contracts?Through the merit to Counselor Mack, um, Mr. Fassman is providing some advice to us with respect to communication and strategic, um, I guess, advice to deal with, uh, this matter. And that's the extent of his, uh, uh, engagement with the city. Okay, thank you. Um, I have concerns. I mean, from my perspective, I believe that this item, um, is frankly representative of ongoing conflict with, um, the mayor's slate with limited accountability for the contributions, um, such as press releases and other actions that have, um, I think, been a mishandling of the relationship with the Township of Langley. Um, and I think that this is indicative in one budget item, but there are so many other examples. Um, so I, I have challenges with it. Um, I'm not really certain that there's a solution to vote this down, um, because at the end of the day, we're already here. Um, the ship is being steered here, uh, but I do have, um, I do have challenges. And then, uh, my last question is, uh, with regard to number seven, um, there's special one-time projects included in the 600 lump, um, 600,000 lump sum. Can we get some clarity on what the special one-time projects are? Is that for Mr. Fluck or Mr. Chang? Um, through the merit of Counselor Mack, um, one example of a special one-time project in there is we are trying to find, uh, efficiencies within our existing workforce. So we're looking at the possibility of, um, doing some software enhancements to, um, automate processes in a way we can provide better customer service to the public and also work within our existing means of existing staffing. Okay, thank you. Uh, Counselor Soliam. Uh, this is a question for staff. Um, what is the size of the, uh, the budget for 2026, just in dollar terms? Uh, yeah, I guess Mr. Fluck can answer that, or Mr. Chang. I believe it's in the, like, $80 million range, so. Yeah, um, through the mayor, uh, to Counselor Soliam, it's roughly around 82 million on the operating side. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay, so seeing none, then I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? So there's none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. So that moves on to item 7A2. Uh, so it's that council received the report of the chief election officer dated June 3rd, 2026, entitled Evaluation of Change of Special Voting Opportunity at the Senior Center to Advance Voting Opportunity in the 2022 Local Government Election for Information. Is there a mover and seconder? So moved by Counselor Soliam, seconded by Counselor Albrecht. Uh, is there any further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? So there's none opposed, so that's carried. That moves to the next item that the bylaw cited as election and ascent voting procedure bylaw 2024 number 2942, amendment number 3/2026, number 3341B, read a first, second, and third time. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Counselor White, seconded by Counselor Soliam. Further discussion? Counselor Mack. Uh, thank you, Mayor Bahal. Through the mayor to staff, I was hoping that we could get just a brief verbal summary of some of the changes, so, um, members of the audience are aware. Uh, so I'll turn that to Miss Kenny. Thank you, uh, Mayor Bahal, through to Counselor Mack. Um, at the beginning of the bylaw, we do have an explanatory note, and I'll just, uh, quickly, uh, summarize. Um, under our access to nomination endorsement documents, um, we want to remove, uh, reference to separate elector organization documentation as that now is, um, forming part of the nomination package, uh, per legislative changes under the province. Uh, under the required advanced voting opportunities section, uh, we want to reflect the authority of the chief election officer to designate voting places for required advanced voting opportunities. It wasn't quite clear there. Uh, under additional advanced voting opportunities, we want to update the wording to, uh, more clearly reflect the establishment by counsel of the dates and times for additional advanced voting opportunities and the authority that's granted by counsel to the chief election Officer to establish the locations for those advanced, additional advanced voting opportunities. And now with respect to the special voting opportunity section, and this is referred to in the previous report, uh, that was put on the agenda, uh, based on evaluation of the voter turnout statistics, logistics, staff time and cost to hold special voting opportunities, uh, the availability of mail ballot voting, and that we have curbside voting, um, and I refer to the report there, uh, that we are recommending that we remove the special voting opportunities from the bylaw. And under the mail ballot voting section, to remove redundant clauses that are already stated in provincial legislation as requirements that we must follow, and to add reference to our mail ballot voting procedures bylaw, which establishes those procedures for our mail ballot voting and registration. And there are various housekeeping amendments that we wanted to, uh, uh, clean up a little. