... I would like to welcome everybody to the Town of Oakville, Ontario's regular meeting of the Township Council held on Monday, June 15th, 2019. And before we get started, I just wanted to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Coach Saules peoples, and in particular, our valued relationships with the Ɣɓi̓əɑ̓ɑ̊ ƛᐦ and Semiahmoo First Nations. With that, can I get a motion to adopt today's agenda? Moved. Moved by Councilor Ferguson, seconded by Councilor Rent. Seeing no discussion, we'll call the question on A1. (paper rustles) That carries unanimously. May I get a motion to adopt the meeting minutes of May 25th? Moved. Moved by Councilor Rent, seconded by Councilor Bailey. I'll call the question on B1. (paper rustles) That carries unanimously. May I get a motion to adopt the public hearing meeting minutes of May 25th? Moved. Moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on B2. (paper rustles) That carries unanimously. We have a delegation today from Central Fraser Valley Search and Rescue Society. Yeah, please come forward. Thank you for coming here today. Thanks for giving us the presentation in advance and, uh, please go ahead. Thank you for having me. I appreciate that. Um, let's start off, my name is Vern Bauer, I'm with Central Fraser Valley Search and Rescue. I'm with a local, uh, search and rescue team, uh, who has jurisdiction in the areas of the township of Langley, as well as the City of Langley and the City of Abbotsford. Um, you may recall, I came, we reached out to council late last year 'cause the township fire department decided that, uh, they should, um, they dec- they decided they would rather pro- uh, cease funding the team, as we have been over the last couple of decades, last few decades. Um, and so we reached out to township and we asked for some, uh, some assistance and guidance. And I would like to thank all of you on behalf of Central Fraser Valley for agreeing to fund us for one more year. And I'm here to, uh, give that presentation that you guys requested in the report, give the report as a presentation that you requested, um, about our call-out, uh, history and, uh, our funding. Um, so we'll begin with that right off the bat here. Uh. Okay. So, oops, uh, so we're trained and authorized by, to provide search and rescue services in support of emergency, in support of emergency management and climate readiness in BC under the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. Our team members receive professional level training, mainly through the Emergency Management Division of the JIBC, and th- in order to safely and effectively provide the services that we've been tasked to do. Um, I assume everyone has a copy of this? Yes. Perfect. Okay. Um, so what we are, we're a fully self-sufficient mobile emergency response organization with a team of 30+ pr- professionally trained members. We work in coordination with police, fire, BCHS, the coroner, and other governmental agencies. We're available 24/7, 365, of course. And we're capable of handling multiple simultaneous events. And with that, we have the ability to bring in the entire range of the provincial search and rescue system, all the resources. We can call in any and all of the teams in the province to s- give us assistance, and to do so seamlessly at any time should the need arise. What we do is we augment emergency service providers, and we provide specialized services that they may not have. Uh, we assist in disaster warnings and evacuations, as we've seen just this last fall, and we've prov- we are capable of pro- providing communication services for large-scale emergencies. So, our service calls for the last five years are here before you. Uh, you will note, 2021 had a large uptick. That was, of course, COVID, and search and rescue teams throughout the province experienced something similar. Uh, in addition, we, we were assisting a, a neighboring team as they didn't, were unable to train a new, um, search manager, which is required, um, because of COVID, so we provided managerial services for them as well, which is why that number is a little bit higher than it might've been otherwise. Um, I'm just gonna go through the whole presentation. Feel free to interrupt me though. I'm happy to answer questions as you like, uh, and we can ask questions at the end. Uh, so some of the service types and calls. You see that predominantly we do searches, although we do rescues as well. Um, and these can be in urban and suburban, uh, and urban as well as wilderness areas. The, not everything that we do is, uh, out in the woods like everyone seems to think. Search and rescue, we go hunting out in the woods. We do lots of urban things, especially for individuals with cognitive impairments, young children, people at risk. Um, you'll notice that the civil ones up there are, um, uh, flood, uh, evacuation warnings and then orders. So if the, things they've, uh, if the, if the government's decided that we need to r- uh, people need to leave their homes, we're the ones that go to their homes, knock on the doors, let them know and, and help them, help them leave. And there also is the summary of the locations. So the Township of Langley is up top. You'll see the numbers have remained fairly consistent over time. Langley City, of course, is a little bit more, a little bit less, um, in numbers than in the City of Abbotsford as well. Uh, we were asked to provide how much the reimbursement funding was that we received from the government as far as our call-outs go, and there are the numbers. You, again, 2021 was quite the year. Um, so these numbers, uh, represent actual reimbursements. This is for member mileage, member meals, equipment use, uh, and damage and replacement. So if we have a, a rope call-out and the rope gets damaged, it's no longer safe to use, the government will provide a replacement rope. But they don't do that for ropes that we use for training, of course, 'cause it's just a matter of the actual emergency itself. And here's a breakdown of the municipal funding that we've received. Uh, I can go more into the history of it if you guys would like me to. That's entirely up to you. I don't wanna take too much of your time. But you see the township is in the yellow, uh, light blue is City of Abbotsford, and the City of Langley is in, is in the slightly darker blue. And then some of the intangibles. We have direct experience and training in the response to flood events, such as the 1 in 100 year flood out in Abbotsford and then the most recent one as well. Um, we're a visibly, uh, trusted, um, community presence. We, we provide, uh, um, safety demonstrations, outdoor education, that sort of thing. We do things like, we do specialized things like re- recovering of deceased people so that, or finding and recovering deceased people so that the town, the, the, the public doesn't happen upon them. It's pretty traumatic for most people to suddenly come ac- across something like that. Um, we are fully self-sufficient. We can operate for weeks by ourselves. We are, we bring everything that we need and we, and, uh, we can actually help provide some for others as well. Um, we, as I said before, we have access to all the resources of the BC Search and Rescue Program, um, throughout the province, and it's a world-leading program. It's actually considered the gold standard. It is being adopted by agencies and governments around the world. So, um, we seamlessly work with the other organizations such as police, fire, and EHS. So we become kind of a force multi- multiplier. So when RCMP is searching for a lost child, they can ask us to come in with 30 people to expand that search in a very quick and a very professional manner. Uh, so we have limited operational scope. We don't fo- fight fires. We don't, we don't, uh, look for people who are committing crimes. But the work that we do is world-class, and it is, uh, for anything that we are trained and, uh, authorized to do. And that's it. So any questions? (clears throat) Yes. So thanks again. I think that satisfies the request, and I think it gives some context. And, uh, appreciate you putting that together and coming here today. Uh, I do have some questions from council, so we'll move on with those. So, Councilor Kunst, go ahead. Yeah, thanks for coming again. Uh, it's, uh, great to have that presentation. Um, I, I think you answered one of my questions, but, um, how does the protocol work, um, from, you know, police and fire? And what kinda services do you provide that are, like, totally different that maybe we wouldn't, we wouldn't know about? Okay. Um, great question. Thank you, Councilor, uh, Kunst. Um, so how that works is, uh, they are required to go through the Emergency Coordination Center. Uh, so they can call us directly, and they have our phone numbers- (laughs) ... uh, in which case, then we immediately have to call the Emergency Coordination Center and get okay to, to run this. This has to be, be given provincial ap- approval. So they make the request. They call us. We come out to... We... (sniffs) Well, first, we assess whether or not it's something that we're allowed to do. Occasionally, we get requests like, "Can we do a dive team?" That's not something that our team is permitted to do. Provincial guidelines don't allow for that. Um, and so, uh, that's how we get called out, and we go from there. Uh, and we do, uh, it's, it's part of an integrated, um, command system called ICS. So we work the same... We work in conjunction with, let's say, police, who is the, uh, the incident commander, and we are the, the SAR commanders. And we work together to solve whatever issues come up. Uh, some of the things we do, like I said, is deceased, uh, re- recovering deceased individuals. Um, we have a swift water team. We, I, we respond to floods. We respond to... We've had mult- not multiple. We've had multiple calls over the years, but multiple calls here even in Langley for individuals stuck in local streams. Um, we had a couple of young men, um, near Trinity Western that, uh, were in a bit of a spot. There was no other service here in Langley that was able to, to, to get to them. We showed up within 15, 20 minutes. We got them. We got them out safely, and everyone got to go home. Um, uh, people on the Fraser River that, uh, are stranded. We had that, like, late last year with a group of four people. We go and we get them. So things like that. Um, nothing else is coming to top of my mind- That's, that's great, no, thank you very much. But I'm sure I can come up with some things if I really tried. Thank you. And, and you're volunteer-based? We're all 100% volunteer. None of us are paid. Okay. Awesome. Thank you again. Thank you. Councilor Martins? Hi, good afternoon. Good to see you. Thank you. Um, thank you very much for your delegation, or presentation here. Um, couple questions for you. Um, how many... Do you know how many teams there are across the province? Currently, I believe there are 78, although I think one team might be taking off the list. It might be 77. I don't wanna give you the wrong number, but it's something like that. O- Okay, okay, no, that's helpful. Um, and how long has, have search and rescue teams been in place? (laughs) That's a great question. Um, I know... I don't know when they first started. I know they started with the North Shore in the late... I wanna say 70s for sure, possibly the late 60s. And again, that was all volunteer-run with