(Static noise)Okay, so I'm gonna call the regular meeting of Township Council for April 27th to order. Of course, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, and in particular, acknowledge our valued relationships with the Katzie, Kwantlen, Musqueam, and Semiahmoo First Nations. Gonna move the agenda amended to add an additional delegation from Oliver Busby, and to, uh, reorder item G1 to be considered after P and before Q. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Brent. Is there any discussion? Councilor Martins? Yeah, just, um, wanting to check, um, G1 you said, is being moved? That's right. And is that the, uh, rezoning application, uh, number 100721 and, and development permit application number 101430 for Laterra Development Limited at 26090 30A Avenue? That's correct, yes. Okay. Can you tell me- That's where the change- ... where that's going to go into the agenda then? Yep, as it, as it was moved, G1, it's gonna be held or considered by council, if this were to go through, after P and before Q. After P, so is that after we move into closed? Nope, it's after we resolve to move into closed. But it's being heard in the public meeting? That's correct. Okay. Yeah, is that- That, and then- ... possible? Yes, it is. Any other questions or discussion on the agenda as amended? Seeing none. Call the question on the agenda as moved. That carries unanimously. Councilor Bailey, do you'd like to lead us in a moment of silence? U- Uh, yes. Um, I just, uh, want to, um, emphasize that tomorrow is the day of mourning for dead and injured workers. Uh, last year WorkSafe BC recognized 138, uh, workers killed in the performance of, uh, their occupations. And, uh, s- 79 of those were from occupational diseases, uh, which is an increasing field. So, uh, I... if I could ask, uh, for a moment of silence, uh, to respect the workers and their contributions. All right, thank you. Can I get a motion to adopt the regular meeting minutes- So moved. ... of April 13? Moved by Councilor Ferguson, seconded by Councilor Brent. I'll call the question on those. Yeah, um, system's not updated. Here we are. That carries unanimously. Can I get a motion to adopt the public hearing meeting minutes of April 13? Moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Call the question. That carries unanimously. Our first delegation today is for Maureen Bruce. Please, come forward. Oop, yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Is it on? Oh. Good afternoon. Um, I have lived here for 36 years, and I'm here to ask you to change the bylaw regarding animal attacks to include cats. And also to appoint somebody to act on behalf of the residents of the township. Apparently, there's just someone to act on behalf of the Langley city, which I found out through this attack. On April 15th, my friend and I, um, she was visiting from Ontario, I was dog sitting a Bernese Mountain dog, and we decided to go for a quick walk before dinner. And when we got onto 83B, I also have a red heeler mix, I saw this black cat that had charged myself and my two dogs four years prior. I was just warning my friend about this cat, and it darted across the road. I stepped between the dogs and the cat, and it attacked my hand.I ... It went into the bush, and then I saw that it was starting to stalk us, which it does. Then I asked my friend to take both dogs to the corner. I tried to get the cat to go back across the street. I was bleeding, so I was not putting my hand in the way again, so I just tried to nudge it with my foot. It attacked my foot and my leg, and it finally retreated. I was making my way back to my friend at the corner, and I saw a gentleman leaving his driveway, so I walked up to him and asked him if he knew where the cat lived. He did. It, he pointed to the house, um, the one with the boat and the blue truck. I'm like, "Okay, thank you." He says, "That's the same cat that attacked my dog three days ago and had a $700 vet bill." So having said that, I got home. I reached out to friends who have dogs, and I said, "Have you ever encountered this cat, or is it just me?" And they said, "No, no, several times." Not to the extent that I had the, the, what happened to me. Anyways, and then one of my friends suggested I go on our community webpage for Walnut Grove, and I did, and I saw there were several references to this cat, believe it or not. I'd never looked before. And one stood out to me in 2023. A lady had a small dog. It had attacked her dog. She did call the township, and she got the same response as I did. "Very sorry this happened to you, but unfortunately, cats are not under this bylaw." And, um, I'm like, "Oh, okay." So after that, I ... Sorry. So after that, I basically thought, "Okay, we, we need to make this change, obviously. This, this is a rogue cat, and it's not a one-time thing. It's been going on for over four years. So all I'm asking is that you include it, so if it does happen again to someone else, at least we have some way to deal with it." Had I lived in Langley City, they would have sent somebody to the house to talk to the owners of the cat. We don't have anyone to act on our behalf right now. So I urge you today to please accept cats into that bylaw, and, um, and to have a representative for us in the township. I mean, we are much larger than Langley City. So thank you for your time, and do you have any questions for me? Counselor Richter. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. And, uh, I saw the pictures of your hands. They looked very sore. Yes. Um, um, I'm just wondering, now you mentioned that the cat was associated with a particular house in your neighborhood, so it's not feral? No. It's not. It belongs to a house. It, it belongs to the house. Yes. Would you happen to know if it's a cat that goes indoors and outdoors, or is it just an outdoor cat? I think it does go indoors, because I've seen it sitting at the front door of the house where it belongs. And I'm assuming they do let it in, 'cause it, it, it's not just roaming around. And I haven't seen it for a while, so it just randomly appeared when I was telling my friend about the story about the cat. But, um, yes, no, I think the d- cat does go inside. Okay. And you say you found evidence of these attacks by this white cat on social media back at least- A black cat. It's a- ... 3, 8- It's a black cat. It's a black cat. Yes. Uh, yeah, I just went onto our webpage. A friend of mine who's here with me today said, "Hey, go look on this." And then she actually took a screenshot of the woman in 2023, which I looked at that and went, "Wow, okay, so I'm not the only person who's called in." But I understand if it's not under the bylaw, there's nothing you can do about it. So- Yeah. ... if we change it, then maybe there's somebody who can help. (laughs) Oh, well, thank you very much for bringing it to our attention. It sounds (laughs) like a change is needed. Yeah. (laughs) Anyone else? All right, seeing no other questions, uh, I appreciate you raising it. Others have raised before, uh, s- the need to potentially look at, uh, some, some reference to cats in our animal control bylaw. So I think your timing is good, and, and I'll be following up on it. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Appreciate your time. Councilor Richter? Y- yeah, is, can we, um, I really think this needs to get referred to staff today, and I would be making that motion under other business, but because- You can, you can go ahead and do it now. Yes, I'd like to make a motion that we refer this delegation to staff for a report. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Yeah, I'm gonna move deferral of that to May 11th, seconded by Councilor Rinn. (laughs) Any discussion on that deferral? Councilor Richter? W- why May 11th? That's the next meeting of council. I know, but w- why can't we just refer it to staff today? Yeah, I think there'd be some additional direction that it would be helpful to provide to speed the process up. So I'll have that prepared for May 11th. Oh, so you're going to bring back a replacement motion to mine on May 11th, then? Uh, I think it'd be appropriate to consider some potential amendments to the request for a report, yes. Okay. All right, so I'll call the question on that deferral. That carries with Councilor Martins, Councilor Richter, Councilor Whitmarsh opposed. Let's move on to the next delegation from Bob Maddox. Great. Yeah, and, uh, thanks for coming here today, and, uh, please go ahead. Good afternoon, your worship, Mayor Woodward, and members of council. My name is Bob Maddox. As just mentioned, um, I'm a 17-year-plus resident of High Point community. I'm, uh, t- also the managing director of the High Point, uh, Equestrian Center for the last 13 years. The High Point subdivision in South Langley has experienced immeasurable increase in criminal activity over the recent years. Given the subdivision's rural location, residents have faced persistent challenges with police response times and the limited capacity for regular patrol and monitoring.In response to these public safety concerns, the High Point residents respectfully request that Township Council direct staff to prepare a report examining the feasibility of designating High Point as a gated community. The proposed access control gate with a potential for a staff guard post would be located at the subdivision entrance as identified on the attached map. And if you've been up, it's right by the speed bump. So our desired resolution is the High Point residents request that the council direct staff to prepare a report addressing the following questions and considerations of being for them. Number one, the gate installation without road transfer. Whether it's feasible to install a controlled access gate at the subdivision entrance while the township retains ownership and maintenance responsibilities for all internal roads and trails. The High Point Residents Association does not seek to assume responsibility for the road and the trail network. Point two, resident approval thresholds. What level of resident approval is required and through what process before this initiative may proceed including any statutory, bylaw, or policy threatens- thresholds that must be met? Point four, cost recovery and levy mechanisms. Whether the township has the authority to levy a one-time setup fee and an annual maintenance charge collected through property taxes or utility billing on behalf of the High Point Residents Association. Funds collected would be remitted directly to the High Point Residents Association, which would assume full responsibility for the gate installation, operation, and ongoing maintenance. And finally, number four, alternative approaches. Any other mechanism or options available to residents, municipal or otherwise, to achieve equivalent access control and security outcomes for the subdivision? Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Ferguson? Councilor Ferguson. Uh, uh, thank you, Mr. Matson. Uh, my voice is going a bit here, so, um, I had a, I, a, a little bit of reliving, a little bit of history. I remember, um, the folks coming down and putting High Point together, and, uh, we talked a little bit about your road works, drainage, and other things over the year. My question to you is, and we asked you earlier, is that, um, if not the gated, uh, have you met with staff or bylaws or the police in come time, a formal meeting, to discuss some of the things that you're concerned about there? We've had numerous informal meetings on this, uh, kind of sit-downs and we've already had 10, 15 minutes. We've met, of course, with many different police officers- Mm-hmm. ... who have talked about their concerns. Uh, much of- Well, I guess my question would be would it help for you to have a formal meeting between our staff and the police or, and to, to talk about some of the things. I don't know about the gated community, but some of the things you've discussed today. Would that be helpful? It's most certainly. Okay. I think the point being from our, our perspective is that, uh, we need to do something. Mm-hmm. We're completely open-minded with what we do. Mm-hmm. This is what we came up with, which is a, a possibility, but we think there's probably all sorts of hurdles we need to come up, uh, overcome. And that's why we're addressing council is to find out, one, what those hurdles are, and two, which of them, if any or all, we can overcome and how. Mr. Mayor, I have some suggestions after everyone's spoken, if, if you don't mind. I'll take a note of that. Councilor Armstrong. Hi there. Yeah, so I was just kinda wondering what types of crimes, um, that you're seeing up in High Point, and, um, would the gates, um, be, you know, drop that significantly in your opinion? In my opinion, yes, most definitely they would. First of all, there's been, uh, one point a year or so ago, probably five homes in a row that were all, uh, burglarized. Uh, of course, we have, we'll, we'll call it the standard burglaries that you have, we have in, in, uh, the township everywhere. Uh, we've had some extortion, uh- Yeah. ... which is I think we've, we've been hearing about it in Abbotsford or Chilliwack, but it's moving back out into our community as well. One of the things that, uh, we think that a gate would do, and quite frankly I'm not feeling like it's an armed security gate because we do need to give people access to the trails and to the, the lake there, um, is that just knowing that there's somebody knowing that they come into the neighborhood, um, and gives them permission to go in is something that would detour that ki- type of crime dramatically. Are there a lot of cam- do neighbors have a lot of cameras around, like in the neighborhoods that, you know- Every, everybody seems- ... every- ... to have cameras. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilor Peterson. Um, yes, a couple of questions. Uh, so the response time, you mentioned that y- it's difficult to get people or the RCMP out in a timely manner. What kind of response times are you talking about? Are we talking, like, half an hour after a call's made or an hour or the next day? (laughs) No, it's definitely not the next day. (laughs) Okay. And it's probably better than an hour, but it'd probably be around the half hour. When's it- It's half an hour plus. H- uh, half an hour. Half an hour. Okay. And my second question, this, uh, whether the township could collect a levy. So that would be a levy off the property owners in High Point that the township would collect on behalf of the property owners? That's how we would see it, yes. And we would just give it back to you then?So, we would collect it, I assume, as part of the annual property taxes- Mm-hmm. ... remit it back to you, and then you would install and maintain the gate. Uh, is there gonna be, like, 24-hour surveillance on that gate? If you had my full, uh, desire, we would have license plate recognitions. Of course, we'd have the 24/7 guards there. Um, the gate would be very quick opening and closing 'cause the am- amount of cars that go through there is, is large. Um, yeah. So, I, I mean it may be a little premature, but at this stage, do you have any idea what kind of a levy (laughs) we're gonna have to collect off the residents down there? It would be a significant savings for the, the people of High Point- Yeah. ... if they all... The, the issue for us is just simply that there's 164 lots in High Point and of that, you know, we prefer not to have, uh, 101 people paying and 63 people that are getting away with not paying. So, I thought the fairest way to do it would be to try to do it on property taxes or a special levy. I see. Okay. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I also think this delegation should be referred to staff for report, and I'd like to make that motion when everybody's had a chance to ask their questions. Thank you for your time- Thank you. ... Mr. Mattek. Just wanna mention one other thing, as far as, uh... We had a, a very good response time just recently. Uh, there was, we don't call them motorcycle gang, uh, but there were seven bikes, uh, that came ripping by and I was going down 200th at the speed bump and they came ripping by. Uh, four of them were popping wheelies down the road. The other three were filming them with their, their iPhones. So, we called 911 'cause we were right there on 200th at a home. And the police got there before they left the neighborhood, but they were there for about 20 minutes. And the police, of course, escorted them out, if you call it that. Uh, but then gave up the chase at 24th and 200th because of the potential danger of them weaving in and out of traffic. So, the response time was very good in that particular case. I guess it just depends on where the police are at the time of the call. Over here. Hi. Hi. Thank you for coming and delegating today. Um, couple questions, um, that I have in addition to what I've heard. Um, uh, you mentioned crime types. So, other than the extortion events, um, is it mostly, um, property crime? Mm-hmm. Or have... Uh, and, uh, when I say property crime, I would put the break-and-enters into that. I'm just curious if there's been any assaults or, um, home invasions or anything like that. There, there certainly has been, you know, drunkenness, trespassing through people's backyards of people that don't live in the neighborhood. Um, but as far as home invasions? Y- Well, no, I'm thinking actual acts of violence. No, I don't think so. Oh, okay. This is Gurvinder Parhar. Yeah, I'm Gurvinder Parhar. I'm a resident of High Point. Uh, yes, we had, uh, incidents. Uh, the last week, 911 was called by one of our residents, uh, security cameras Mm-hmm. It took more than half an hour for them to come because there was a car driving by and they didn't know it was a break-and-enter. It was going to every neighborhood. And my next door neighbor had, a month ago, a truck stolen from his driveway, and it took police almost two hours to, before they caught it. And the worst thing is, because we used to have a police station right on 224th, that's been moved to Willoughby. So, it takes... Any police officer to come there takes them less than half an hour. Well, very rarely less than half an hour, but half an hour reasonable because they're a- across the town. So, that's why we requested this gated community. So, A, it's less police cost involved and, uh, because police have to deploy, um, three, four cars and officers at nighttime. So, that will limit there. And then also security for, uh, the residents because there have been a lot of, um, uh, unreported break-and-enters too. The people have, uh, uh, lost stolen goods. Even this, uh, crime that I'm talking about, that wasn't reported, but they caught it through OnStar, the truck. So, it's, it's, it's going... Now we have increased... Uh, we have, uh, private security right now at nighttime. Mm-hmm. And we noticed, and, uh, the, re- there have been l- real escalation of crime recently for last six, uh, seven months. An escalation of crime? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Uh, because people are break-and-enter. And, uh, you mentioned extortion. Yes, there has been those too around our neighborhood. Though it's, I think, for the safety of, uh, the residents- Mm-hmm. ... and the public, I think it's very small request we are making. And we're not putting any cost to the township. And I don't think there should be any reason why it shouldn't be accepted. Mm-hmm. Yeah. No, I'm just trying to get a sense of what the concern is. Um, I know you talked about it being, um, a long distance and the, the delayed, um, response times. Um, is the activity typically from people in vehicles or on vehicles, or do you have a lot of people wandering? And if so, and if the latter, you have people on foot, is that gate at... Where you would put the gate, is that the only way for them to get in? Is everything else sealed off? There is only one way to get in, is 200. And, uh- On foot? On foot. On foot, but nobody will walk in on foot because it's the big... It's long trails. Yeah. And they can easily get caught by the police even if it takes... It probably will take them 20 minutes to get out of the subdivision through the trails, and they will be easily caught. But most of them come with, um, uh, w- in the vehicle. I mean, th- three weeks ago, there was one strange person trying to-Hmm. ... br- uh, uh, steal somebody's vehicle, but he saw a security guard sitting in the car. He kept walking, and there was a car behind him that came in, and the security guard is an ex-police person as well, RCMP. Mm-hmm. So he noticed with his experience that why the b- uh, the backlights are burnt from the number plates. Mm-hmm. So he realized they're up to no good, so they followed them. They sped up, uh, because he picked them up on the way. So it's not, it wasn't an Uber or anything. Hm. So there's a lot of things bef- we, before we have, like you asked, uh, there's been, uh, invasion in homes or any, before anybody gets hurt. I think we should... That's why we, all the neighbors- Yeah. ... got together. We s- we thought that this is the best plan. Yeah. Uh, and I agree. You, you wanna, y- y- you don't wanna wait for something to happen, for sure. Yeah. No. And I personally had consultations with, uh, the, the police officers and the chief of the police as well on this matter. And so they all realized 'cause the, another thing what I want to mention is it's pitch black in there 'cause we don't have many street lights. Gotcha. So it's very difficult to, even with the cameras, it's very difficult to- Yeah. ... uh, see who's out on the street. Yeah. Yeah. Um, out of curiosity, um, did the RCMP talk to you at all about, um, setting up a block watch program or anything like that? They did. They actually went further. They need to s- install a camera there so that they can, uh, see the number plates of the person, the cars driving by and driving... That was for their own security. I don't know if they have done it or not, but that was, uh, one of them. Uh, but it's, like, nighttime, we have a park. It's, city bylaw says that no can- nobody can ent- it's dawn to dusk. Yeah. But p- what are people doing three o'clock in the morning, two o'clock in the morning, the kids, or, or some other... We don't know who they are. Okay. Right? But what about, like, programming like block watch? I'm just wondering about that if you... We have neighborhood, uh, watch. You d- We already have that. Okay. Okay. Yeah. It's not working because it's- It's not working for you- Yeah. ... it sounds like. It's not working. Yeah. Okay. No, thank you. I appreciate you answering those questions. And, um, and it sounds like things are amping up, not down. And I agree that we need to see what solutions there are for you, um, so that you do feel safe in your home and your community. So- Thank you. ... thank you for delegating- I think that's where Canada is heading towards, all securities all over across Canada. Mm-hmm. It's not just here. No. It's true. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs? Yeah, I had just one last follow-up question. Um, you mentioned that there might be, y- you don't know the number, but, um, what has the consensus been in the neighborhood for something like this? Is it majority? Is it, like, how does... We had a response from, um, I think hun- all- almost everybody except one person. One person was th- the, he've, uh, that person wasn't even sure what we were trying to talk about. So we had sent letters. Everybody sent emails in res- favor of that. Okay. And another thing is, I think that's a good point you brought it up. Insurance is going to be escalating in our neighborhood. Right. Yeah. With more break-in. And, and then expensive homes, we're already paying enough property taxes and, uh, added cost. It's probably better for us to pro- we, I think we did the math. About $160 a month it'll cost residents to, uh, have gated community and monitoring. Yeah. Um, that's better than having your insurance being denied. Has there been any issues with the Zero Avenue sort of exit there? I mean, it's not an exit. I know there's a gate there, but- No, no. Zero Avenue's been closed right from day one- Yeah. Yeah. ... that this, uh, subdivision was built. So that's why there's no access. Yeah. Okay. That's why we can, uh, uh, you know, logistically put the gate up there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Great. Thanks very much. Thank you. All right. Thanks for coming for today. And, uh, council will probably process this right now. Thank you. All right. Council Ferguson, you said you had some suggestions. Yes. Yes. I have something. I, I actually wanted to refer to staff, and I don't know about the gated part, but they can certainly discuss it. You can, you can sit down. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Munger, for calling, for coming today. Yeah, of course. Really much appreciated. Um, uh, the, we've met- they've mentioned things like, uh, bylaws ca- could meet. Uh, the bylaws people could meet, and maybe the police, fire, our parks people could meet with representatives of their community and go over numbers of concerns they've made today. And, um, basically, I would think that I would be, uh, my motion the referral that they go through the number of things concerned, including, you know, things like, um, m- uh, policing and response time and, and other things. So if that could be done - You wish to make that referral? Go ahead. Yes. That's my referral. All right. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councillor Rinn. Yeah, go ahead. Do you wish to speak to it any further? No? Council Richter? Yeah. What exactly is this referral doing? Go ahead. Mr. Cooner? Yeah. Is it, is it referring the delegation and its concerns to staff for a report? Yes. That's the, that's what's happening, but Mr. Cooner, you can confirm. Go ahead. That is correct, Your Worship. Our understanding is it's a referral for staff, um, for a report to council. And I believe Councilor, uh, Ferguson had highlighted some of the items that, uh, would wanna be addressed in the report. Um, well, I would like to make sure that the, uh, four points that were raised by the delegate are included in the referral to staff for consideration by staff as well. Yeah. That's my understanding. Yep. It is? Okay. Yeah. All right. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on that referral of Delegation C2. That carries unanimously. We have a third delegation firm, Oliver Busby. Please come forward. Great. So thanks for coming here today. Thank you. Introduce yourself to council and, uh, please go ahead. Sure. Uh, good afternoon, Mayor, and good afternoon, council members. My name's Oliver Busby. I am a registered professional biologist and a professional agrologist in good standing in BC.I am here to provide an overview of environmental works that are associated with, uh, a SP-... It's Lot 5 on 84th Avenue, which I understand is going before council for review. Part of the, uh, the works we did were to assess the environmental restrictions or constraints that were on the property as a result of the SPE-ADP that TOL has placed on the property, and also a DFO restrictive covenant. Uh, we assessed the property, we reached out to DFO, uh, we requested some information on the, uh, protective covenant. After review, uh, they've agreed to remove, or they had removed the protective covenant. We then, uh, looked at the different restrictions and compared them to the SPE-ADP. Essentially, what I'm trying to get at is we, um, we looked at what the wrapper was, which is the provincial requirements, and we also communicated with DFO. Uh, we completed a wrapper assessment, determined that our SPE has a... Setback says the province would be 10 meters. We added some additional to accommodate for, uh, bank stability and also for geotechnical support, increased the setbacks, which were still substantially less than the TOL setbacks. Uh, and I don't know how familiar you are with this site and with the project. However, the site has 95% restrictive zoning on it through the SPE-ADPA and also the zoning requirements leaving basically nothing developable. So, we looked at what would be the alternatives that would still provide ample protection for the environment and allow the site to be developed in a sustainable way. So, as I said, we looked at the wrapper. We came up with the wrapper guidelines, which was 10 meters, added additional for bank stability and for geotechnical support, and we came up with a range from 21 to 15 meters depending on the contours of the water course. We s- supplied this to Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and in a letter of advice they agreed that so long as the wrapper requirements were concerned, they had no issues that the works that we were proposing would, uh, result in a HAD, which is a harmful... which is harm... What is it? Alter- harmful alteration, destruction, and something to water courses. Um, so I was just here to provide some background information, essentially saying if we apply the provincial guidelines, we expand upon them a little to ensure that we have, uh, bank stability issues, we still exceed the wrappers, I know which is the guidelines for the township SPEA, they won't exceed provincial regulations. We've recommended that, um, and, yeah, essentially that's it. That we've... We came up with a solution that would allow for the developability of the project or the site while still meeting the requirements of f- federal regulators, the provincial regulators, and of course, the township. Uh, do you have any questions? Questions, council? Councilor Armstrong. Um, yeah. Uh, so you're a biologist by training and professionalism. Yes. Uh, I guess, the major concern I have about this application is putting a septic field anywhere close to a red-coated stream. Yes. And I see from the report that's in front of council today that, uh, instead of having a 30-meter setback, it's being reduced to 5 to 8.5 meters. Is that safe for the fish? That's a little, uh, misconstrued. So, the setback is at a minimum 15 meters. So, there's 10 meters from the edge of the water course, and then there's an additional 5 to 2- 11 meters on top of that, depending wherepo- whereabouts on the site it is. Mm-hmm. So, the closest any developable footprint would be is a minimum 15 meters from the water course. In addition, the property is sloped thick, the creek is in a ravine. You're gonna be about three meters above the water course as well. I am not... I can't speak comfortably about the efficiency and effectiveness of modern, um, (laughs) septic fields. Mm-hmm. I know that they are allowed and I know that's a provincial issue, but I can't tell you how effective they are at, you know, reducing flocculents and, uh, any sort of byproduct. Yeah. ... area. And this is at the top of a ravine, and water does run downhill. Yes, it does. Yes. And the stream is at the bottom of the ravine? Yes, it is. Okay. But the gradient of the land also is on a bit of an angle s- perpendicular. It's... But yeah, again, I can't in good faith tell you that the water would be a hundred percent clear. That would be something that you would require, or the city would wanna have, uh, a specialist talk about. Yeah. Um, my second question, uh, you mentioned in your comments that there's not enough developable land? Footprint on that property. If we look at the s- Uh, but is there developable land on that property that could house or could have a home on it- There's six- ... before... Without having to eat into the 30-meter setback? There's 650 square meters. I'm not a developer, I don't build houses. Okay. (laughs) I don't know. So the, the property is approximately 9,000 square meters. Mm-hmm. And with the zoning and the SPE-ADP, there's only 650 that are accessible. Okay. Uh, I know, I know that if we apply the provincial guidelines, again, it's the province, you're supposed to have 30% developability for a property. And that, for this particular site, we don't meet that. Okay, thank you very much. All right, thank you for coming. Thank you.Right, that concludes Delegations. We can move on to item E1, Old Yale Park Off-Leash Dog Area. Um, given that there's three options, we'll start with discussion. Councilor Bailey, go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to, uh, move option two, but also add, uh, to option two, a size, uh, designation, so large and small dog designations. All right. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Rinke. Go ahead, Councilor Kunst. Yeah, I, I just like the idea of, uh, making sure that, uh, it's kind of a combination of what people are asking for, and that you can, um, eliminate the possibility of large and small dog conflicts. All right. Councilor Kunst? Yeah, um, I, I don't disagree. (laughs) I guess I'm wondering why would we move off of what the recommendation was what? You know, um, mo- the majority of the residents were sort of in favor of option one, so, um, but I, I can, I can support either one. I, I, I see it, but, um, why would we sort of supersede, um, what the, the survey, um, had indicated? All right. Councilor Richter, go ahead. Uh, w- was Councilor Kunst getting an answer to her question? I thought it was rhetorical. Is it re- Well, well, no. I mean, it's- I thought y- I sincerely thought it was rhetorical. Go ahead, Councilor Kunst. Oh, I mean, uh, is, it could be rhetorical, but it could be, uh, (laughs) uh, if someone would like to answer that, that, that's fine too. Councilor Bailey, do you, do you want to- Yeah. ... clear your intent? Yeah, I'm just looking at, uh, those. All three responses are relatively equal and, uh, just, uh, looking at which the best, uh, hybrid option of this, uh, you know, one is, is just, uh, single and one is chopped up more. I think if you just, uh, separate it into, uh, two areas, uh, the difference between the responses is, uh, is negligible. It's, uh, all three of them are very close. Yep. Can I ... Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, thank you for answering that. That's, uh, that's what I needed to know. Councilor Richter? Oh, I'm gonna go to Councilor Richter. Go ahead, Councilor Richter. Uh, oh, okay. Um, so the staff report is quite clear that, um, the majority of respondents, and this was a well responded to survey, like 460 responses, which is pretty impressive, uh, 38% wanted option one, 29% wanted option two, and 32% wanted option three. Now, the real difference between these options is that option one isn't gonna cost us anything. Option two that's being proposed here by Councilor Bailey is gonna cost $88,000. So I'd like to know where the $88,000 is gonna come from, how long it's gonna take to get it, and can this dog off-leash area under option two be opened this year? Uh, dear Council, uh, Your Worship to Councilor Richter, uh, we would need Council to identify a funding source with respect to option two, estimated cost of $88,000. Um, specifically with respect to option two that's being proposed is two separate open areas with no designated sizes, so I think specifically, uh, Councilor Bailey did mention that this option would be a bit of a hybrid with designated signage. Um, staff would be in a position to, uh, in the event the Council approves this and provides a funding source, uh, for installation prior to, uh, I believe the, uh, s- s- uh, summer, as it would require some installation on just fences and, uh, um, as highlighted in attachment, uh, B of the report, uh, the identifying the dog off-leash areas and new fencing. Okay. So we can pay the ... We have $88,000 now that we can put into this project, and the project will be open this summer? Uh, Your Worship to Councilor Richter, Council will need to identify the $88,000 as- Okay. ... a, a funding source. That's what I'm asking. 'Cause option one has no cost, which to me is the more prudent fiscal approach right now. And that would have been my preference, to go with option one. Now, option two, it does cost more. It's, we could pay the $88,000, but I'd like to know from what account we're paying it from. Uh, Your Worship, the Councilor Richter, Council would have to identify the funding source, as the report does not provide a funding source. Well, I'm asking staff to tell me what funding source is available to pay for it. I don't know how much are in all the accounts, but you're telling me there's $88,000 there. Which account has the $88,000 and we can specify it today, if need be. Uh, Your Worship to Councilor Richter, the, uh, report does not identify a funding source. It provides a option. If Council were to s- s- uh, cite a specific option, as Council has now option two, we would look to Council to identify a funding source, or, uh, the item can get referred back to staff, and staff can then, uh, see, uh, what funding sources are available for Council, if that's the path Council desires. Well, I, I would think that that's the more prudent financial path, so I think there needs to be a referral of this if we're not prepared to state a funding source today, which I don't think we are 'cause Mr. Kunert is explaining to us that we have to tell him which account it needs to come from.Councilor Martins? Oh, thank you. Sorry, I thought there was a question there- No, go ahead. ... about identifying an account. No, go ahead. Okay. Um, so I ... Just looking for a little bit of clarification on this one, if I can, through the chair and staff. Um, the size of the park, if we go with option B, um, and so we're separating, um, open areas, it says no designated si- sizes. Is that talking about dogs or is that talking about the, the si- the division of space? And if so, how, how big it is? Because I did see some feedback from people who are concerned that if it's divided up, it, um, reduces the opportunity for them to freely run. Through your Worship to Councilor Martins, specifically no designated sizes is in reference to dogs. Uh, whereas option three, there would be three designated areas for large dogs, small dogs, and all dogs. So option two does not designate the sizes. However, I believe, um, specific direction was given to designate sizes for small and large dogs for option two. Okay. And it- and the space, um, is it divi- divied up pretty much 50/50, or is there ... The, the small dogs space then a smaller space? Through your Worship to Councilor Martins, it'd be very similar to attachment B, which is option two. Uh, the space would be roughly equal, maybe some, uh, minor adjustments after, uh, a full review, but it would be more in line with what attachment B is to the report. Okay, 'cause my concern is, um, large dogs tend to need larger spaces for running around than small dogs. So if we're looking at actual size of dogs in this, um, as opposed to just two options, um, of where to take your dog, I, I, I worry about that. Um, and then I also, um, echo what I heard earlier. Um, I'm seeing the majority of people chose option one, and, uh, a lot of people responded, um, which shows to me that people are- have a vested interest in this, and it's, um, the most economical choice. So I'm not sure why we wouldn't be considering that. Councilor Fer- Councilor Ferguson, go ahead. Ah, yes, thank you. Um, reading the report, um, uh, executive summary, um, just basically says to address long-standing drainage issues that they can- that residents were concerned about. Then you go into, or pages, page five, six, and seven, uh, attachment B, you have a, a drainage swale around the, the property, the dog park property, where, uh, options, uh, one and three don't. So the, uh, Councilor Bailey is bringing something up that I would think a dog owner would be concerned about, and, um, in the report, it said the funding was there for, for one, uh, under existing budgets. Would that change if we went to option two? And number ... My first question and the second question is, uh, how big a drainage area, what, uh, drainage swale and drainage area do you plan on putting in, what type of result are you expecting, if I may, through it, Chair? Through your Worship to Councilor Ferguson, um, with respect to cost, uh, option two, the estimated costs are 88,000, and you are correct in the sense that there is some, uh, issues with, uh, with regarding drainage there. However, uh, staff have now established there is existing swales, uh, that have been established, and the, uh, drainage swales ha- have been, uh, upgraded, hence why the, the park was historically, uh, a certain s- area was closed off to make those improvements. Yeah, and I appreciate the, the, Councilor Bailey bringing this other option up, because it, it's the only one that has a drainage, and they're concerned about drainage. So it's, it's a win-win for the resident. Thank you. Councilor Koontz, go ahead. Yeah, so I was up there not too long ago, and it seemed like the park was actually open, like I could walk around and ... Uh, what part of the park is now deemed ... Is there the middle park where th- the middle part of the park where that sort of still has the blue fences around, is that sort of potentially where they're looking at, um, doing this? 