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Counselor Albrecht. Yeah, thank you for the report, and I'm just, uh, wondering if, uh, maybe, um, staff can talk about the, um, the communication or education strategy for the changes to the special voting, uh, locations. Thank you. Uh, so Miss Kenney. Uh, thank you through, uh, to, uh, the counselor. Uh, we actually have been in contact with, uh, the senior center, because that is still on the books that we would, we would, um, be holding that as an advanced voting opportunity, which we're not recommending at this point. Um, so we need to...... be making, uh, arrangements with that. So they're aware of that, and they are, uh, also have their own concerns regarding, um, displacement of, uh, programs that they, they have. So we are in contact with them, so they're very aware of, of what we're discussing here. And I think that is something that we want to consider is that it's not only our wish to either have an advanced voting opportunity there or a special voting opportunity. It's whether they can accommodate us, uh, given some of the, the challenges, um, that have been outlined in the report. Yeah. Thank you for that. I just, I just worry that someone, uh, gets accustomed to doing something a certain way, and, and to navigate something different can sometimes be a challenge, especially for, uh, older folks or people with disabilities. So, thank you. Thank you. Uh, any other discussion? Okay. So seeing and I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Uh, is there none opposed or were you opposed? Councilor Mack's opposed, so that's carried. Uh, so we're onto the Sign Amendment Bylaw. So this is a correction, so I do need to do an amendment here. So we're just gonna give this first and second and then do an amendment if council so chooses, and then we can give it third. Um, so that the bylaw cited as City of Langley Bylaw 1996 number 21-25 amendment 8 2026 number 3342 be read a first and second time. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Councilor Soliom, seconded by Councilor White. Uh, any discussion on that? So I'll move an amendment. Uh, so that Bylaw 3324 be amended to reflect the permitted size of political signs as 1.22 meters by 1.22 meters, or four feet by four feet. I'll move that. Is there a seconder? Seconded by Councilor Mack. Uh, so this was just clearly a typo. So it was four feet by four feet in the last election. I believe that's what everybody used for the Mack sign. Uh, just we needed to change the metric, because the metric actually said three feet if you converted it, so. Uh, with that, I'll call the question on the amendment. Oh, okay. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried. So, onto the main, uh, amended, uh, one. I guess we can give that first and second now. If there's any further discussion on that, Councilor- I think you've already given- Oh, I give the amendments? I'm sorry. You gave first and second reading- Yes. ... did you not? And then you've done amendments, so now you- So, we can just do third. Third as amended. Yes. So, uh, but first, Councilor Mack. Uh, thank you, Mayor Bahal. I would, uh, move to refer Bylaw 3342, uh, back to staff to further amend the bylaw to relax the property line requirements associated with sign placement in time for the 2026 municipal election. Uh- Thank you, yes. ... is there a seconder? Uh, Councilor White. Thank you. Um, so speaking to, um, the challenges that I experienced during the last election, um, despite... So staff, for anybody who's watching is not aware, they give us a map that shows like, a little red line where the property line technically sits. Now, you can get permission from the property owner to put a sign out front of their home. Uh, you can have full support, but you have to make sure that it's behind, technically, the property line, which sometimes can be, you know, maybe a, a meter and a half back, um, while it all looks like the same lawn. Um, now that's one issue, but the second challenge is that people, um, move these signs. And so I've had personal experience where I had almost a daily complaint during the election from staff about signs that had been moved, to the point where I started taking photographs of signs and where they were originally placed, um, to s- confirm that they had in fact been moved. I have no idea who moved them. I make no assertion as to who moved them, but I think that it was a tremendous waste of, of staff time, quite frankly, and all for 12 inches. Um, so I believe that we should be definitively getting permission of the property owner before we're putting signs