s- outdoor enthusiasts that realized that people might need help out in the wilderness. So, uh, our team has been around for, we're coming up on 50 years, uh, in 2028. Okay. Well, congratulations for 50 years approaching. Thank you. I appreciate the work that your team does. Um, one question I do have from your slide. Mm-hmm. Um, I'd be interested in hearing more about, uh, communication services for large-scale emergencies. Sure. So I'm assuming when standard, uh, communications are, uh, no longer available to us, um, tell us what you do. So we have a mobile command unit with, um, a mast and everything for the, the a- the antennas. Uh, and we have localized... We, we have our own radio system, where currently we're using a digital system provided by a local company. But we also have just the, the, the, the more, um, traditional, um, simplex-type radios that we have approximately, I would say, 35 or 40 radios on the team, uh, that we can provide other service providers to provide communication in, in times where we can't necessarily call. The cellphones are down or anything like that. Yeah. So, um, we can lend those radios out to, to other parts, other emergency organizations, so we can coordinate what we're doing as we did in the 2021 flood. Right. Okay. And, um, with regards to calling out your volunteers- Yeah. ... if all communications have gone down, how do you reach them? That's a great question. It is a, uh, a telephone system. Okay. So in an emergency, uh, we might not be able to reach everyone, but everyone on the team does know if something's going that bad, we're heading to the base, we're getting our trucks, and we're gonna respond. Okay. So we will have to communicate with, uh, the ECC, but there are other ways to do that. Okay. Uh, landlines and such. Awesome. Well, I really appreciate, uh, you being here today, and I appreciate the work that your, you and your team do. And it's volunteer-based. It's incredible, so thank you very much. Thank you very much. Councilor Bierley? Hi. Uh, do you guys happen to participate in THARP? THARP? THARP. I'm sorry. I- Technical High Angle Ro- Rope Rescue Program. Yes, we are fully trained in, in rope rescue. So that's where you go through with your certifications? Yes. Excellent. And, uh, do they help fund... Uh, I used to sit on that committee, and, uh, there used to be problems with getting adequate funding out to certain programs. We don't receive any funding for our high-angle rescue, uh, rope. Uh, we use the funding that we, uh, are given, uh, on training and such and for, uh, uh, the equipment and everything that we use. So you don't get any funding from them at all? No. I've never heard of them before now, to be honest with you, coun- Councilor (laughs). Now, I'm not a rope person. Don't, don't get me wrong, but I've not heard of them before.Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Ferguson. No, thank you for coming, Mr. Bauer. I appreciate all the work you do, I'm sure everybody at this council does as well. I did want to ask you, um, the service you offered called Mutual Aid? Yes. And in prep- and in '21 regarding a neighboring community, first question, what is Mutual Aid and what type are you all? And who is a neighboring municipality? Great question, uh, Counselor. I appreciate it. Uh, so Mutual Aid is like when I said, when we can call in other teams to help us, we go help other teams. So if another team has been, let's say, on a search for two or three days and their members are exhausted and they need some more assistance, they can call out for other teams, and we will go assist with- with such things. Typically, it's searches. Occasionally, it's rescues. Um, mostly for like a neighboring team like, uh, Mission. And Mission is actually the team that didn't have a- a manager during the- the- the- uh, the large part of COVID- Mm-hmm. ... and they request- th- they require- they are re- required to have a manager to run- Mm-hmm. ... any of our calls. So we would lend a manager to just do that, uh, to- to go over, would direct their team. And to make it clear, all the teams are trained exactly the same. So we're trained in a way that we can just slot into another team, and it's as if we've been there before. Uh, so when a man- manager goes in, he says, "Okay, I need a team to do this, this, and this." He picks people, off they go. Um, and they can add other em- other team, uh, members in from other teams at any time. So, um, Mutual Aid is where we can all work together. So during the 2021 flood, at one point, we had nine different teams and agencies all coordinated through our command to, uh, execute rescues during that. Uh, and it just flows seamlessly. Certainly, that's very much appreciated. And you've asked for the funding again for next year as well to continue? Yes. I think that's 26, 27? Yes. Okay, thank you very much, and I think the mayor has addressed some of those things. Thank you for coming. Thank you. All right. Thanks again for coming today. Appreciate it, and I very much appreciate you satisfying the request to provide that additional information as part of the conversation that occurred earlier this year. Thank you very much. It's my pleasure. Thank you very much to- to yourself, um, Honorable Mayor W- Woodward and a- all the counselors. It was wonderful to meet all of you. Um, something that we obviously haven't been doing in the past, and we probably should have been doing. All right. But again, this is an old program that we've been given at this point, and we're trying to sort out a way forward. Great. Appreciate it. Thank you. Did you need anything else from me as to what we've- what we- No, I think we're good. Perfect. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you. Move on to item E1, 2025 audited consolidated financial statements. I'll move the recommendation, seconded by Counselor Wren. Is there any questions or discussion? Counselor Richter. Um, (clears throat) yes, I have several questions here. I'd like to start with, um, page... Sorry. I'm just going to... Well, page 10, it shows that our net debt is 131.179 million. Is that correct? Through your worship to Counselor Richter, we just wanna confirm, is that page 10 of the report itself or page 10 of the consolidated statements of financial? Uh, well, I think it's page 10 of the report that I'm looking at. Uh, through your worship to Counselor Richter, that- that's correct. Okay. And last year, it was... So this is, um, a deficit number, correct? Through your worship to Counselor Richter, that's the 2025 number. The brackets would, uh, note that that's negative. That's negative. Just like in 2024, it was, uh, 8.5 million negative number? Th- Th- That's correct. Okay. So my understanding is when we see negative numbers for net debt, we've got more liabilities than we have assets. Is that correct? Uh, the number signifies just the net debt balance, and the- the brackets would indicate that- uh, that- that would be the negative. Okay, but does that mean we have more liabilities than assets? Through your worship to Counselor Richter, that- that is correct. Okay. Um, I'm- I'm now looking at page 11, and, uh, this is the consolidated statement of operations. It was revenue and expenses. In the expense part of that report, where would legal costs be? And I looked through the report, and on page 39... Let me just go to page 39 in the report. There's a... Nope, it's page 37. Sorry. There's a consolidated financial activity segmented. So I tried to find it in that schedule. I see consulting and professional services. Would that be where the legal costs are? Through your worship to Counselor Richter, yes. Okay. And so of that number that's there, which is 17.2 million, what percent would be consulting versus what percent would be legal? Through your worship to Counselor Richter, we would have to... Um, we don't have that line item before us. We would have to review that specifically and get back to counsel.Okay. And that particular line on consulting versus professional services, where... How does that relate to the schedule or the statement on page 11? Would that be under general government then? Is that where it all ends up? Uh, through Your Worship. Ooh. Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, that's correct. It would go under, uh, expenses, general government. General government. So, and of course, we are over budget on what we had for general government. It looks to me by about four million. Uh, t- through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, what, what was budgeted for that year and, and what the actuals are, th- there is a de- uh, increase. Okay. Um, flipping now to s- the Schedule 1, Debt and Agreements Payable on page 39, I had some questions about that. Uh, is the Housing Trust Society fully, um, consolidated in this statement? Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, an- any subsidiaries of the Township of Langley are accounted for, uh, within the audited schedules. Uh, granted that this is, this is a snapshot of 2025, but that would be included. All right. And the... Now, I note Schedule 1 shows, uh, a debt, a temporary borrowing debt of 12.642 million. Where's the rest of the 177 million? Because we know in the capital budget, there was a total of 177 million of debt agreed to inside the housing trust. Through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, as indicated earlier, this is a snapshot of the schedules for 2025. Uh, some of those items w- would be a part of the 2026, uh, schedules. Oh, so i- if this is a timing issue then? We're gonna see the rest of the 177 appear in the 2026 statements? Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, any of the liabilities for that year would then potentially be included in the audited financial statements, uh, in the subsequent year. This is specifically- So, that means that our 2026 annual report, which we are not approving today, we're approving 2025, will have the remaining 153 million? Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, depending on what is used, if that was the envelope, that would be reflected in the financial, uh, consolidated financial statements. In 2026? 'Cause it's not in this financial statement, right? Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, that, that is correct, but it depends on the f- figure, uh, what amount was actually drawn per the year, as, as what... The number you used indicated it was an envelope- (coughs) ... and not what was actually used for the specific year, or what debt was actually drawn on. Okay. And my last question is, I see that the motion says, "Receive and accept." I have a question about the word accept. Um, are we legislatively required to accept and what does accept mean? Does it mean approve? Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Richter, this is a standard language we've been using for several years with respect to Council receiving and accepting the, uh, audited consolidated financial statements. Uh, it is a requirement under the community charter that, uh, uh, council endorse, at least endorse the consolidated financial statements and they're finalized and there's a, a period for the public to also review the financial statements. Okay. Well, this is where I'm having a problem with this one. So you're saying we have to endorse it in the legislation? Well, y- in order for the auditor to finalize his findings, Council need to endorse and accept this. Okay. Well, I mean, I've, I've got no dispute that the auditors have done what they've been paid to do, which is put together a set of consolidated statements. That's obviously right in front of us. I guess the issue I'm having is that the numbers in here are hard to accept, really, because there's, uh, a deficit in terms of our net debt, and not all that net debt has been included in this particular set of statements. But (clears throat) if we're required to endorse this particular set of statements, I guess I will reluctantly vote to do so. But I have a lot of questions about the picture that it's presenting about this township right now. Thank you. Councillor Whitmar. Yes. Uh, thank you, Your Worship. I had a few questions as well, um, uh, through to s- to staff, if I could. Um, my first question, I'm looking at, uh, the consolidated operations page, um-Statement of Operations. I think it's page 11 of the act- uh, of maybe the actual report. Uh, there's a table of revenue and a table of expenses listed. Um, my question, my first question was, when I looked at the, at the increase in revenues, uh, of actuals compared to budget, um, I can see, like, two, two areas... Uh, well, a couple of areas jump out at me. One is property taxes is approximately equal, uh, from budget to, to the current year, um, so really no change in overall expectation or collection of property taxes. But the one that, uh, was interesting to me was fees, rates, and service charges. So, while we, while we have, uh, roughly the same amount of money being brought in by, um, uh, property taxes, uh, we saw in the same period of time a 40% increase in revenues from fees, rates, and service charges as compared to budget. And so I guess my question is, what, what, um, leads to that 40% increase in revenue from fees? Is that, um, simply more people coming? Um, if it was, um, I guess we would expect property taxes to go up as... At a similar rate. Or is it that we have, um, increased fees, rates, and service charges to approx- uh, uh, uh, to about that... To bring that extra amount of about 40% over budget, um, or we just have more people that are now using services that 40% more that didn't use them last year? So, I'm just wondering what the response would be, or how staff would rec- um, reconcile this 40% increase in, um, fees, rates, and service charges. Uh, your Worship, to Councilor Whitmarsh. Uh, the, the fees, rates, and service charges do include admission fees, uh, utilities, um, as well as other, uh, revenues, uh, associated with the Township of Langley. That would include TFSC, which is one of the township's subsidiary, uh, entities. Um, and then lo- a, a large amount of any increase in some of the, the fees and rates for services we provide are usually net neutral, is to just keep up with inflation or any other cost for the, uh, service as well. Right. So, yeah, I mean, it's helpful to know, I guess, what's included, but I'm wondering, like, in, in 2020, 458, uh, these are 158,000, so these are in millions of dollars, um, in... Was actual, um, and this year, actual 175. But we actually budgeted 127, and I guess I'm wondering... Um, trying to think back why we would have budgeted this amount, and yet seen a 40% difference from what we actually collected to what we budgeted. Yeah. Through your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, uh, with respect to fees, rates, and service charges, w- w- we are more conservative with respect to our estimating budgeting for revenue, um, and that's just a municipal practice. And, and some of the items are utility charges as well. So that's, um... Uh, the utility charges are associated with usage, which sometimes can be hard to predict. Okay, so some of this is just because we take a conservative approach to budgeting. That's sort of one of the major reasons why? Through your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, that would be one of the, the reasons. The other reasons are also with respect to utilities usage and, and just determination of that. Okay. Whereas property taxes are more predictable. Is that why we don't do that same approach with property taxes? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor, uh, Whitmarsh, property taxes are, are, are specific and, and on assessment, so there's... We're able to predict those more accurately, where usage, there's an ability to predict, but it, it depends as well. There's more volatility in that. Okay. Thank you. I had a second, um, area that I was wondering about, and that is, um, on the same, uh, revenue list down at, um... Contribution from development cost charges, and, um, again, in, in this one, we had a budget of 82 million. Uh, actuals were 39 million that we collected, so a 52% decrease in budget on development cost charges collected. Um, but I'm also noticing, um, in the very next line, we have other developer contributions, uh, which actually were... Had, saw a 47% increase in developer contributions. And so I'm, I'm just wondering the explanation again for a significant decrease in ni- um, anticipated DCCs collected, but, uh, a corresponding significant increase in other kinds of developer contributions, and maybe some clarity on what those other contributions would be, and why would... We would see those significantly higher when we see the DCC contributions significantly lower. Uh, through your Worship to Councilor, uh, Whitmarsh, I believe, um... If I can turn your attention to page 26, that does provide a little bit more, uh, information with respect to your questions. Uh, and, and there's a note, uh, regarding, um, 10B. So DCCs, we recognize their revenues, uh, are used for projects, and then depending on the projects, developers be contributing to the DCC. Um, and the figure with respect to the contribution from developers, there's other items that we have to take into consideration with respect to land improvements, road infrastructure, park infrastructures that we do, uh, are completed and then now is an asset of the township. Um, and that water and sewer. So that's not specifically cash also we're receiving. There's tangible assets that are now, um, for... Uh, um, basically turned over to the Township of Langley. So that's, that's, um... When you say, um, other developer contributions, those could be assets that are provided, not simply- ... um, fees. They wouldn't be... Like, they could be CACs, but they could be, uh, or, uh, m- not CACs, or vol- uh, or voluntary contributions. They could be there a- as, but also could be assets that are provided. Is that sort of a combination of the two? That's your worship to Councilor Whitmarsh. Th- that is correct. So if you... On page 26, it articulates the amount of land and improvements was the highest. It was road, parks, infrastructure, stormwater, sewer, et cetera. So a, a lot of this infrastructure then are turned over to the Township of Langley. Um, and then some of these are roads, greenways, et cetera. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Um, I guess my final question here right now is... And, and, uh, Councilor Richter referred to it as well, and that's this consolidated net, uh, debt, uh, that went from a negative eight million, or an eight million debt, sorry, um, to this year being 131 million. Um, is this, is this something that, that we should be concerned about? Um, should we be... Does it matter what this consolidated net debt is? It seems to be increasing. We seem to have among the highest in, in, in Metro Vancouver, in British Columbia, in highest net debt. Um, it seems to be increasing, um, and I'm just wondering, should we be concerned? And what does this mean for homeowners and possible servicing of debt as we move forward? I'm just trying to get some kind of sense of what's the thought and reflection on the concern of this, or do we just, just keep increasing it and it doesn't really matter? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, um, from staff's perspective, essentially, our, our role is to ensure that there's compliance with the Community Charter, Local Government Act, and to ensure that any, um, other legislation or policies are complied with. Um, so with respect to the Council's, uh, prerogatives and policies on debt and their position on that, that's more of a policy item, um, rather than, uh, from a staffing, whether that is a correct way to, um, proceed with some of these projects, infrastructures and borrowing or not. And that's what staff's general position would be on this item. Okay. Well, maybe at some point, um, uh, Your Worship, maybe that might be a, a helpful area too that you could maybe respond to on what your thoughts are around that for us, 'cause seems like it keeps increasing and, uh, no one seems to be talking about it other than a few of us, um, and so it'd be helpful to get your perspective. All right. Take that under advisement. Thank you. Uh, Councilor Martins? Yes. Thank you. Um, I, I do have a question for staff through the chair, if I may, on, um, going back, I think, to the same page that Councilor Whitmarsh was looking at, page 11 in the report, the consolidated statement of operations. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to... You, you've got it? Okay, good. Um, so the very last item under revenue, um, it says other income. Um, wondering if, um, staff can expand on what other income would be. Yeah, page 11. Uh, through Worship to Councilor Martins, we're just reviewing that with staff right now. I appreciate that. Uh, through Worship to Councilor Martin, so a, a big part of the other income we, we listed there has to do with some of the other, uh, subsidiaries associated with the Township of Langley. So that would essentially be like the Langley's Facility Society, 10 Feet Sports and Entertainment, um, a- and a few of the other societies, uh, that, uh, if there's any revenue or any, uh, essential, uh, associated with that other income, then we have to note that in the financial, uh, consolidated financial statements. Okay, thank you. And if I may, through the chair, a follow-up question to that. Um, so the budgeted amount, if I'm reading this correctly is 56.2. Is that million? Yep. Okay. Um, 'cause I'm just noticing the actual for 2025 and 2024 are considerably less, uh, 16 and 14 respect- respectively. Um- Any, um, any insight as to why there is a significantly less, um, actual income from what's in the budget? Uh, your Worship to Council, we'd have to get back to you on that specific one. Okay, thank you. Um, the, I would, I would appreciate having, um, a bit more information about that, um, and if I need a motion to do so, um, Mr. Mayor, I can do that. But otherwise, I do appreciate, um, the words said earlier, one of my colleagues, that this is, this report that we're looking at endorsing is to ensure that the accounting has been provided accurately. Um, I have no concerns about that and I think it's, uh, very good work has been done here. It is what it is. Um, just a, yeah, that is a question I would appreciate a follow-up on. Thank you. All right. Council Pratt. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I appreciate the questions so far and I just had a question through yourself to staff. Uh, potentially a reminder for, for Council, um, in the consolidated statement of financial position where it discusses development cost charges being a liability, and then you go to the note for DCCs and it itemizes the reserve balances for each of the DCC reserves, almost all of which have gone up year over year. Can you remind Council why those DCC revenues, uh, sorry, the DCC reserves are included as a liability? Through your worship to Councilor Pratt, essentially that we have to pledge them as a liability until they're assigned to a project. So, until they're assigned to a project, however those DCCs have been collected, they're in the township's reserves, hence why they're collecting investment interest in the note? Th- that is correct. The, uh, snapshot of that, uh, reserves is the balance of the DCCs. Thank you. And then, so I, I do note that in the report from the director where it discusses net consolidated debt, it, uh, it mentions that the acquisition of tangible capital assets resulted in this increase. And then when again, you're looking at the note in the DCC, uh, liability, it talks about, uh... I'm just gonna go quickly to that note. And, uh, i- if I may, through your Worship to Councilor Pratt, there, there's also, there could be, uh, coming to the top of my mind items like letter of credits that are also, um- Right. ... issued. And thank you for that. I appreciate that, and then also in that same note where it talks about the beginning of the year balance and then the end of year balance, and in between that, it does include expenditures for that year from the DCC balances, including for capital, which have gone up from 2024 to 2025. Nonetheless, the actual DCC reserve balances have also gone up. Is that correct? Is that what I'm reading in that note seven? Uh, with respect to the DCCs, yeah, that's, that's correct. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. And then in the, uh, consolidated statement of operations as well, when we look at the, the contribution from development cost charges, uh, I see that, yes, the, the, the budgeted amount for '25 for those two items, uh, was 82 million, came in at 39. Other developer contributions, 38, came in at 72.7. So effectively, they've balanced, but they've balanced in almost the opposite way that they were budgeted for. But both of those figures are pretty in line with 2024 numbers. In fact, the contribution from the DCCs is approximately three times higher than it was in 2024. Is that... Am I reading that correctly in the consolidated st- statement of operations? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Pratt. So that, that is correct for the 2024 is on the right column there. And on the left, the 2025, the, uh, DCCs contribution from development charges i- in 2024 was 11, uh, million there and then in 2025 was 39 million. So there's a increase. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. That's all the questions I have for now. Council Ferguson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did wanna point out in our report, uh, 2025 audited consolidated, um, financial statements, uh, for operating surplus was, uh, 223.7 million, up from 1.159 million in 2024. The capital surface, surplus of 41 million, up from 10.6 last year. And statutory reserve of 152 million, up from 2024 of 98 million, and investment in tangible capital assets, $2.43 billion, up from 2.38 last year. And the statement from the report indicates that in 2025, the township continues to manage through economic pressures, including elevated inflation. Despite these challenges, the township continues to invest in community infrastructure. Our financial plans reflect these goals and this year's financial results, along with financial plans approved mostly, unanimously by Council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Thank you. Council Richter? Yeah, I just wanted to ask a follow-up question with regards to page one on the report. And just to get clarification, now, it says here the consolidated financial statements with the final auditor's report will be included in the annual report made available for the public for two weeks, starting June 15th, 2026. After which, they will return to council for final approval on June 29th, 2026, together with the annual statement of financial information. So is this, uh... So starting tomorrow- Members of the public who are interested could get copies of it by contacting the township and review it. And then what do they do? Do they send us letters if they have concerns? Uh, through your Worship to Counselor Richter, the report itself has been posted online, and the financial statements are available online, and they will be available online up until June 29th, uh, 2026 when counsel, in the event counsel does, uh, receive and accept these 2025 audited con- uh, consolidated financial statement. Then essentially, the auditors will be able to finalize, uh, the audit opinion 'cause at this time, technically speaking, it's a unmodified audit opinion until counsel receives and accepts it. Okay. So we're not giving final approval to, to this until the 29th of June? There's two weeks for the public to have input if they want to have input? That... Through your Worship, Counselor Richter, the public has an opportunity to provide input since this agenda has been live, and the, uh, report is available online, and they can continue to provide input up until June 29, 2026. Up until June 29, 2026? Okay. Um, I'm, I'm still querying the 177 million for the Housing Trust. I know it sounds like it's a timing issue from what, uh, the answers were that I got earlier, that we've only got 17 million of it this year, but next year, the 153 is gonna be coming through. I recall vaguely reading somewhere about, uh, uh, PS 3390, which I believe is an accounting regulation concerning the need to disclose contract- contractual obligations. I've, I always assumed that that was at the time that we knew what the obligation was. Uh, although I do understand as well that accounting, um, periods vary between organizations, so that might be contributing to the delay in getting the full 177 million in debt identified in this set of statements. So (sighs) if we're gonna do a final vote on it, uh, I mean, I can try to do a bit more research on this Section 3390 and see what I can find out. But, uh, can we, do we have the option to change anything in the reports when it comes back to us for final on June 29th? Mm-hmm. Through your Worship to Counselor Richter, the, if counsel receives and accepts the audited consolidated financial statement, essentially the auditors are in a position to finalize their opinion. Once the opinion's finalized, that will be included in the annual report. So this statement, uh, Audited Consolidated Financial Statement, will then be included within the annual report, which needs approval by council, uh, um, to change items. That's th- essentially that, that would be the finalized auditor's statement, the, and their opinion. All right. I, I'm not sure I completely understood that. So can we change it on the 29th, or do we have to say yes or no to it today? Um, through your Worship to Counselor Richter, the, uh, depending on counsel's intent, what we're seeking is that you receive and accept the audited consolidated financial statement. So if you do accept those, the auditors can then finalize their opinion. Once that's finalized, that would be included in the annual report, which will be coming forward to counsel on June 29th for approval. Okay. Along with the statement of, uh, financial information. All right. So if I make the assumption today that this is a timing issue because 153 million of debt is still missing from these statements, they're gonna appear in next year's statements. Uh, okay, I can hold off with the final vote until the 29th. I'll give it tentative approval today by, quote, "accepting." Okay, thank you. Counselor Pratt. Yeah, thank you, your Worship. Uh, just a f- a further question regarding one of the notes. It would be Note 12, Statutory Reserve Funds. And I just had a question because I, I note, again, the difference between 24 and 25, where, uh, almost all, I think except for two or three of the reserve funds, have higher amounts in 25 than they did in 24. Uh, one of the exceptions is the Debt Retirement, uh, Reserve Fund. Uh, and I was curious, through yourself to staff, why would the Debt Retirement Reserve Fund, uh, be lower in 25 than 24? I believe that was, uh, related to a, uh, motion by council to move those funds to another reserve. Thank you. And so I do note that the reserve funds at the end of the year for 25, uh, versus 24, but one and a half times, uh, higher than they were in 24. And then, and then a further question. I'm glad the housing authority was brought up. Uh, through yourself to staff, your Worship, uh, besides Bylaws 5893 and then Bylaw 6011, uh, which I think were passed seven to two and then seven to one respectively, where the land acquisition for the housing tr- uh, trust sites, uh, was included, I'm curious, has there been any other bylaw passed by council that is inclusive of, of debt for the housing authority?Through your Worship to Councilor Pratt, n- not to my knowledge, but we'd have to get back to you on that specifically, if there's any other bylaws associated with it. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yeah. No, there aren't. Okay, so I'm going to call the question on, uh, E1. That carries unanimously. Item E2, Smith Pass Park Concept Plan. I'll move the recommendation. Seconded by Councilor Hren. Any questions or discussion on E2? C- oh, Councilor Pratt. Yeah. Thank you, your Worship. I just wanted to commend staff on the, uh, the concept plan. Very exciting for the east part of Willoughby there on the slope and, uh, for the future Smith neighborhood. So, excited to see what that'll look like moving forward and, uh, pleased to send it to the 2027 budget process. Councilor Kunst? Yeah. (clears throat) I just want to note that there's a little item in there about the Langley, uh, the Arbor Ribbon Trail. And, um, this is something that, um, a previous council back in 2004, this was their concept, and this was something that they felt passionate about. And, um, and if you don't know what it is, it's actually a trail, uh, all the way from the border, uh, along the Arbor Ribbon to, uh, the Fraser River. And it's something, um, that I've, uh, really, um, think that our, our township, it's a, it's a really awesome little plan and glad to see that this is gonna be, uh, a little chunk added to that. So, I just wanted to raise that. Thank you. Councilor Whitmarsh? Yeah, just a question through your Worship to staff. I'm just looking at the, uh, di- the concept plan, the drawings. Um, and, uh, thank you for s- staff for putting this together. I'm really excited about this. It's been many years in the making. Um, but I had a question around the dog park fencing, and I was just a bit, uh, I... As I'm looking at the line, I see sort of a single line for dog park fencing. I'm not, uh, I'm not understanding exactly where the dog park is inside this area. I see a single line, but, uh, it must be, um... I don't know if it goes up through, uh, close to the vegetation buffer, or what, where the dog park is. Maybe someone can help. Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh. So, uh, the drawings, sometimes they're, uh, conceptual in nature and not as detailed. Um, but if, if- Okay. ... you... There's a black line that shows a dog fencing. Yes. Uh, that would be the area that would include the dog, plus the north side there where it states upper meadows and four acres meadow dog leash off-area. And then, that would be all enclosed by vegetation buffers. Um, and then, the d- on the south side, the dog park fencing, that black line would then, uh, also, uh, enclose it off as well. So, you would have that lighter gray grass area as a four-acre meadow dog off-leash area. Okay. So, is it fully enclosed by a fence? That would be the intention. Uh, th- that would be the intention, either the fence on the south side, or fencing may not be required due to the, uh, tree canopy or trees or vegetation buffer. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll call the question on E2. Carries unanimously. Move on to item E3, Fraser Highway and 268th Street intersections improvements. I'll move the recommendation. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any questions or discussion on E3? I see none. Call question on E3. Carries unanimously. Item E4, 16th Avenue Corridor Intersection Study. Again, I'll move the recommendation. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any questions or discussion on E4? All right. Seeing none, I'll move deferral of item E4 to July 13th. Seconded by Councilor Hren. Is there any questions on deferral? Councilor Richter. Why? Uh, I think I'd like to take a bit more time with it. If council doesn't agree, then it can move forward. Okay. Seeing no other questions, I'll call the question on deferral. That carries with Councilor Richter opposed. Item E5, 2026 Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation of Canada Grant Application. Moved by Councilor Hren, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Any discussion on E5? Councilor Richter. Yeah, I had a question. Um, this organization, the Firehouse Subs, are they a TOL subcrak- contractor at all? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Richter, n- not to my knowledge. Okay, so we don't contract with them to provide food or anything? Not... Through your Worship to Councilor Richter, no. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on E5. Carries anonymously. Item E6, Flood Hazard Identification Mapping Program and Application. Moved by Councilor Hren, seconded by Councilor Frison. Any discussion on E6? Seeing none, call question on E6. Carries unanimously. Item E7, Engineering Public Works Capital Budget Transfers. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Hren. Any questions on E7? I see none. Call question on E7. It carries unanimously. Item E8, Capital Request for 80th Avenue. I will move that. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any questions on E8? Councilor Whitmarsh. Um, yeah, I guess... I guess my, my, my, (clears throat) um, my question on this one is about the, the, um... ... the repla-- the funding coming from the 216th and 96th Avenue sort of intersection improvement plan, um, recognizing that, um, and it says that we didn't have ac- we don't have the land acquired to be able to do that project. I'm wondering if, as it's connected, if there could be just a, a bit of an update through staff just on the, uh, acquiring of land and getting the necessary land approvals for that project, and what the del- del- the, uh, delay is and why that's a challenge wh- which is now freeing up money to be moved somewhere else. And so maybe if there's some comment from staff on, on the 196, or sorry, the 216th and 96th Avenue intersection, um, delay. Your Worship, to you, Council Whitmarsh. As you indicated, there's a, a substantial delay in the construction of 216 and 96. It's a bit multifaceted. There's one element of it where there's property acquisition requirements, and there's another element of it where there's outstanding regulatory approvals. Um, so essentially, we would require approvals from the Ministry of Water and Land Resources, um, Agricultural and Land Commission as well. Um, and there's also, uh, uh, ongoing negotiations with respect to some of these items that we, mm, will be able to provide counsel with further details, eh, in, in a closed meeting. Um, and the, that, uh, eh, in addition to also that construction would need to occur in a specific time. That would be the summer months due to the least risk for in-stream work windows, which then further constrains the scheduling. And staff identified this as the appropriate project, as there's already substantial delay. And, and there's a h- m- high chance that this is, the construction will not start until 2027. Okay. So one of the things I've been wondering about was the process, um, when we, you know, decide to do a new project like this, and particularly when it has regulatory approvals required. Uh, do we, do we go through a, a sort of a preliminary, um, almost like a preliminary approval process with those vary- various regulatory bodies to give them some kind of concept of, "Here's what we'd like to do. Uh, we, we'd like to move forward with this kind of project. Is this something that you think would be approved?" Do we do that before we start trying to acquire properties and get everything and then go after pr- uh, regulatory approvals or how... What is the sort of the timing of how we do that? 'Cause it, it seems kind of risky to go and, you know, buy properties and do all sorts of things, and then find out that there was no chance of it ever getting approved. So I'm just wondering kind of the timing of how that works. And, and maybe it's on this project, but e- even other projects, just generally, do we, do we seek sort of preliminary or conceptual approval before we go for final approval with our regulatory bodies? Uh, through your Worship, to Council Whitmarsh, with respect to a lot of these capital projects we can characterize them as, th- that the first step is always to, uh, design. During the design process, we do a site feasibility studies and an analysis to determine if there's any substantial issues or regulatory approvals that might, uh, create any delays or risk to the actual construction of the project. So once we do have detailed design, staff are in a pretty good position along with, uh, the consultants to determine if there's going to be any issues. However, obviously on a case-by-case basis, it's hard to anticipate, uh, items and there's certain seasons for, um, construction when it comes to in-stream work windows or, uh, creek-related item, which we have to be very sensitive around. So that's... But staff, along with our consultants, and then usually once we go to tender in this construction, um, uh, our contractors as well, um, are v- quite experienced in, in dealing with a lot of these regulatory bodies and approval process. But they can just be lengthy due to the number of, uh, resources, um, available to the other agencies, uh, staffing-wise and the applications they receive as well. Okay. So does, does the decision today, um, mean that we are also, um, approving to have approximately $3 million, um, into, added into the two tho- 27 to 31 budget to do the 216th and 96th? Is that part of the decision today as well? Through your Worship to Councilor Whitmarsh, that's correct. So we'd be seeking, uh, council's direction to include a replacement funding for the construction of 216 and 96 as well, uh, in the 2027, uh, to 2031 financial plan. So approximately in the same amount. Okay. Thank you. Council Martins. Yeah. Thank you. Um, and I thank my colleague for, uh, those questions about, uh, 216th and 96th. Um, the, when you talk about, uh, design concept, if I can, through the chair to staff, um, is that already done or where are we at in that process? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Martins, the d- detailed design is, uh, concluded. Okay. And is that part and parcel of the rest of 216th south s- south of that intersection? Through Walnut Grove between 88th and 216- and 96th? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Martins, we'd have to just review exactly. Uh, I believe this would be just limited to the 216 and 96 intersection. I believe that might be a separate... We might be... Down to 88 might be a separate project as well. I'm just gonna confirm with Mr. Rule. Through your Worship, that's correct. We're still at conceptual design for the remaining stretch of 216th between 96th and 88th Avenue, but we've got detailed design for the intersection.Okay. All right, thank you. Um, yeah, 'cause that, I mean, that intersection is, um, I, I'm hoping we're not kicking this can down the road, so to speak, um, 'cause that is a terrible intersection that doesn't line up and there's a lot of, uh, near collisions there with it being a two-part intersection. Um, so my worry is that, um, we're putting this one on hold for when, um, it, it, it's needed to. But I understand if there's a land acquisition and regulatory consideration. So that's fair. Um, is that where, um, it was a spec- a special study area? Is that that same, um, stretch of land there on the north side of 96 that I think we removed that status? Or am I thinking of the wrong land? Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Barnes, I have to get back to you on that t- to review the land use designations there. I don't recall so off the top of my head, but I'd have to get back to you. Okay. I would really appreciate that. Thank you very much. Councilor Ferguson? Yeah, thank you, Ms. Mary. Uh, I'm, I'm glad that we're having a lot of discussion on the, this particular capital request, uh. If I may, through the chair, from what I understand, um, from researching and researching in this particular, uh, intersection of 216th and 96, on one hand, you have township property in a row. The other hand, you have a railroad going through that area and you have agricultural land. Um, the difficulty, from what I understand, and the, and the, the road is not lined up, so it's not a simple intersection. It's a complicated intersection, and um, I was hoping that there would be a request from the ALR. It might have been denied a number of years ago. It might be still in the process, if I may, through the chair. Uh, through your Worship to Councilor Ferguson, i- it's a fair characterization. It's a complicated intersection and requires several different approvals. Uh, I believe we are in the process, yet we, we did not submit yet to the ALC the, uh, applications. Uh, that one, I believe, is still pending, uh, pending some of the land acquisitions as well, and then we'd submit f- for ALC a- approval. Thank you very much. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on E8. (paper rustles) That carries. Councilor Victor opposed. Item E9, heritage alteration permit. Does anyone wish to move the recommend- moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Rinn. Any questions or discussion on E9? Councilor Kunst? Yeah, it's... Oh. Hello. There we go. Um, I noted that it's, in F it says, "Payment of applic- applicable administration fees, Murrayville pedestrian overpass fee." Are we still contemplating a, an overpass in Murrayville? I haven't seen this for a long time, so I'm just... Through your Worship, Councilor Kunst, (clears throat) uh, correct. The Murrayville overpass is still concluded in the, the pickable plan, so it's listed there as a prerequisite. Is that, is that over from, like, the, the pool to the fire hall, that direction? Through your Worship, Councilor Kunst, yes, conceptually. Okay. How long have we been contemplating that for? Through your Worship, Councilor Kunst, uh, at least through my time here, which was 15 years, maybe more than that, your Worship. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on E9. Carries anonymously. Item E10, Agricultural Land Commission application number 100478. Anyone wish to move that? Moved by Councilor Renn, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Is there any discussion on E10? Councilor Kunst? Yeah. (clears throat) A mausoleum. Do we have any mausoleums on private property in the Lang- in Township of Langley? Uh, through your Worship, Councilor Kunst, none that staff are currently aware of. 'Kay, so, and I note that it says, um, "For consideration based on agricultural merits." I'm just curious as to what the agricultural merits are. Uh, through your Worship, Councilor Kunst, so, uh, the rural plan outlines, um, the nature of the designation and the RU3 zone, uh, provides for agricultural support. As noted, the land is an agricultural land reserve. Given the specificity of the, uh, proposal, um, and the lack of any supporting policy context w- with regards to a private mausoleum, the appropriate authority, given the, um, Cemetery Act is also a provincial entity, would be for the ALC to provide for that input, if Council wishes to do so. Okay, thank you. Councilor Richter? Yeah, um, I, I think it should go to the ALC for review, and I'm absolutely gonna support that. I did have a question, though. What happens down the road if the property is sold and somebody who buys it comes to the township and says, "You should be moving this, um, (laughs) 'cause it's interfering with our right to farm," or, "You should assume responsibility for maintaining it"? Have we thought that one through? Through your Worship to Councilor Richter, we, we... It would be a private matter. We would... Council's, I think, discretion is with respect to the referral and in the event of non-farm uses approved, Council's discretion would be with respect to a rezoning matter. That would be an item for the, uh, potential, let's say, buyer, to take into consideration prior to purchasing.Yeah. Okay. No, I was just wondering because it seems to me... And I know coming from Ontario that there are a lot of, uh, little family plots in, particularly in rural communities, but it's not like Langley is a, a rural community with family burial plots anymore. So I'm just wondering who has to assume responsibility for maintaining it. Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, the operating maintenance repair would lie with the landowner as it would not be a township asset. It would be specifically with- within the confines of, uh, the landowner's property and their rights. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Whitmers. Yes. Um, uh, just a question to staff. Um, if, if council decided not to send it to the ALR for agriculture consideration, what would, what would happen to this application? Would they just be able to go to the ALC themselves directly, or does that kinda end it? What, what, what happens with, with that? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Whitmers, I believe a few years ago, it might be longer, the ALC has changed their process with respect to applications that require ALC approval, whether it's a non-farm use application. So it has to... The municipality has to refer the item to the ALC. So in the event council does not refer this, the proponent would not have an option to submit this directly to the ALC. So that essentially the- their application would then be denied. Um, and I believe I might have to refer to Mr. Richardson. They might, prior to making any similar applications, would have to wait, uh, one year at least. But I'll defer to Mr. Richardson on that. I concur with Ad- Administrator Lacuna's comments. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no discussion, I call the question on E10. It carries. Councilor Whitmer's opposed. Item E11, development variance permit application number, development permit application number 101521, SNR Sawmills. Yes, any wish to move that? Moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Rent. Is there any discussion on E11? Councilor Richter. Yeah. Um, I had a question with regards to the, uh, setback from top of bank, and it says here in the report on page two that, uh, to modify the Fraser River SPEA to allow a replacement building within the existing industrial footprint, approximately 17.6 meters or 57.7 feet from top of bank. Yet it also says that the normal Fraser River top of bank setback is 30 meters. So that's like cutting it almost in half. And I'm wondering, have we consulted with anybody responsible for the Fraser River, whether stewardship groups or provincial groups? Like, how do they feel? I mean, the Fraser River is a flood zone. How do they feel about us cutting into the top of bank like this? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, uh, the federal and provincial items are encompassed within the township's streamside protection enhancement area, development permit area. Mm-hmm. So the application before the council, uh, complies with those layers of government. The application is coming to council for the item that you've outlined from the 30 meters down to the 17.6 meters under, uh, federal and provincial legislation. Those items are informed by a qualified environmental professional. In this instance, the qualified environmental professional is stating given that the- the area is currently high- highly disturbed, that the 17.6 meters is an appropriate setback. And there's some other mitigating measure they're proposing in terms of black bear removal and a no-storage area that's currently... Was previously being utilized to provide for an actual enhancement of that area. So those are the applicable terms, Your Worship. Okay. So, but why would we want to build it on the footprint of a building that's no longer there? Why wouldn't we just say this is a big enough property, you can move the footprint further away from the river? Through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, I guess it's up to the proponent to make that, um, a proposition to staff and to council in terms of that item. Staff understand operationally, given the historic nature of the building and the Sawmill and the permanent generating uses there, that the location of the building optimizes the operations and the functionality of the overall, uh, site and the adjacent buildings, and minimizes, as outlined in the report, any additional impacts, and actually provides for an improvement with respect to the streamside area, Your Worship. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no discussion, I call the question on E11. Carries. Councilor Richter, opposed. Bylaws for first, second, and third reading, rezoning application number 100681, file number 6231. I'll move the recommendation. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Rent. Is there any questions or discussion on G1? Seeing none, I move deferral of G1 to June 13th. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Sorry, July 13th. Is there a second? July 13th, seconded by Councilor Ferguson. Any discussion on that deferral? All right. Councilor Richter? Yeah. W- why do we need to defer this? I'd like to take some more time with it, but again, if council doesn't agree with that, then it can adjudicate to first, second, and third right now. Thank you. With that, I'll call the question on deferral of G1. That carries with Councilor Skuntz and Councilor Richter opposed. G2- Hold it. I have a point of clarification. (papers rustle) Councilor Richter, do you have something to... Point of order? Uh, y- well, I don't know that it's... My mic isn't on. Yep. Councilor Richter? Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if it's a point of order. It's certainly a point of clarification. And so I'd like to ask for you to staff, uh, (sighs) if a conflict has been declared in a closed meeting, particularly on a matter r- related to the housekeeping provisions here, does that conflict of interest carry over to the open meeting? Yeah. So that, that conflict of interest is an item for every member of council to determine for themselves not to be adjudicated in that manner. So I'm gonna carry on to item G2. So I'm gonna- I'm gonna move first, second, and third- I want to declare a conflict, and I really... I'm not- ...that I'm not being allowed an answer to this question. Councilor Richter. Councilor Richter, if you have a conflict to declare, then go ahead and declare. I have a conflict. Five of us have a conflict on this related to close. Again, only- So I'm declaring it. So again, that's the challenge I have, is you're... It's not for you to declare a conflict for someone else. Okay. So again, that's the challenge that we have here. I'm declaring my own. So if you're declaring a conflict, Councilor Richter, then please go ahead and do that. Mr. Mayor, can I declare... Yes, Councilor Martins. Yeah. Um, I too, I'm going to, um, declare, um, potentially a pecuniary conflict of interest and a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, um, just based on what I've heard, um, subject to receiving a legal opinion. Okay, great. Ms., Ms. Power, you have that? Yeah. Great. So I'm gonna... ...part, but I'll move, move that here in a moment. All right, so I'll move first, second, and third readings. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Rentz. Are any questions or a discussion on G2? Councilor Akoust? Yeah. I would like to know why, uh, the need that, to do this now. Mr. Kuner? Actually, I'd like to hear from the mayor. I mean, Mr. Kuner, why is it on the agenda? Why are we dealing with this now? (paper rustles) Um, to Your Worship, uh, with respect to the, uh, uh, G2, the report to council there, council's considering this bylaw, uh, is there's some housekeeping amendments to propose with the council procedure bylaws. There's council direction with respect to, uh, some of these items as well. And that's why it's before council. Okay. So I have prepared two responses. Um, one using my invi- inside voice, which I can't use. And then there's another one. So this is what I think. Um, with respect to the proposed changes to the procedure bylaw concerns about both the timing and the potential consequences of these amendments, I'm particularly concerned that some of these amendments could create a perception that council processes may be used for political pur- purposes rather than solely for the orderly conduct of council business. Whether or not this is the intention, maintaining public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our procedures is important. History has shown that motions before council can be amended in ways that differ from their original form. For that reason, I believe it is appropriate to carefully consider not only the proposal before us today, but also how these provisions could operate in practice in the future. In 2018, I voted in favor of Councilor Richter's motion to require a two-thirds vote for censure. That motion passed, and Councilor Woodward also voted in favor. So given that history, I think it's reasonable to ask why these changes are being proposed now, and what specific problem are they intended to address? I also support maintaining the acting mayor rotation as an equal opportunity for all members of council to serve in that role. I have not heard a compelling reason to depart from that longstanding approach. So throughout