'Cause I, I, as far as I know, there's a lot of people that just wanna go to the park and walk their dog, um, and just kinda get on with it. So, um, is there an option to just go with option one, and then down the road when we find the money or f- where the money is, do number two? If we think that the public is really wanting that, can we just open it? It just seems like it's already open. People can go there and walk their dog. Through your Worship to Councilor Koontz, you're correct in the sense it is open. Uh, however, option one is we did install some temporary fencing with respect to some of the works that was done, uh, regarding drainage issues. So option one is just removing that fencing, which can be accommodated. Uh, and then if council does desire to explore option two at a later date, or ex- and use option one as, as a pilot and staff can report back on that, that's an option as well available to council and within council's purview. Uh, it would just depend on council direction. Okay. Well, I mean, I'd like to move option one just to get on with it, but I'm open to option two if that's what council, um, decides. All right. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question. Oh, oh, sorry I had Oh, yes, you're right, the system ... Yeah, sorry about that Councilor Whitmar. So that was this ... I'll blame the system on that one. Please go ahead No problem. Yep, go ahead. Um, yeah, thank you. Um, just I had a, uh, a couple of questions, um, and then maybe just a comment. Um-I, I read, um, earlier, I think it was on page two, this concept of, uh, fence frustration. Uh, new for me. Hadn't heard of the fence frustration term before. Um, and it mentions in here that there's a six-foot buffer, uh, for fence frustration. So if I go now to the drawings, um, option one, two, and three, is this, uh, area, this concept of fence frustration, is that really only dealt with in options two and options three, which is the, looks like an internal double fence? Is that what is dealing with fence frustration? Your worship, to Councilor Whitmar. Uh, o- options two and three, uh, do include a fence, uh, fence frustration. So that's essentially that six-foot buffer between the fence lines. Uh, and I believe it's quite small in nature to actually see on the attachments. But it, it, it is along the fence lines. Okay, just, just internal, correct? 'Cause it l- I think it mentions in the report that there's six-foot gaps. So does that mean there's really two fences with a six-foot space in between them? Is, is that how I understand that's done? Uh, through your worship, through Councilor Whitmarsh, that is correct. It's following the trail and along the fence line. Okay. So yeah, that's helpful. I think, I think the, the, um, when I look at this, I, I see that, uh, um, you know, I think people identified the space and worried about maybe the space being small to subdivide into smaller spaces. Option three has sort of three distinct spaces, um, and they end up becoming quite small, uh, particularly when you also add in a six-foot, uh, this fence frustration in there. That's a lot of land that's used to put up fences in between and recognizing it's probably an important thing. Um, I, I, I, I, I think I like, um, option two, but one of the things I'm wondering about, um, in it is, um, the ability to maybe adjust, and then maybe this is a question of staff, to sort of redraw the lines if we have two areas instead of three, and they are one, one is designated for small dogs and, and one's larger dogs. If we could, um, have it redrawn in such a way that maybe it's, there's a larger portion of the area set aside for large dogs. I just imagine being that they're large, they'd need more space. Um, the concept of it is fine, but, um, you know, this is a s- a relatively small space and to start dividing it in two much seems to be a lot. So I like the idea of number one and we can do number two later, or we can do number two now if we have the resources for it. But I think, um, not a 50/50 equal spacing, but maybe a 75/25 or a 60/40 or something might be a better, uh, lineup to accommodate the two different, uh, sizes of animals. Thank you. Council Pratt? Yeah, thank you, your worship. Uh, I appreciate Councilor Bailey bringing forward, uh, option two, uh, because when you, when you analyze the, the response data, the majority of the residents indicated that they would prefer to have the park separated in some fashion. And so there was some, you know, uh, closeness, I suppose, in the results around which separation option they would like, but the majority wanted the space separated. Uh, and I do have to commend staff seeing that park go from, uh, what it was several years ago to what it is now. Just in general, it's, it's come a long way. And looking at option two, even without the size designation actually written down there, it appears as though the more southerly section, uh, is larger. So I would assume the larger section will go to the larger dogs. Uh, so I appreciate Councilor Bailey bringing this motion forward, but I was wondering if we could just have the motion read back to us from staff before the vote, of course. Thank you. That Council directs staff to proceed with implementation of option two for the Old Jail Park off-leash, er, dog area, implementing a dog size designation and a large, for the large, open off-leash area. All right. I'll call the question on that. That carries unanimously. Uh, given that Council has endorsed that motion, I'll move that the 88,000 be funded from the facility's renewal reserves. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on that? Seeing none, I'll call the question on that. That carries unanimously. Item E2, I'd like to, um, move this slightly amended, so if Council could look at the recommendation, I'd like to move that Council receive the conceptual design and refer. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on E2? Councilor Whitmarsh. Yeah, just, um, wondering, it referred to staff? Uh, it's in the second resolution. That Council refer the detailed design as described to the budget process. So move the whole move i- move item 1 and 2, but to receive the conceptual design, not necessarily endorse it. Okay. Yeah. It's the only change. Councilor Koest? So, so this comes back, um, during the next budget process, and then we can decide on which designs that we're in favor of? It's kind of the intent here, yes. Yeah. So rather than try to pick one today or, or get too far into that, that the, the, we would see the, the d- detailed design, cost, and then determine, uh, the design to proceed at that time. Okay, thank you. We'll let the next Council, uh, do that. So with that, I'll call the question on E2, uh, moved as amended.That carries unanimously. Okay, so this one, I'm just gonna take some time with this one, maybe where we can just bear with me a little bit, uh... Councillor Pratt does have a conflict item in here that we're gonna try to address through slightly modified process. So we have three resolutions. I'd like to move number one. Council, uh, separately, the Council approves total payment of 67,193 that's detailed in attachment A. Is there a second to that? Seconded by Councillor Wren. Is there any questions or discussion on that funding in attachment A? Seeing none, I'll call the question. That carries unanimously. Then I'd like to move the Council approve a... number three. The Council will approve a $5,000 increase to the annual grant awarded to the Langley Seniors Resource Society effective with the 2026 grant allocation. Seconder? That's seconded by Councillor Bailey. Is there any questions or discussion on number three? If not, I'll call the question on that. That carries unanimously. And I'd like to move, uh... go here. The Council approved the total payment, this is gonna be two changes here, total payment of 267,100 in the 2026 community grants as detailed in attachments B to I of this report excluding C08 and C18. Seconder to that? Seconded by Councillor Ferguson. Yeah, Councillor Martins. Um, sorry, if you could just slow that down. Um, so we're, uh... we're approving, you said 267,100. Has... that amount has been reduced? Yeah, so that's been reduced by the grant amounts, uh, totaling C08 and C18, which are excluded from the resolution. C08 which is... Uh, can you just speak to what the items are? I'll look it up, yeah. Yeah, I'll look it up. C08 and C18 are detailed on page seven. C08 is Big Brothers/Big Sisters and C18 is Langley Community Farmers Market. Okay, um, so if we are accepting this, are we still potentially looking at adding other grants that might not be in this list? Yeah, I have other... We have... W- we're gonna get through the process. The intent is to fund those too, but allow Councillor Pratt to declare a conflict on that. Yeah, no, and I, I appre- I appreciate that. I'm just wondering, will there be opportunities for us to raise other ones that might not relate to this conflict? Yes, so now would be the time, now that this is on the floor- Okay. ... if you have other changes you'd like to make, which I also have one as well under attachment B to I, now would be the time. Okay. Okay, so... All right. Can I... Oh, can I go ahead with mine? Yeah, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Um, I ju-... on, um, page nine of the report, C44, um, Volunteer, uh, Cancer Driver Society. Um, it's unfunded, uh, r- request for 2,500, um, does not meet the policy requirements and it s-... as it serves 103 township residents, where a minimum of 250 is required. Um, I did reach out to, uh, Mr. Cooner for some more details on this one, um, to practically how it, um, actually looks and he did respond, but I would appreciate if perhaps, um- Could you just repeat the unfunded number again, please? Oh, sorry. Um, the... it's... uh, so it's C44 is the, the item and then- Oh. ... in the l- the list underneath it's number 13. Yeah, underst- uh, I get that. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Mr. Cooner? Uh, yes, uh, through your worship to Councillor Martins, the item you mentioned as C44, uh, is the Volunteer Cancer Driver Society. Uh, that currently does not, uh, meet the, um, application criteria, uh, specifically for community gran- grants. And, and the reason for that is that, uh, i- it does not serve at least 250 residents within the Township of Langley. Um, however, uh, the application, uh, from the Volunteer Cancer Driver Society, uh, states that they, uh, do have a significantly higher level of service overall. Um, they do project to have, uh, over 1,700 trips to these residents on average, um, and there's multiple trips. Um, the organization does provide a free volunteer-based transportation for the cancer patients. Uh, and majority of the travel is outside of the township of Langley as only a small percentage do actually attend, uh, Langley Memorial Hospital. Thank you for that. Um, and I noticed that we did fund this last year. Um, so I'm not sure if perhaps the resident number has decreased, but I think this is a very, um, large resource for our community and especially thinking about the, um, fuel prices s- they are these days, um, for these volunteers to be helping out. Um, I would like to, um, move that it be added back in, um, as a funded item. And, um, if there... that causes a shortfall in the budget, um, that it, um... the shortfall be made up with council contingency. All right, I'll second that. So I think, uh, I'll track the unfunded portion, and we'll deal with that at the end. If there is a (inaudible) each time, I'll total it up and we'll do one resolution to fund the deficit or the shortfall. Okay. Um, so with that I, uh, I certainly agree. It was done last year. I think it'd be appropriate maybe to look again if, uh, the next council wants to make some changes so that we're not having to do this every year for some- Yeah. ... of these that council supports. I certainly support, uh, refunding this again this year as well. Councillor Bailey, go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to support this because, uh, people going through cancer, uh, treatment have a tough enough time without worrying about, uh, how much cost it, uh, uh, it's gonna b- and, uh, if they're gonna be able to get... uh, uh, get people there. Some people with cancer are living by themselves and, uh, this kind of, uh, driving ability is vital to them.So then I'll call the question on that addition, that amendment. Just curious because how come you voted on ... at with the other two. There, there's somebody talk... So, uh, go ahead, Councilor Pratt, uh, no... I'm just curious because we haven't actually dealt with the issue of removing the other two. Oh, we did. So- Fine ... the other two, Ms. Bauer, maybe you could clarify that for us. Uh, yes, the mayor did actually move the motion without those two, so we're now voting on the motion that did not include those two. After we complete the any amendments to this motion and complete this motion, we'll then go back to the, the first two that we moved, moved that we- So I moved it with those two excluded- Understood. ... which negates the need for an amendment. Thank you. So with that, I'm gonna call the... Council's just gonna call the question on the amendment for C44. That carries unanimously. I have two amendments as well, the council fund B03 and B04, and those are outlined on page six. For an additional 2,000, is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Is there any discussion on the addition of B03 and B04? So Councilor Kunzt. Uh, it looks like they're already funded, so you're asking for them to have more money. Is that where you're... That, that's what I heard? So those do not meet the criteria. Believe that they're both because it's one grant per association, which continues to have them outside the defined criteria, but, uh, I would like to add these in. Oh, sorry, did you just say C... B03- Oh, E, sorry. ... and B04. Okay, sorry, I thought you said E or C. Councilor Ku- Richter. Yeah, um, same question as Marg's re... Or Councilor Margaret Kunzt's question. So the Aldergrove Community Association is getting a grant. We're gonna increase it by a thousand bucks, and we're also doing the same thing with the Langley Arts Council grant, increasing it by $1,000? Mr. Ker, maybe you could go over it. Yeah. Through your Worship, through Councilor Richter, um, items referenced as B3, B4, B3 is Aldergrove Community Association, B4 is Langley Arts Council. Currently, they don't meet the defined criteria as there's only, um, one community association in the seven defined communities. Uh, and the ones that have met it are Fort Langley Community Associations and Langley Meadows Community Association. However, uh, Council discretion is, uh, Council does have the discretion to fund these items, and both these organizations were funded in 2024 and 2025. Okay, so instead of removing them this year, we're leaving them in. Is that the effect? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richter, my understanding was I don't believe they met the criteria in 2024 or 2025, but Council did fund them in both years. Okay, thank you. Councilor Martins? Yeah, um, uh, a question, if I can, uh, through the Chair to staff. Um, so I, I do notice some organizations, uh, you know, have applied under multiple, um, categories for slightly different purposes, I suppose. Um, and in this case, I'm looking at the Langley Arts Council, and I, you know, I can see they've also applied for a specific event, the Annual Youth Exi- Exhibition under the next category. That's great. Um, but when we go back to the list of standing grants, uh, they, they're the highest recipient at $125,000. Um, so how is this 1,000 application under the Community Association Grant different than the 125,000 we're already, um, giving them? Yeah. Mr. Ker? One is an operating allocation, and this one's through the grant program, I think. Y- th- uh, that's correct, as, uh, your Worship has highlighted, uh, that one is a standing, um, standing g- grant that is distributed annually as for their operating, and then, uh, s- and then certain categories depending on what they are, like capital improvement grants or community grants general, are separate categories. So specifically for this one, it's a capital, capital item, uh, being requested, uh, under the capital, uh, uh, capital improvement grants. Okay, thank you, so operating versus capital. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Since there's no discussion, I'll call the question on B3 and B4. That carries unanimously, so I'm gonna call, if there's any other discussion or changes, call the question on that, if not. All right, so I'll call the question on the second one as amended. Go ahead, Councilor Kluepfer. We passed one motion on 67,193. We passed another motion on, uh, 20,000. So this is the third motion. Yes, that's what I said. Even though in our agenda it was technically the second motion- That's what I said. ... but it's now been amended f- three times. That's what I said, the second motion as amended. Well- We just done the second motion. 272. Okay. All right, thank you. You could vote, please. That carries unanimously. So I'm gonna move, and then we'll go to Councilor Pratt. I'm gonna move that Council fund C08 and C18.So a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Councilor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. Just based on legal advice, I'm declaring a indirect pecuniary interest arising from being a board member of the two organizations. All right. Thank you. Is there any discussion on those two? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Someone, someone, who pressed Councilor Pratt? Right, that carries with Councilor Pratt absent. So, um, Mr. Cooner, I have the shortfall totaled up to be 2,658. You want to verify that before I move to fund that? Uh, Your Worship, did you state 2,658 or 2,168? I, it's, uh, 2,658, which would be, uh, 2,500 plus 168. And I may have that wrong, so if you could just double check. I've been trying to chair and total it up at the same time. You want to verify that for me, please? I, I believe there was a surplus of 1,832. Yes, I believe that was consumed mostly by B03 and B04. And, but I don't... You want to... You just tell me what the amount is, and then I'll move it. It's... We do have 2,668. 68. Yes, 68, correct. So I'll move that the shortfall of 2,668 be funded with council contingency, seconded by Councilor Rand. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, I'll call the question on that. That carries with Councilor Pratt absent. If we could get Councilor Pratt back, please. All right, item E4, development permit application number 101479. We'll just do, do discussion first. I presume Councilor Rickard is next. Yes, I'd like to move, uh, option B, please, that Council not issue development permit number 101479. Is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Whitmarsh. Yeah, go ahead, Councilor Rickard. Uh, yes. So the staff report is quite clear that the proposal does not align with the objectives and provisions of Schedule 3, St- Streamside Protection and Enhancement of Langley's Official Community Plan. The proposed setback is inconsistent with approved setbacks to the east and the west of the site in the same water course. And number three, that the developable area available on the site, um, to accommodate the proposed mobile home, that there is developable area available on the site to accommodate the proposed mobile home and septic tank without reducing the setback from the water course. I don't support, um, any change to the setback on a red-coded stream. Councilor Whitmarsh? Yeah, just a, uh, question, uh, through to, uh, staff. Um, I was just wondering about the, the developable portion of the land if the setbacks stay as indicated in the report. Um, we, we had a delegation that spoke to it today. I'm just wondering what, uh, response from staff on the size of the developable area if we maintain the 30-meter setback, um, a- as written in the report. Through Your Worship, Councilor Whitmarsh. As, as noted in the report, um, with a 30-meter setback, there'd be 654 square meters or 7,000 square feet of developable area outside the 30 meters. So based on the information provided by the proponent to date, uh, staff note that, uh, that can be accommodated within that area. Okay. And a second question I had is I read through the report, and I'm not sure if I understood it properly or not, but it seemed to suggest that there could be the possibility of, of, um, moving to a 25-meter setback. There was... Seemed to be some flexibility there. Is that... Is that a correct reading of the report or not? Uh, through Your Worship, Councilor Whitmarsh, yes, that's correct. So our Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area have provisions there which indicate a 30-meter setback from, say, the subject red-coded water course, but understanding that there may be some variability in that. There's what we call a flex provision within that, that would allow a flex down to, say, 25 meters if habitat was compensated another area on the site to make up for that difference. So it provides for the flexibility within the, uh, within the enhancement area program, Your Worship. Okay, so that, that... If we were to do that, that would in- increase the developable land space, uh, from the 650 square meters. In general terms, correct, depending on where the compensation would occur to make up for the other, the five-meter reduction, Your Worship. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on not issuing. Uh, item C2, which is, um, application C02-01-4019-001, is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Whitmarsh. Go ahead, Councilor Bradshaw. Uh, yes. So the staff report is quite clear that the proposal does not align with the objectives and provisions of Schedule 3, St- Streamside Protection and Enhancement of Langley's Official Community Plan. The proposed setback is inconsistent with approved setbacks to the east and the west of the site in the same water course. And number three, that the developable area available on the site, um, to accommodate the proposed mobile home, that there is developable area available on the site to accommodate the proposed mobile home and septic tank without reducing the setback from the water course. I don't support, um, any change to the setback on a red-coded stream. Councilor Whitmarsh? Yeah, just a, uh, question, uh, through to, uh, staff. Um, I was just wondering about the, the developable portion of the land if the setbacks stay as indicated in the report. Um, we, we had a delegation that spoke to it today. I'm just wondering what, uh, response from staff on the size of the developable area if we maintain the 30-meter setback, um, a- as written in the report. Uh, through Your Worship, Councilor Whitmarsh, uh, as, as noted in the report, um, with a 30-meter setback, there'd be 654 square meters or 7,000 square feet of developable area outside the 30 meters. So based on the information provided by the proponent today, uh, staff note that, uh, that can be accommodated within that area. Okay. And a second question I had is I read through the report, and I'm not sure if I understood it properly or not, but it seemed to suggest that there could be the possibility of, of, um, moving to a 25-meter setback. There was... Seemed to be some flexibility there. Is that... Is that a correct reading of the report or not? Uh, through Your Worship, Councilor Whitmarsh, yes, that's correct. So our Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area have provisions there which indicate a 30-meter setback from, say, the subject red-coded water course. But understanding that there may be some variability in that. There's what we call a flex provision within that, that would allow a flex down to, say, 25 meters if Habitat was compensated another area on the site to make up for that difference. So it provides for the flexibility within the, uh, within the enhancement area program, Your Worship. Okay, so that, that... If we were to do that, that would in- increase the developable land space, uh, from the 650 square meters. In general terms, correct, depending on where the compensation would occur to make up for the other, the five-meter reduction, Your Worship. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on not issuing. Uh, item C3, which is, um, application C02-01-4006-001, is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Whitmarsh. Go ahead, Councilor Bradshaw. Uh, yes. So the staff report is quite clear that the proposal does not align with the objectives and provisions of Schedule 3, St- Streamside Protection and Enhancement of Langley's Official Community Plan. The proposed setback is inconsistent with approved setbacks to the east and the west of the site in the same water course. And number three, that the developable area available on the site, um, to accommodate the proposed mobile home, that there is developable area available on the site to accommodate the proposed mobile home and septic tank without reducing the setback from the water course. I don't support, um, any change to the setback on a red-coded stream. Councilor Whitmarsh? Yeah, just a, uh, question, uh, through to, uh, staff. Um, I was just wondering about the, the developable portion of the land if the setbacks stay as indicated in the report. Um, we, we had a delegation that spoke to it today. I'm just wondering what, uh, response from staff on the size of the developable area if we maintain the 30-meter setback, um, a- as written in the report. Through Your Worship, Councilor Whitmarsh, as, as noted in the report, um, with a 30-meter setback, there'd be 654 square meters or 7,000 square feet of developable area outside the 30 meters. So based on the information provided by the proponent today, uh, staff note that, uh, that can be accommodated within that area. Okay. And a second question I had is I read through the report, and I'm not sure if I understood it properly or not, but it seemed to suggest that there could be the possibility of, of, um, moving to a 25-meter setback. There was... Seemed to be some flexibility there. Is that... Is that a correct reading of the report or not? Uh, through Your Worship, Councilor Whitmarsh, yes, that's correct. So our Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area have provisions there which indicate a 30-meter setback from, say, the subject red-coded water course. But understanding that there may be some variability in that. There's what we call a flex provision within that, that would allow a flex down to, say, 25 meters if Habitat was compensated another area on the site to make up for that difference. So it provides for the flexibility within the, uh, within the enhancement area program, Your Worship. Okay, so that, that... If we were to do that, that would in- increase the developable land space, uh, from the 650 square meters. In general terms, correct, depending on where the compensation would occur to make up for the other, the five-meter reduction, Your Worship. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on not issuing. Uh, item C4, which is, um, application C02-01-4007-001, is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Whitmarsh. Go ahead, Councilor Bradshaw. Uh, yes, so the staff report is quite clear that the proposal does not align with the objectives and provisions of Schedule 3, St- Streamside Protection and Enhancement of Langley's Official Community Plan. The proposed setback is inconsistent with approved setbacks to the east and the west of the site in the same water course. And number three, that the developable area available on the site, um, to accommodate the proposed mobile home, that there is developable area available on the site to accommodate the proposed mobile home and septic tank without reducing the setback from the water course.Carries unanimously. Item E five, development permit application number 101317. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Bailey. Is there any discussion on E5? Do not ... Call the question on E5. That carries unanimously. We move on item G2. Gonna do a little bit of a ... Again, moving it as amended here. Gonna move that council give first and second reading to tenant protection bylaw 6214. Council give first and second reading to bylaw ... Notice enforcement bylaw number 6215. Council give first and second reading to bylaw number 6216, and that council authorize staff to schedule the required public hearing for bylaw 6216 and simultaneously schedule public input opportunities for bylaw 6214 and 6215. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Any discussion on G2? Councilor Ricker. Yeah, I'd just like to know, um, wha- what the date of the public hearing will be 'cause pretty sure the public, uh, would appreciate having the opportunity to have input. Mr. Clerk, May 11th or subsequently after? Through your Worship, uh, it's May 11th or the subsequent meeting May 25th, just for scheduling purposes, uh, if there's any, uh, coordination required. Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor Martins? Yeah, uh, thank you. I, I support this motion or this change, um ... I, I, I would like to hear from the public on, on this and, um, appreciate that we're now looking at a bylaw rather than a pol- policy, and it's all headed in the right direction, and, uh, wanna make sure we do it right. So thank you for this. All right. Any other discussion on G2 moved as amended? Seeing none, we'll call the question. That carries unanimously. Item G3-2026, Langley annual rates and tax collection bylaw for universal services bylaw number 6213. Moved by Councilor Rent, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Any discussion on G3? Councilor Whitmarsh. T- thank you. Um, yeah, I, I, um, I certainly, um ... I guess would just start by recognizing the importance of, um, maintaining our, our fee structure and, uh, having our ... an, an understanding there's going to be a, every year a, a discussion around tax rates and so on. And, um, and so this current (clears throat) outlines a tax increase of 3.97%, um, total, which, um, when we calculate it out to the average household was $108, uh, to the average household. And, um, certainly, um, my question is not about procedure. It's just I guess I have questions around the understanding for the public to recognize and know what their annual cost increases will be. Um, we have today, uh, discu- the final, uh, discussion around tax increase. We also have, um, uh, fees and charges bylaw that is coming, uh, into this, into today's, uh, meeting. Uh, we have utilities decisions that have already been made, and so those are three areas that result in increased, um, fees and costs to our, um, residents. And so I'm wondering if there is a, uh, cumulate- a cumulative, uh, statement about the increased cost between those areas of utilities, um, uh, our tax rates, our fees and charges that would make it easy for people to understand what they would ex- could expect for the average household increase across the three. Um, we're deciding two of them today. We did utilities, uh, uh, a number of meetings ago, but I'm wondering if there's a way that we could summarize that, um, for the public so they would have a good understanding of the total cost increase for them from one year to the next. I think it's u- understood that there would be increases to cost, that things get more expensive from one year to the next, but to summarize that in a simple way would be helpful. And so I didn't know if maybe staff had a, um, uh, uh, could summarize that in what that would be for the average household across all of our different increases, um, that we've approved, uh, over the last number of meetings with, with the council Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, um, it would be a bit, uh, difficult to, uh, provide council with that information, just due to the fact that, uh, the, um, annual rates and tax collection bylaw that's before council, the ... We're able to provide, uh, the public with information on the household impact for an average, uh, assessment f- uh, for 2026 and what the increase is, so that's $108.15. That's the household impact. However, fees and charges are a service-based item, so we- we're not able to articulate whether residents actually use some of the services that we provide f- for example, whether they're actually, uh, renting MacLeod Athletic Park or they're, um, uh, any swimming lesson fees, et cetera, et cetera. So that's user-based fees. Uh, and then with respect to utilities, we would need to know whether they're on the volunteer water metering program or not a- and whether, if their utilities are based on flat fees or usage-based as well. So it, there would be a substantial, um, variance of trying to establish what an average cost would be depending on what services they use or, um, specifically utilities as well.Okay. I- I- I- I mean, I appreciate, um, you know, with the fees and charges that they are very much user dependent, but, um, I think maybe utilities would be a little bit easier to do. Everybody does use utilities. I know some are on flat rate and some aren't, but it might be helpful to consider that at least in, uh, eh, for the future. Um, a second question I have is I noticed in the report, um, that it talks about, um, the Metro, uh, Vancouver Regional District levy being reduced by 10.9%, which is, uh, almost $700,000, uh, decrease. I'm wondering what- what- what drives that reduction and what does it mean for taxpayers, um, or ratepayers? Sorry, ratepayers who pay both the township levy and the MVRD levy. Uh, does this get passed back to those people? Um, is it absorbed somewhere else, uh, in- in our, um, somewhere else in the regional rate structures or how- how does that work when there's a sort of a- a reduct- a levy reduction? Do the residents see that or benefit from that? Uh, this is a levy that comes straight from Metro Vancouver and we collect it on their behalf and we pass it back to them. So it doesn't... It- it reduces what they have to pay. I see. But we pass it straight through to them. There's- Straight through to AM- MVRD? Yes, correct. Okay. So- so then, so the residents, uh, see a decrease in what they have to pay, but it doesn't show up on their bill or does it... How do- how do they notice that or how do they see that now they've paid less? We collect other taxes on behalf of other taxing authorities and so those are separated on their bill. So it's clear what that portion is on their bill. Okay, so they will see a 10.9% reduction in that particular- In that particular category. ... levy. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Martins? Thank you. Um, I, just a follow-up question, um, through the chair and staff. Um, a question that was already asked about trying to establish what the, um, overall, like, the average household, um, impact is. Um, and right now we're just, um, looking at the property taxes. Um, and I understand there is some variables here, uh, with regards to water, uh, 'cause some are flat rates, some are metered. Um, do we n- have a percentage of how many households, um, have transitioned to metered water generally speaking? Like is it, um, 50/50 at this point or...? Uh, through your worship to Council Martins, we would have to get back to council on- on that specific information. I don't have that information handy. And I, and also there is, uh, several property owners that are not on utilities at all. Uh, some farms as well. Mm-hmm. Uh, so that needs to be taken into consideration as well. Fair. Yeah, um, no, thank you. I appreciate that explanation. Um, it- it would be nice if, um, at one point, um, council could get an update on perhaps where we're at with that program, on the rollout. Um, yeah, that's all. And I- I can do that as a separate, um, motion at the end of the meeting if you'd prefer, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, it's not really specific- Yeah. ... to this tax collection bylaw, so if you wish to raise it under other business. Thank you. Councilor Richter? Um, yes, I had a question over the weekend that perhaps Mr. Crooner can help me with. Um, a resident in the township in the Coghlan area who bought a property five years ago does not have garbage, the garbage utility and wants to get the garbage utility. How can they opt into the garbage utility? Thank you. Through your worship, um, members of the community can make a request to staff to review the garbage area and see if that they can opt in, um, depending on where the area is and the routing of the trucks. Okay, so they need to make a formal request to township staff to be considered for inclusion. Is that- Correct. ... what I'm hearing? Okay, thank you. All right. Call the question on G3. Uh, carries with Councilor Richter opposed, bylaws for final adoption. I1, Official Community Plan Amendment rezoning application number 10086, bylaw number 54095410. Anybody wish to move that? Moved, I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Councilor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, your worship. Uh, just a question through yourself to staff. Out of pure curiosity, eight years after the public hearing on this, I'm just curious, what was the process like to get this from public hearing to final today and is- is there any (laughs)... Just curious why eight years, um, the realignment but- There's a multiplicity on this one, uh, through your worship, Councilor Pratt. There was an initiative of the 48th, uh, Avenue, uh, realignment. There was regional growth strategy implications, ALR input for exclusion implications and, uh, the land component with the owners. So there's a multiplicity there, your worship. Okay. Yeah, thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, call the question on I1. That carries unanimously. I2-2026 Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw, bylaw number s- Mr. Mayor, I need to declare 6205. Yeah, 6205. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Rint- Councilor Richter, go ahead. I have a conflict of interest for pecuniary reasons on this one. Okay.Any discussion or questions? Seeing none, I'll call the question on I2. That carries, Councilor Richter absent. If we could get Council Richter back, please. All right, I3, small-scale multi-unit housing development permit area, bylaw number 6116/6117. Moved by Councilor Rent, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Any discussion? Councilor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, uh, appreciate the work that staff undertook to get this to, to this point, and appreciate the advocacy from community groups with, uh, their recommendations and their ideas. And I look forward to, over the years, tweaking this here and there when the opportunity arises. But, uh, excited to see the, at least the first main step coming today with final adoption. Councilor Richter? Um, yes, I'm prepared to support this final reading of both bylaws, and I want to acknowledge that staff confirmed at third reading that the three-councilor recall is an option and a mechanism open for individual permits, uh, uh, within S-S-M-U-H development areas, as well as the heritage conservation guidelines. Uh, I did want to ask, though, if there is a planned review cycle once the S-S-M-U-H developments begin coming forward under these guidelines. Can staff please confirm tonight when council can expect a first look at how the guidelines are performing in action, and whether we're gonna be having, say, a 12 or 24 months' review, depending on application volume? Your Worship, to Councilor Richter, I believe staff had indicated that once, uh, we do have the SMUH development permit area established, we would provide, um, a- an annual update on whether, uh, there's any additional, um, changes or r- requirements that need to be implemented, um, at that time, uh, based on volume, intake, or whether further staffing resource is required. So, we would do an annual, uh, update via a memo to council. Okay, so it'll be a 12-months review. That's great. Thank you very much. Councilor Kirste? Yeah, I echo that support. Uh, the f- provincial framework gave us the obligation, and this council has now built the local form and character framework that responds to it. Uh, the work is not finished. We will need to see how these guidelines perform on the ground, but tonight's final adoption is the right next step. And I'm not, um, anticipating living with my four children in a SMUH, but, um, now it's possible. Thank you. Seeing no ques- discussion, I'll call the question on I3. That carries unanimous- unanimously. Does anybody wish to make a mayor and council report? Whoops. The system got that wrong. Councilor Marks, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, um, I, I'm sure everybody's got lots to say. It's the, uh, season of events going on around our community as the sun comes out and warms up, so I just wanna highlight a couple. Uh, one was the, uh, Clean Up Langley Day. Uh, 300-plus volunteers, um, across 23 clean-up events, 680 kilograms of litter collected, um, from streets, parks, trails, and creeks. Um, excellent work. Um, I, I was fortunate to participate in, um, a street