anywhere during the election. However, I think the involvement in staff during the election, um, it, it, it was absolutely a waste of time, um, from my view, a waste of taxpayer resources, and I think that it should be changed, uh, in time for the municipal election so that we don't end up having the same, um, bouncing around signs with, you know, poor Ms. Kenny having to message all of the candidates that have had their signs moved again and again and again. Uh, Councilor White. Thank you, Mayor Bahal. Um, just to, uh, ask, um, Councilor Mack a question. Um, I do remember some of the situations that you've, um, outlined and, um, recalled. I think part of the dynamic is that, um, the boundary line is at least a, um, a solid factor that's recognized through the mapping system and everything else. I think part of the challenge that, um, I think exists is regardless of where the leeway or the rel- relaxation, um, um, happens and, and, and where that line gets set after that, there's still now an arbitrary line that's been set, which is always gonna be a factor if people go through the process of moving, um, signs, if that's part of the dynamic that's taking place. So, whether or not it's the actual property line or another arbitrary, um, um, factor that's been set in place, I think we're gonna have the same issue. So, those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, and I know for me, uh, been that, uh, I've been in a few of these elections now, I know we've all had problems with signs. Uh, I think it's probably one of the more frustrating parts of n- any campaign, if I'm frank, uh, 'cause we've all had to move signs. And I agree with Councilor White, uh, moving the line doesn't solve the problem, it just moves the signs to that line. Um, it's just one of those unfortunate... ... realities of campaigning, uh, as having to move signs. I've had to do it, um, unfortunately, as well. So I'm not supportive of this. Um, though I do acknowledge that it is a frustration. So, Councilor. Thank you, and, um, just to my council colleagues, to clarify, um, intent, what I'm picturing is a home where maybe the first meter is... You know, technically, you look at that map system and there's a red line that's partway up the lawn. However, it's still connected to their lawn and then there's the sidewalk in front of it. We've got permission, or whomever has permission from the homeowner to put it on their lawn. And for all intents and purposes, it appears to be their lawn. I would suggest that the grass, period, up until the sidewalk, be considered their property or a relaxation. So not, um, not necessarily changing the property line, but allowing for a relaxation and acknowledgement where if a property owner says, "You can put a sign in front of my house," then the sign in front of their house is sufficient and i- adherent with the bylaw so that all of us save the frustration. And most importantly, um, that staff don't have to be, um, constantly phoning candidates. Um, what if we have 30 people that run in the next election? Gonna be monitoring the signs of 30 people? I had over a hundred signs last time, so... Thank you. Uh, so on the referral, all those in favor? Opposed? Uh, so it's opposed by Soliam, James, Wallace, Albrecht, White, and myself, so that's defeated. So that brings us to the main. Is there further conversation? So seeing none, I call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? There's none opposed, so that's carried unanimously. Uh, for third, I believe. So we have done for a second and third now, so, uh, that is good. So that brings us over to committee reports. So we'll turn it over to Counselor Wallace to put some recommendations forward. Excuse me. Um, so the Arts, Recreation, Culture and Heritage retired Mark I SkyTrain upcycle. So recommendation, that council support in principle the concept of acquiring and installing a retired Mark I SkyTrain rail expo car from TransLink as a community heritage and public engagement project within city... Langley City. And that the volunteer rail car sub-committee continue assisting city staff by gathering additional information, identifying potential partners and donors, and developing fundraising opportunities. If I may, the summary, because of our- Uh, yeah, let's just get a seconder for that. So seconded by Counselor Mack. Please go ahead. Yes, if I may, because, um, committee has done a lot of work on this. Um, the Mark I SkyTrain was introduced in Vancouver in 1985 as Canada's first fully automated rapid transit vehicle. These trains served Metro Vancouver for decades and provided reliable transportation to millions of passengers, symbolizing a forward-thinking approach to urban connectivity. TransLink has begun to retire the Mark I SkyTrain cars, and they initiated a proposal project for the relocation, uh, relo- relocation and