this term, I have tried to avoid unnecessary personal disputes and to focus on the work before us. So consistent with that r- approach, I will simply say that I do not believe these bylaw amendments are necessary, and I will not be supporting them. Councilor Whitmarsh? (clears throat) (clears throat) Yeah. Thank you. Um, Your Worship. I also have some comments. Um, the province, the province currently is considering, um, uh, a process, uh, and, and developing a code of conduct for, uh, municipalities across this province. Um, and that, you know, likely coming in the fall or shortly after. We have four meetings, uh, counting today, remaining in this council term. And I don't understand why we are, with four meetings remaining, uh, trying to s- change the, our, our charter of how we operate, um, here and in our council meetings, um, with four meetings remaining. It, at one point, was a simple majority, um, on the de- on this decision, uh, around censure for council members. That was changed on November 18th, 2019, in which it was changed to six, um, out of, uh, nine or a, a, um, two-thirds majority supported by s- um, some of the members of council that are sitting at this table here today. Um, censure is a very, uh, significant, uh, statement for a council to make about any particular council member. And- It's one of the more significant statements that they can make about a council member and their activities, uh, on council. And so, therefore, it's a serious matter, and the idea of it being two-thirds majority, uh, makes sense for serious matters like that, that there would be a minimum of, of six people out of the nine that would feel the same way in order to have, move on to censor a motion. And so to change it with four meetings left, um, does seem to be, um, politically motivated. While I don't know the, uh, full intention of it, it does seem that way. Um, obviously, we talked here about trying to refrain from being in election mode. (clears throat) This seems to tie directly to that. Um, I don't think of too many things that would be stronger than this, uh, indicating we're in an election. And so I don't understand the reason for it. And the idea of it being two-thirds majority, uh, makes sense for serious matters like that, that there would be a minimum of, of six people out of the nine that would feel the same way in order to have, move on a censure motion. And so to change it with four meetings left, um, does seem to be, um, politically motivated. While I don't know the, uh, full intention of it, it does seem that way. Um, obviously, we talked here about trying to refrain from being in election mode. (clears throat) This seems to tie directly to that. Um, I don't think of too many things that would be stronger than this, uh, indicating we're in an election. And so I don't understand the reason for it. I know that, um, there is some suggestion that this would take place, uh, after November, uh, be effective after November, which again, if that's the case, uh, why not, uh, l- defer this until the next council, and the next council can make the decision that seems, uh, most appropriate? On, with regards to the, um, position around acting mayor, um, that has always been a position that has been shared equally among all council members, giving all council members opportunity to, um, to provide leadership and demonstrate leadership and to develop some of those skills and also to give back to their community in ways that they would like to do. Um, and there has never been, uh, a political, uh, tie to it or agenda around it. Everybody had the same opportunity, whether they were part of your, uh, support or not, whether they disagreed with you or not. Everyone had equal opportunity. And so to move to a model where the council can now determine what, uh, what each person should get or not get based on whether they, they fit, uh, your, um, your, uh, expectations or whether you agree with them or not, uh, does seem, again, to be politically motivated, and I don't understand the reason for doing it when we're so close to the end of a term. Why not allow the next council to make these decisions if these are so important and for council moving forward to make these kind of decisions? And so both of these, uh, sections of this, or both of the, the, um, parts of this, uh, motion, uh, I think need to be deferred until the next council. Uh, otherwise it definitely, uh, looks to be, um, have other motivations for it than just simply good conduct at the council table. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other discussion, we'll call the question on G2. That carries with Councilor Coutts, Councilor Woodard opposed. Item... Bylaws for Final Adoption I want in- Sorry. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. Yeah. Can you get those back, please? Keep, bring them back for us. (paper rustles) Okay. Move, uh, bylaws for final adoption I want Tenant Protection Bylaw, bylaw number 62146156216. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on I1? (paper rustles) Councilor Pratt? Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. Uh, pleased to see this final adoption on our agenda, and I think, uh, it's a good step in the right direction. Obviously, there's, uh, policies that we adopt that can be improved and tweaked over time, but having a tenant protection bylaw as strong as this one in a municipality like ours that, before a few years ago, had no purpose-built rental buildings and now is on the path to having thousands of units of purpose-built rental I think is a great step, so appreciate staff's time and effort putting this together for us. All right. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on I1. (paper rustles) That carries unanimously. I2 Housing Agreement Bylaw Number 6222. I'll move it. Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Is there any discussion on I2? (paper rustles) Okay. Seeing none, call the question on I2. (paper rustles) That carries anonymously. Item I3, Rezoning Application Number 100759, Bylaw number 6001, moved by Councilor Rint, seconded by Councilor Bailey. Any discussion on I3? Seeing none, call the question on I3. That carries anonymously. Items from prior meetings, J1 Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended motion that is deferred that is now back on the floor. Is there any other questions or discussion about this motion? Councilor Richter? Um, yes. I'm just wondering why the report, or page two suggests a, an April 13th start date. Has this task force already started, and if it has, who's been appointed to it? Your Worship, to Councilor Richter, uh, this stems from the Agriculture Advisory Committee. It's, it was a recommended motion on April 13, 2026, to approve the terms of reference for the task force. Uh, at that time, council deferred the decision to today's council meeting, June 15th, hence why the terms of reference are more than likely dated April, um, 13, 2026. Okay. So do we need an amendment to- ... change that to today's date or tomorrow's date? Uh, to Your Worship, to Council Record, that that is an option for council, but that would be considered just housekeeping and we- and staff can attend to that. Uh, okay. So when do we expect to be advertising to get members for this committee? To Your Worship, to Council Record, I believe once- if council does endorse the terms of reference, then, uh, the next steps would be to then, uh, advise the Agriculture Advisory Committee and staff, and staff would start the process. Okay. My last question is, um, how, uh, how many staff are gonna be needed to support it, and do we have an idea of the cost of that support? Uh, through Your Worship to Council Record, I believe, um, staff involved is, is probably one or two staff members, support staff that would be needed. Um, and that would just be staff time and, uh, resource. Okay, thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on J1. That carries with Councilor Wren opposed. Does anybody wish to make a mayor and council report? Councilor Martins? Thank you. I do. Um, I would just wanna highlight a few of, uh, many events that I've attended these past weeks. Um, first, I had the honor of serving as an adjudicator for the Coast Mental Health Courage to Come Back awards for the third year. This year it was in the addiction category. I'd like to recognize Cole Isaac, whose journey through profound personal loss and trauma, into recovery, leadership, and advocacy, is a powerful reminder of the courage it takes to rebuild, and the importance of community in supporting that journey. The Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics BC is something that holds personal significance for me as a retired police officer. I've seen firsthand the impact of this unique partnership. It goes far beyond fundraising. It's about relationships, trust, and mutual respect. Officers and athletes stand side-by-side, and in many ways, it is the athletes who inspire us through their determination, grit, and spirit. I was proud to attend the BC School Sports Track and Field Championships at McLeod Athletic Park. The performances were exceptional, with records broken and races decided by the narrowest of margins. More importantly, these moments reflect the growth, perseverance and experiences of the young athletes. Hosting events of this caliber also highlights Langley's ability to support provincial competitions, contributing to both community pride and local economic activity. Finally, I would like to recognize the Langley Animal Protection Society for their golf tournament at Green Tea Golf Course in Glen Valley. It was a great event, perfect weather, friendly competition, and a few memorable moments with puppies and kittens. More importantly, it showcased the incredible work of LAPs, a steadfast organization that continues to serve our community with dedication, compassion, and a strong commitment to animal welfare. Together, these events reflect the partnerships, resilience, and sense of community that make Langley such a special place. Thank you. Councilor Bailey? Yeah, I'd like to, uh, report on a few things that I attended. One was the, uh, Recreation, Culture, and Parks, uh, tour. We went and toured a number of the facilities here, one in Bell Park, and especially, uh, Yorkson, uh, the Yorkson Playground. And pleased to report out that, uh, these are both, uh, fully accessible and, uh, very inclusive. Along with the new, uh, playground put in at Wicks Brown, uh, School. It is really nice to see that, uh, there is a focus now in the township dealing with accessibility and removal of barriers for, uh, people who have challenges. And, uh, especially when you're looking at, uh, how these are developed on the large scale, like Yorks- Yorkson, and on the small scale, like, uh, Bell. So, uh, that, uh, that is extremely, um, important to see, uh, coming from a, a family who has dealt with both physical and melt- uh, mental, uh, challenges. Um, a- attended yesterday the Sips of Kindness for, uh, Meals on Wheels, and I had to, uh, arrive late as I had a very important granddaughter final, uh, soccer game of the season. And, uh, great to see the turnout and the support of that, uh, that, uh, organization that does such incredible work up there. And also, uh, uh, attended the Seamus Stroll at, uh, at the, um, at the, uh, MetroPark, uh, down in the south end there. Uh, it is now the fifth year that the- that, uh, Mike