clean-up, uh, in North Langley, uh, near Fort Langley. And, um, it's a great event for volunteers and for our community, and I, I just really want to applaud all the people that got involved in this. So, it was awesome. And the second one I wanted to mention is, um, this past weekend, up at the school district parking lot, um, there was a Canucks Autism Network, um, Bottle Drive. And it was, uh, well-supported by our first responders, um, representation from the Langley RCMP and also from the township firefighters. Um, which is, um, always wonderful to have their support, and a, a lot of good energy and a lot of people showing up. And, uh, I, I hope that the, um, Autism Network was able to, uh, uh, collect a, uh, good proceeds from that. So, I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. Councilor Whitmarsh? Yeah, thank you. Um, just a couple of things. Um, certainly, um, maybe others will mention as well, but, uh, it was great to be there with all of council at the Patcall, uh, Firefighters Appreciation Dinner. Uh, just a special shout-out to my neighbor, uh, Matt Gillum, who got, received the 25-year, um, honor for that. So, I was really appreciative of that. And, uh, this weekend was the, uh, graduation at Trinity Western. Um, over 1,000 students graduated this weekend, many of them Langley residents, and so it was a great weekend and a great time to celebrate here in the community. So, thank you.Counselor Gutz. Yeah, uh, shout-out to Alicia Paul from LSS. Um, I think a number of us were invited to go to the rugby sevens, uh, tournament held at LSS, so, um, a really cool event that, um, you know, we got, we got to attend. Um, also wanted to thank the staff for another, um, amazing day at Community Arbor- Arbor Day and identifying, um, members in our community that have significantly made contributions as well as, uh, to the pioneers, so it's always a nice day to, you know, uh, hang out with the families of, of, of the loved ones that, um, got to plant trees and, um, also wanted to echo, um, my appreciation for, um, our firefighter... Our f- paid on-call firefighters and, uh, the volunteer dinner that I attended on Saturday night. That's all for me, thanks. Councilor Frison. Yeah, thank you. And I, I... There's been a, I guess, a very busy weekend. Um, there's been a lot of... I think we were at the Yapi-on with South Korean folks, and I remember it's a memorial, 75 years of the Korean War. And, um, myself and a few others on council remember when they brought that stone to, to Derek Doubleday Park, and it's a, it's a well-received thing from the Korean people. Uh, clean-up day, or as Councilor Martin just indicated, the fact that, uh, we had... I, we... I was at three events that day. We collected an awful lot of garbage. I went around with garbage bags and pick-up machine to pick up things. Uh, one at South Langley Church and one at the Brookswood Church, and then I got in the car headed off to Aldergrove to, to talk to the folks there in Aldergrove at, um, the, uh, the Philip Jackman Park and they were there and it was a beautiful day and a lot of things were picked up and, uh, I always like it when people are out taking responsibility for the community. Um, again, I... The Arbor Day, the memorial tree planting, it's always been a very, very special day for myself and our family because, uh, some of our friends and some of our neighbors and some of the people involved in the community, for example, Alice Johnson, who's a freeman of the community, we had an honorary tree for her and the families. And it's, i- as much as it, it's a, a great day for, for folk to come out, it's also a very serious day having a loved one pass away. And, uh, a, a number of years ago we had two people from a hockey team that died at 19 years of age, and it was a very sad day. We planted trees for them, but it's, it's not easy. But it does, um, it is good, uh, tree memorial planting. Um, the firefighters event, I was there as well, my wife and I, and, uh, I'm... The last time I'm gonna say this, um, we had a fire in our home three years ago and many of the people in that room came up to me, "Are you back in your home?" And I appreciated all the things that the fire department did in helping us, uh, put out the fire. And, uh, also, um, an important, a very important me- meeting we had last week, uh, Councilor Bailey was there as well, it was the school district and it's an excellent, um, meeting because we were talking about the new, uh, secondary, senior secondary school and middle school that's coming out in, in the Willoughby area and it's, uh, gonna be serving some 300 students. Uh, this is just absolutely fantastic and it's, um... I'm not sure exactly how many acres it is, uh, between what we have, what the school district has, what the roads have, but I believe it's over 45 acres of land that, uh, was assembled for that purpose. Uh, very, very exciting. I think that I keep saying to other people in the province, this is one of the largest, uh, commitments, uh, that provincial government has made for many years and, um, a very, very good event we talked about with the school district. And then we also had the Council of Councils on Saturday and if you don't see it in front of you, I've put a card and on the card has the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant and the other side of the card is the Metro Vancouver Board, uh, Government's review and you just look at the... It's a scan and you can find out as much or as little information as you want about that. That's my report. Thank you Councilor Richter? Um, yes, I too enjoyed very much having the opportunity to attend the paid call annual firefighter appreciation dinner and, of course, this is one that I've had many years to, to be able to participate in and I have a huge appreciation and value and respect for the paid call volunteers that we have working on fire service in our community. Uh, what was really exciting about this particular event this year was that there were 14 new recruits, um, several of whom in- including the eldest son of one of our own councilors here, Councilor Martin's son, has volunteered to become a paid call firefighter and those young people, of course, represent a very strong path forward for us in this community as well as a very proud tradition for us having both career as well as paid call. The other thing I wanted to report on is on, um, April 18th, I attended the Salmon Allocation Policy Town Hall that was hosted by the BC Federation of Wildlife as well as the BC Sports Fishing Industry. And fascinating, I mean, it was really, really well done and extremely informative but this Salmon Allocation Policy is something that has been-In existence in Canada since the, well, since 2000 anyway. Hasn't been reviewed since then. So on December 5th, 2025, the policy was sent out across Canada, and particularly on the coastal communities like BC, uh, for input. Uh, what is being proposed in the revised policy has three major concerns in it that need to be addressed. Number one is removal of the phrase "common property." And it is that phrase, common property, that gives all of us the right to fish. Not only that, but the, uh, sports fishermen in particular, they give a lot back to our communities. And we've seen it in Langley with regards to all the work that's done on conservation. Uh, certainly in rehabilitation of salmon-bearing streams as well as restocking of salmon-bearing streams. So it's really important that we all put our voices together to make it quite clear, do not remove that clause on common property. It's important to a lot of people and a lot of children going forward. Second thing is there's talk now of implementing some sort of a quota system or shares or cap approach, which, uh, right now the sports fishermen get a very, very small percent of that. Most of it goes to the commercial, um, the commercial fisheries. Uh, a- any reduction of the cap that is allowed for sports fishing is going to affect that common property principle. The third thing is they're talking now about taking Chinook and coho species, uh, which have been a priority out, and that really shouldn't be done, particularly here in BC. So I'd like to add my voice, and I think I will probably put together a motion for council to consider at the next meeting with regards to us sending a letter to the, um, undersecretary of the, uh, Department of Fisheries minister, and that's, uh, Mr. Klassen in White Rock. As well as I think we should be sending letters to our ML- our MPs, uh, in Langley as well saying, uh, please ensure that the concerns of the sports fishing group as well as the protection of common rights for fishing remain in place in Canada. And that's all I have to report today. Thank you. Councilor Bailey. Yeah, uh, I'd like to report, uh, on the cleanup day. Uh, it turned into a, uh, a, a better event for myself personally. We were on the Yorkson Creek Trail. I was with a, uh, mother and her, uh, grade one son. And we were lucky enough not only to pick up so much garbage that we had to, uh, get it picked up halfway through and then picked up at the end, but we also were lucky enough to have a, uh, a educational aspect. We saw trillium. And trillium flowers are very rare to find, and let alone we found a purple trillium. And, uh, the young guy once we pointed that out, uh, how lucky it was, and then a more practical, uh, point, uh, was, uh, we, he learned what a stinging nettle was. Not in the bad way. Uh, he didn't, uh, touch it. I even showed him how to pick them up without being stung. So that was a lot of fun, uh, doing it with that little fellow, and then we linked up with another mother and, uh, a father and his daughter and, uh, yeah, it was, it was a great event. Uh, also like to, uh, say, yeah, attending the, uh, paid call, uh, thing is always a little special for me because not only was I a career firefighter, I started my career actually as a paid call firefighter. And I recognized the fact that when one of them was given a 25-year, uh, medal, uh, that is a huge marker for firefighters and their commitment. Uh, also, um, for the, for the fourth year now, I had the honor of, uh, piping at the Gapyeong ceremony. And piping for veterans, especially fr- from that event, uh, is always special, especially when you have the opportunity to utilize war pipes, pipes that were actually used in war. And, um, these, these events are incredibly, um, important. I'm glad to see that every year that I've been at the Gapyeong, uh, and has gotten bigger and bigger and bigger and, uh, greater recognition. So, uh, yeah, uh, uh, that's all I have. All right. Does anybody wish to make a regional report? That was my regional report. Regional report. Okay. We move to items for information M1 through 7. Any questions or discussion? Councilor Richter? Um, yes. Sorry. Go ahead. Yes, I'd like to make a motion with regards to M2, that council, uh, request staff to issue the tree removal permit, uh, for, uh, I believe it's Mr. Langston. He, he's made a delegation to council last week or last meeting. Um, so to issue the permit with required replacement tree elsewhere on the property, on his property. That's my motion. Second. Seconded by Councilor Kunst. Yeah, go ahead.Yes. Um, I think that what, um, Mr. Langston has identified for us is a proactive approach. He's not really happy about having to remove a tree. Uh, he will replace that tree, but the tree is probably not in the best position for his water pipe in Brookswood. And I think that he's asked us a very... made a very reasonable request of us, and we should be, uh, granting that request, provided there are replacement tree or trees under the policy put in place. Thank you. Councilor Martins? Oh, oh sorry. Um, I have my, my, for another item. All right. Yeah. Any other discussion on tree removal? Seeing none, I'll call the question on that. That's defeated with Councilor Bailey, Councilor Perkins, and Councilor Pratt, Councilor Ramner and Woodward opposed. Councilor Katz, go ahead. Oh, so, uh, can we... I have an item as well for, um, for information. Go ahead. Okay. I just wanted to, um, thank staff for the report on the, um, cenotaph, uh, rehabilit- rehabilitation. Um, that the good news is that it looks like it's, it's doing okay, and I think there's gonna be a lot of, uh, people very happy about that. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you. Councilor Martins, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Um, I also wanted to speak to M4, um, with regards to the Fort Langley cenotaph, and I'm just wondering if perhaps, um, we could, um, add this to the Heritage Advisory Committee's agenda for information. Um, I know that we met there together with staff, and they had some input, and I'm sure they would appreciate this update as well. I think we can just take that under advisement, so we're gonna put that on the agenda. Yes, Your Worship. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion on any item M1 through 7? Okay, seeing none, is there any other business? Councilor Bailey? Nope. Councilor Martins, go ahead. Oh, thank you. Yes. Um, a- as I was, um, speaking to earlier in the meeting with regards to getting, perhaps getting an update from staff, um, on the water metering rollout. So, um, I make a motion that we, um, request a memo from staff on the rollout of the water metering, um, uh, and including a number of applications and number of installations to date. All right. I'll second that. Any discussion or concerns about that? Councilor Bailey, do you wish to speak to that? No, I... Okay. So who wishes to speak to that motion, please? And please uncheck your mic. Okay. Councilor Richter, you wish to speak to that? Uh, no. I was gonna speak to something. All right. So seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question from... request for that item for information. That carries unanimously. Any other business? Yep. Councilor Bailey, go ahead. Yeah, I'd just like to, um, uh, go back to, uh, uh, tomorrow, the Day of Mourning. Uh, a lot of people, you know, uh, they, they report now differently than they used to. WCB, uh, is reporting out on how many deaths they recognize, but it's not the actual number of workers that die to support the economy. And, uh, you know, we always hear about everyone else who, who supports the economy, but there's not enough recognition on how this economy will not and does not function without killing and injuring, uh, workers. An example of, of that is, uh, they now have 28 presumptive cancers, uh, for firefighters, which has been a, a battle that was started in the early '90s and was not recognized at first until 2005, and has continually improved on it. And, uh, including recently a private member's bill that, uh, that MLA Van Pot put through that will be the first step in starting to try to knock those numbers back, uh, by better screening and earlier detection. Uh, it is vital, uh, with a lot of the cancers, that, uh, the earlier you can get on them, the better. And I can attest to that personally. So I just want to make sure that everyone understands that this is not just about workers who are, are killed, uh, physically, okay? Uh, as odd as that might sound, but, uh, I mean, by, uh, by presumptive, um, occupational diseases and, and non-presumptive. And also, the damage that is done, uh, in the terms of, uh, mental health and other aspects of lingering, um, damage tha- that is, uh, done. And, and the workers of this province, um, deal with this every day, and it is not adequately recognized by Workers' Compensation. And, uh, I'd just like to make sure that everyone, uh, tomorrow, take some time. We have two ceremonies, one at the work shard at eight o'clock, and we have one here at the hall at 11 o'clock. Please take some time tomorrow to, uh, think about the contribution and the sacrifices that workers make in regards to, uh, making our economy actually work. Councilor Richter? Um, yes. I'd like to give notice of a motion that I will bring forward and submit to the clerk prior to the deadline for the May 11th meeting with regards to a letter of advocacy from this council to the honorable Undersecretary...Ernie Klassen and the MPs in Langley. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Barra, if you could bring up my, uh, motion regarding Aldergrove Athletic, please. I only received a motion regarding grants. I didn't receive another one. 'Kay, so I'm gonna read it out then and, uh, I'll ha- I'll just come and give it to you here in a second. Uh, the Council endorsed rebuilding an indoor training facility at Aldergrove Athletic Park to be relocated between the northwest and southwest ball diamonds. The Council authorized $100,000 from the Facilities Renewal Reserve for site investigation works, commencement of detailed design, and consultation with Aldergrove Minor Baseball and other applicable user groups for a new indoor training facility at Aldergrove Athletic Park. The Council directs staff to consult with Aldergrove Minor Baseball on the potential rental of an interim indoor training area for Council's future consideration if applicable. And that staff consider and present options to Council to rebuild the shaded seating area with options to repurpose or otherwise restore the damaged area adjacent to the northeast ball diamond. Second. Seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Um, I'll just, uh... That's correct. Go ahead. Yeah, no, thank you, Worship. I appreciate you bringing this forward. Obviously, it was a tragedy, uh, that, uh, that the ball diamond that, uh, was currently there, uh, was, was burnt down. And I just appreciate that, uh, we're dealing with this now, and also appreciate how much community support has come out to help either rehabilitate it, volunteer to pay for new equipment. Uh, it's one of those moments that makes you proud to be from Langley. Councilor Whitmar. Yes. Thank you, uh, uh, for bringing this forward. I appreciate that. Um, I just had a, a, a, a question. Um, with the first statement it says, "Rebuilding an indoor training facility." Um, I, I m- I don't know what it was all in, in that facility. I understand it was primarily a batting cage, and so I'm wondering if this is, um... I know you've got rebuilding. Is the intention to just to provide the batting cage back or is this something different since it's here called an indoor training facility? I believe they're requesting, uh, potentially to have it replaced and expanded. Uh, Mr. Kuhner, do you wanna address that? Or maybe Mr. Winslow can respond to that as well. Yes to Your Worship. To Councilor Whitmar, I believe, um, there is some indication of having, uh, a, a larger, um, uh, facility at the Aldergrove Athletic Park. So I w- we did provide a, a memo to Council and a distribution list on some of the history on the batting cage facilities that was constructed in the, uh, early 2000s, uh, 2010 and 2011, and, uh, indicated to Council on the fire itself and, uh, the status of it right now, and some of the options that, uh, I believe this motion's going to address, uh, to look at interim rental places as well. Okay. And, and this is, um, to confirm that this is, um, would be a separate facility from the, uh, washroom facility that has been discussed at previous Council meetings? Th- th- that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Kovacs, go ahead. Yeah. I'm really happy to see this. Um, there's so few batting cages around, um, and for this to ha- happened when it did, uh, it's a huge loss to the community, not just to Aldergrove but to... A lot of people come to the batting cage to, to use that. Um, so yeah, I'm happy to support, support this.Counsel Ferguson? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's certainly a tragic event. I guess I've had the opportunity to speak with the, uh, Alder Grove Baseball folk, and they're very appreciative. This didn't come from me, this come from them, that you took time out of, uh, just g- getting off the ferry from Victoria, from Victoria and driving there for an emergency meeting I understand they had. And you discussed, uh, uh, even though it was a tragedy, moving the... Moving forward in the future and making something very, very, uh, beneficial and, uh, modern. And if we can move forward this as fast as we can, I'm sure it can be a win-win for Langley after such a tragic event. So again, I want to compliment you for the work you've done, and I will support the motion. All right. Thank you. Counselor Bailey? Yeah, I just want to get clarification on the, uh, final vat and, uh, regarding the shaded seating area. Mm-hmm. Uh, that's the area that is added on the end, I believe, and that a lot of seniors use? Yeah. Yeah, I thank you very much for including that, because I know it is a very popular area for a lot of the seniors in the, uh, area to, to, uh, be able to get together and, um, and just meet. Counselor Richter? You know, I'm, I'm supporting this. I, I think it's a travesty that it happened, but things like this do happen. I just want to know, is 100,000 a high estimate or a medium estimate? Are we likely to run over the 100,000 in rebuilding this facility? Mr. Kunert, maybe you could confirm that this is just for the detailed design portion and site investigation commencement. Uh, that, that is correct, Your Worship. To Counselor Richter, the staff's, uh, reading of the motion is that the 100,000 specifically is only for site investigation works and commencement of detailed design, and that's a fair estimate to use, uh, with respect to design and invest- site investigation works. Okay, so how much did the first one cost to build? We don't have... Through Your Worship to Counselor Richter, uh, the first one was, I believe, constructed back in 2010 to 2011. Uh, it was a jointly-funded project, um, with Township of Langley and the Aldergrove Minor Baseball Association. And there were some upgrades done in 2022, but I may refer to Mr. Winsley with respect to specific cost, if he does have those handy. Uh, thank you, Mr. Kunert. Uh, not the exact cost, but, um, hundreds of thousands of dollars, uh, between two and 300. Uh, but not all those records are available. Okay. So, is 100,000 just for design a little on the high side then? Uh, you'll- 'Cause we've got designs, I guess, maybe from previous years. To Your Worship, to Counselor Richter, um, in the motion itself, we'd have to do some site investigation, detailed design, uh, and also the location of it. Uh, it's, it's to be relocated, um, and there's options, it looks like council's looking at, that might be larger, a larger indoor training facility than the one that was there historically. Oh, okay. All right, thank you very much. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on that item. That carries unanimously. Is there any other business? Seeing none, does anybody have any items for closed? (?). Uh, nope. Do you have any items for closed? For closed. For closed. For closed. Councilor Richter? I just have a, a point of clarification. Aren't we supposed to be dealing with G1 now Well, we're gonna deal with the resolution into closed and then we'll move on to G1. Does anybody have any items for closed? Okay, so I have a personnel item. All right, so we got a motion to resolve into closed as amended. Moved by Counselor Rent, seconded by Counselor Bailey. Call the question on that. All right, that carries unanimously. So item G1, I believe myself, Counselor Rent, and Counselor Bailey will be declaring a conflict of interest on this item. And I'll be turning it over to Acting Mayor Whitmarsh to handle that item. And, uh, Mayor, Acting Mayor Whitmarsh, if you could also take care of termination as well. All right, thank you. Okay, item G1. Uh, uh, Counselor Richter, you have a question? I, I have a question of clarification, I guess, to Mr. Kunert. Uh, if this is dealing with a lawsuit in the public realm right now, do I have a conflict of interest? Should I be excusing myself as well? Uh, through Your Worship to Counselor Richter, um, obviously we'd have to... As a council member, it's up to council members to declare the conflict. If there is an opportunity for you to seek advice, we would then have to... It's a separate process, but, um, it'd be up to the council member to determine and we... Okay, but I'm just saying, I find it odd that those three members of council are involved in the same defamation suit that I'm involved in and they've declared a conflict, so obviously they have legal advice.I never asked for legal advice on this one. Your Worship to Councilor Richter, then the options available to you is to either declare a conflict now, s- uh, seek legal advice, uh, or have the item, um, potentially deferred to a di- different date until legal advice is sought. Okay. Hmm. (sighs) I don't think I have a conflict of interest on it, but I haven't had legal advice on it. So for now, I won't declare a conflict of interest. I will wait until I get legal advice on it and declare it then as to whether it's a pecuniary, a direct or an indirect pecuniary conflict of interest. Through your worship to Councilor Richter, we'd have to look at that, whether historically once you've did the vote and there, if there is or not a conflict, um, the implications in that. Because right now, the vote would be taking place. So are you recommending that I declare a conflict? I'm sorry to put you on the spot, Mr. Kunert, but you're the only lawyer in the room. (laughs) Th- th- through your Worship to Councilor Richter, we would... It's up to council members to declare the conflict. If there's any indication of a conflict, then the safest measure is always to declare the conflict, um, a- a- a- out of an abundance of caution. Um, and that's an option available to you, or the item can be deferred until legal advice is sought, um, a- and that can be done as well. That's an option. Why don't we just... I have another speaker. Maybe we'll just... What do you think? Oh, C- Councilor Richter. Councilor Whitmarsh, the, the, it's, uh, your Worship, the, the other problem we have is, if a conflict is gonna be declared, it should be declared now, not during debate and discussion of the item. Councilor Richter. In an abundance of caution, I'm going to declare a conflict based on the fact that I'm involved in a lawsuit around defamation. I might be having that discharged, but I'm gonna need to talk to my lawyers. But for now, I'd rather be prudent, shall we say. So I too will pack up my stuff and leave. Speakers. Councilor Kunst. Um- Make the motion in favor Oh, yeah. Oh, sorry. Yes. You make the... I, I'll move the motion. Move for the motion. Second. Moved by, uh, Councilor Ferguson. Okay. So I guess my question would be to, um, to Mr. Kunert. Um, w- would, would it be prudent or would you have any advice on whether we should defer this until, um, furthermore, uh, like, further notice? (laughs) Or does it matter? Or... Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Kunst, that would be entirely up to council's purview. Uh, as right now, there's quorum. Okay. I guess we could just vote on it then. Is there any, any other, uh, speakers on this? All right, I'll call the question. Uh... And that is carried with, uh, Councilor, uh, Ferguson, Councilor Kunst, Councilor Martins, Councilor Whitmarsh, and Councilor Pratt in support. And then I, uh, move for termination. Do I have a motion? Termination. Do we have a seconder? All in favor? Carried. Thank you. Good job there. Good job, Clerk. (gavel bangs)