repurposing of the vehicles. A proposa- proposals for the first set of cars were accepted until December 6th, 2024, and subsequent s- subsequent applications will be made available as more vehicles are retired. There are 150 Mark I SkyTrain cars being retired. Successful bidders are responsible for funding the transport and repurposing of the cars. A pro- proposal was made by a committee member, Andrew Palmer, to the Arch Committee in 2025 to consider exploring the possibility in a- of acquiring and repurposing a retired vehicle as public art and engagement project. The vision of the project is to celebrate the history of the region's TransLink Transit heritage, enhance our community identity, attract tourism, and support our local economy, align with our wayfinding strategy and urban accessibility, and bridge the old with the new as we prepare to open the Langley City Center SkyTrain Station. The 2025 work plan of Arts, Recreation, Culture and Heritage Committee, ARCH, endorsed that Sky- that a SkyTrain car upcycle project be explored. A sub-committee was formed to research potential uses of the SkyTrain, preferably preferable locations, budget considerations, including potential funding sources, as well as a project timeline. At the March 24th, 26th ARCH meeting, the sub-committee brought forth the motion before you, which was unanimously carried. And within our package, it's, uh, uh, quite a detailed, uh, package, um, done by, uh, committee members. So if there's any questions... Thank you. Yeah, is there any questions, Counselor Soliam, or comments? Uh, I guess the first comment would be by saying this is pretty exciting. I love the idea of, uh, art being able to, uh, capture some of the technol- technological or technical innovations that we've come up with throughout our history. Um, uh, whenever I go to Vancouver, I'm always... I was always excited to see the, uh, the Tower of Camaros, uh, by Science World. Um, I think that's been removed, but I miss it every time I go, so this would be very exciting. Is the plan... I guess the question would be, is the plan to have this e- e- located at the new SkyTrain station as part of that, or is there a, a location sort of out- I, I think in the, in, in the document it does say in, around Innis Plaza, but I believe that the committee would be open, um, to it being around the SkyTrain. Okay. That, that would just be my, uh, suggestion. But, uh, yeah, thank you. This is pretty exciting. Thank you. I believe Counselor James has a comment. Uh, you're muted. Um, sorry about that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I just wanted to acknowledge the work that, uh-... this committee does. Councilor Wallace, as chair, I'm, I'm always impressed. It just seems like more and more, there's things coming forward, and this one in particular sounded very exciting and, uh, yeah, I think good things can be done with it if it comes to fruition. So, thank you to you and your committee for all your hard work. Thank you. Uh, Councilor Wallace- Thank you, Mayor. ... if you- Just to follow up- ... had a follow-up. I just wanted to, um, acknowledge that the committee members in the audience, um, Andrew Palmer, with his passion, brought this forward. So I don't wanna take credit for it, I just want to say that his, uh, very passionate and, and Ron and our team, so just, yeah. Thank you. Uh, Councilor Mac. Thank you. Um, thank you, Andrew. I'm happy you were able to make it. Um, great work yourself and the other committee members and the team. Uh, I think it's a really neat i- idea, so thank you. Uh, any other comments? Well, I, uh, it was a very exciting one for me to see. I know, uh, we had a look at that a couple years ago, so I'm glad it's turned to fruition. If we are able to preserve one of these cars, I think that'll be an important part of our history. You know, I, I think of, maybe it could be something as, as legacy as that tugboat that was in New Westminster as a playground piece of equipment that everybody got very attached to, which, in a very good way, so I'm excited to see where this goes. It looks like council is as well. Uh, so I'm seeing no other questions, so I'll call the, the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So it's unanimous. Uh, so that moves us on to item 8B, and I'll turn it over again to Councilor Wallace. Which is your work plan. Okay, shoot. I, I can also just move it as well, 'cause it is the work plan. Um, I, I move our work plan for the Arts, Recreation, Culture and Heritage Committee. Okay, I'll second that. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. Uh, I would move the recommendation that item 8C, um, or that council approve the Accessibility Advisory Committee 2026 Annual Work Plan. So, seconded by Councilor White. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. Councilor Albrecht? Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the Community Safety Awareness Committee has, uh, approved the Community Safety Awareness Committee 2026 Annual Work Plan, and it's in your agenda. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Thank you. So you're moving the work plan? Okay, so seconded by Councilor Mac. Further discussions? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. Uh, again, Councilor Albrecht. Uh, thank you. Uh, I'm looking, uh, I'm gonna move that the Environmental Sustainability Committee 2026 Annual Work Plan, uh, be approved, and I just wanna, uh, thank, uh, all our committee members for all their hard work. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Mac. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. Uh, and the last one, Councilor Albrecht. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I want to, uh, move that the Social Cultural Economic Development Advisory Committee 2026 Annual Work Plan be approved as presented. Is there a seconder? So seconded by Councilor White. Uh, further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? So that's carried unanimously. So that's, onto Administrative Reports, Glover Road Innovation District Plan Amendments. Recommendations are that council receive the report dated June 5th, 2026 titled Glover Road Innovation District Plan Amendments for information, and that council endorse the Glover Road Innovation District Plan, and that council directs staff to prepare a related official community plan amendment by-law for consideration. So, I'll move that. Seconded by Councilor White. Further discussion? So seeing none, I'll call the ques... Oh, Councilor Wallace. Sorry. Thank you. Are we able to, to ask a question- Absolutely. ... or a suggestion in, in regards to, uh- Yep. ... the Innovation, um, Boulevard. Just in, in regards to, I'm really excited about the plan and the development and the developing of the plan. Um, I just wanted to ask a, a question in regards to the circular economy and, and I, on our Zero Waste Committee at Metro Vancouver, one of the largest wastes is food waste, um, so, and, and plastics. And so, as we talk about, um, tech- tech- technical, um, and the innovation, you know, tech, high tech, um, what opportunities do you see in being able to, um, you know, have that circular economy with, with both plastic and, um, food waste? Uh, I don't know if that's Mr. Johanson, but you can take a stab at that or if we need to get Mr., Ms. Duplee. She's not here, so. Y- yes, uh, (clears throat) Mayor, thank you. And, uh, through to Councilor Wallace, I also have the, uh, Innovation District team here. Uh, Mr. Roy Beto and Mr. Anton Metalnikov, uh, played key roles in delivering, uh, bringing forward this document and delivering it before you today. Um, you know, the, the key thing about the Innovation District, um, you know, the, the initial phase one, uh, project and the land use plan that you have before you, that it does, uh, set out a blueprint for, uh, investment in what we call food tech, uh, in, innov- innovative and advanced manufacturing, um, you know, that the private sector can bring to bear, uh, post-secondary like KPU, uh, senior government agencies. And I would say, you know, in terms of the area of the circular economy and how it relates to food, um, that's definitely a growing, uh, area of innovation, and we're seeing some, uh, some really great, uh, programs and processes coming forward. Like something as simple as, uh, for example, the ORCA program, uh, where restaurants can, uh, upcycle, uh, their food waste, uh, through the use of, uh, simple things like oxygen and microbes, adding those and processing that food. Uh, recycling technologies have come a long way, and all of that is possible, uh, through this land use plan. Did you have a follow-up? Uh, no, I'm, I'm just excited to see what the future holds as far as opportunities and job creation for, for our young- younger generation, so thank you. Thank you. Uh, Councilor Albrecht? Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and, and thank you for this report. It... This is great work. It's very, very, very exciting. Um, I just wanted to turn our minds back earlier, uh, this evening. We had the, um, uh, the Langley City Accessibility Plan and, uh, let's make sure that we have that alignment in with our Innovation District as we move forward in, in those recommendations. So, just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, I'm sure that will be. Uh, yes, indeed. Thank you. Yes. Okay. So I'm not seeing any further discussion, so I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? So that's carried unanimously. Uh, so th- I'll move that we adjourn, seconded by Councilor, uh, White. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Opposed? We're adjourned. Uh, we'll be here in a few weeks. Thank you.