G. has done that stroll, and it's a very important partnership with Encompass, uh, recognizing some of the challenges, uh, that youths face, uh, in the, uh, in the days now. So, uh, hats off to, uh, Mike G. and his team for, uh, bringing attention to a very important subject dealing with youth. Councilor Whitmers? Uh, yes, uh, had a couple of events also wanting to, uh, highlight. Uh, some of them have been mentioned. Uh, did attend the LAPs golf tournament, uh, which was a, a great day to raise money for a great organization doing great things for us in the community.Um, had the opportunity, um, yesterday to be at the, uh, Meals on Wheels event at the zoo and discovered that, uh, it's not the Greater Vancouver Zoo, it's an- another place called the Zoo. Um, but it was a fantastic event. Uh, many members of council were there, and, um, great- a great day there as well. Um, also this last weekend, uh, was the, uh, the event that was held in Fort Langley. It's beginning and- and leading up to the National Day of Indigenous Peoples, which is on June 21st, and so attended their event, uh, at the fort. Um, and so it was great to be over there on the weekend. And finally, um, we have many, uh, high school graduations coming up. Thousands of high school, uh, students are gonna be graduating over the next couple weeks. Some have already started their graduation ceremonies. I know members of council will be attending, um, and I will be attending, I think, three different ceremonies. Um, and, uh, so I just wanna congratulate, um, all of those that are graduating from, uh, high school this year and, uh, congratulate all the teachers and parents for getting through to the end of the year. So congratulations to them. Thank you. Counselor Pratt. Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship. Uh, like many members of council, I had a busy calendar, but, uh, filled with- filled with events and- and community events that are, uh, pretty special because of how much work goes into them by each of the organizers, whether that's, uh, you know, the- the Seamus Gee Walk put on by Mike there and Aldergrove Community Market, KFest. We've got Pioneer Lunch, all these amazing organizations, uh, that are being put on by, uh, a tremendous amount of people and had the privilege to go to, uh, a couple scholarship, uh, handout ceremonies and the sort of reassurance that the next generation's looking pretty okay, uh, with how many kids are getting how many thousands of dollars for doing amazing work in the community. So pretty cool, uh, to be able to go into the summertime seeing that and- and having all these events to go to as well. Councilor Ferguson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, first of all, the, uh, FIFA viewing ceremonies that we've been had at the, um, stadium there at LEC, about a thousand people have attended so far. And that was- the weather was good, very well participated. Thank the peop- the staff for getting involved and helping out. Um, also the, um, the Sipt of Kindness, the, uh, Meals on Wheels, I attended that as well. And Mr. Mayor, I wanted to bring to your attention, a number of the years ago, we were thinking of bulldozing that fire hall number two in Aldergrove. They sat- they sat down, the Meals on Wheels people sat down with us, and we ended up transferring the land over to them. Th- that is correct. That property was acquired for the purposes of making it a road. That's correct. That's right. And we appreciate the work done by staff and council, yourself, and also a team of- of council at the time. And, uh, and I think that's just a- a fantastic event, fantastic people what they do for, uh, the community, the Meals on Wheels. And, um, I did have a Metro meeting. There's something with Parks and Recreation, and the Parks and Recreation for Metro Vancouver may be interested in doing a presentation to the men- to our community on what's happening with Metro Parks in our community. So other than that, that's my report. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Kunst? Oh. (clears throat) Uh, May 28th, I attended an event in support of the rolling barrage. I know that was almost three weeks ago already. So, um, just wanted to, uh, highlight, uh, what an awesome, um, event that was, and there was a number of people and Counselor Barb Martins was very involved in, um, in volunteering in that. And it was, uh, um, yeah, I thought it was just a really, really well done event. I also wanted to acknowledge the, um, the- the folks down at New Directions, which is an English language school, uh, in the city of Langley, and every- twice a year they have, uh, they have graduations for English learners. And it's just always a privilege to be able to, uh, attend and see, uh, the excitement from people who are- are learning English. Um, I attended the Wicks Brown Playground ribbon cutting, and what stood out to me is that I asked Counselor Bailey, I said, "Hey, did Township of Langley even put any money into this?" He's like, "No, I don't think we did." And imagine that they- they built a playground without any township money. So that was kinda cool. Um, I attended the LAPS golf tournament, and, uh, again, shout out to the- the people who are taking care of our- our animals. And, um, yeah, that's it for me. All right. Seeing no discussion, we'll move on to items for information N1 through 3. Does anybody have any questions of our items N1 through 3? No? Then we'll move on to other business. Councilor Martins. Thank you. Um, yes, I would like to move P1, Murrayville Five Corners roundabout speed reduction. Um, if I'll just read it into the record. Is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Kunst. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So, um, whereas staff plan to install 30 kilometer per hour advisory speed tabs in advance of the roundabout at Five Corners in Murrayville, and members of the public have requested that a lower advisory speed be posted, therefore be it resolved that council direct staff to install 20 kilometer per hour advisory speed tabs rather than 30 kilometer per hour tabs on all approaches to the Five Corners roundabout in Murrayville, which is 216th Street, Old Yale Road, and 48th Avenue. Um, just speaking to that motion, I'm bringing forward this motion as a result of direct conversations and correspondence with residents regarding safety at the Five Corners roundabout in Murrayville, and that would be in-person conversations with human beings. In short, I am moving that the advisory speed posted at this roundabout be set at 20 kilometers per hour rather than 30 kilometers per hour proposed by staff. While staff have proposed the usual 30 kilometers per hour advisory speed signage, what I am hearing and what I have personally observed suggests that this is not a typical roundabout, and the standard approach may not reflect how people actually experience it. This is a five-legged intersection with multiple approaches, visibility challenges, and a mix of local, commuter, and commercial traffic. It requires a higher level of attention and caution from drivers. Residents who have driven the roundabout multiple times and in different vehicles consistently report that anything above 20 kilometers an hour feels uncomfortable. I took the time to do the same myself. As a retired police officer, I approached it deliberately, maintaining 20 kilometers per hour through the roundabout. And even at that speed, it demanded full attention. This reinforced for me that 20 kilometers an hour is not only reasonable, but reflective of the actual conditions on the ground. We also know that this corridor carries heavy commercial vehicles, which often require even lower speeds to navigate safely, and that unfamiliar drivers rely heavily on signage. Higher advisory speeds can unintentionally signal that faster travel is appropriate. The evidence on speed is consistent. Research shows the odds of a pedestrian fatality rise by roughly 11% for every additional kilometer per hour of impact speed. And roundabouts achieve their safety benefit, a reduction of about 75% in injury crashes, precisely by keeping speeds low. A 20 kilometer per hour advisory speed reinforces that principle at an intersection where the geometry already demands extra caution. For me, this comes down to being practical and responsive. When both driver behavior and direct experience indicate that a lower speed feel safer, it makes sense for our signage to reflect that. Councillor Rekerd? Um, yeah, I just wanted to thank Wally Martin very much for insisting I go out and try to drive around that at 30, and I couldn't. Um, the best I could do even was 18. I mean, it, it's a small roundabout, and I think that it's very wise that we reduce the permitted maximum from 20 down to 30, or from t- 30 down to 20. So thank you, Councillor Martens, for bringing this forward. I'm happy to support it. Seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on P1. That's defeated. Councillor Bailey, Councillor Ferguson, Councillor Pratt, Councillor Rip, Mayor Woodward, opposed. Councillor Ferguson, you have a motion? Yeah, mine, uh, I'd just like to, uh, move the motion as, as presented- All right. ... review of e-bike safety regulation in Force. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councillor Rip. Go ahead. And, and a very, very brief, I did have a discussion with, uh, S- Superintendent Harm Dos Anjes, and, and, uh, he said it was just basically a extension of the work they're doing already with the e-scooters. And, uh, I wasn't able to get it as amendment last time, so, uh, I'm putting it forward now. They're very concerned about safety with e-vehicles, and, uh, mostly s- bikes, e-bikes and scooters. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bailey? Yeah, I'd, I'd like to support this. Uh, there are so many, uh, injuries going into, uh, the emergency rooms now that it's not funny. And when you see, uh, the, the way that the people are driving, uh, violations of all kinds of, of, uh, requirements for the licenses on these things, uh, especially the ones that concern me, having to, had to pick up people off of, uh, very similar circumstances, is a, uh, very lack of, uh, extensive use of the legal requirement of helmets. And when you also see, uh, young people doubling on these things, uh, you actually even see, uh, adults doubling young children, with neither one of them having helmets. I believe that, uh, this is something that has to be looked at, and some concrete solutions to it, because obviously common sense right now is, uh, not ruling the ro- the roads as, uh, emergency service providers are, are, um, are dealing with these circumstances daily. Councillor Whitmer? Yeah, just, uh, confirming, um, first of all that it's, it's a report that we're asking for. Mm-hmm. Um, and secondly what the expected sort of timing might be from staff on, on, uh, coming back to council with this. Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Whitmar. Uh, yes, it's, it appears to be that the resolutions itself states to, uh, report back to council with any findings and recommendation, uh, with respect to any potential bylaw policy or education or advocacy mea- measures there. So we would report back to council, uh, in consultation with the appropriate departments. Um, we will also review this, uh, concurrently with potentially the outstanding resolution regarding, uh, e-scooters as well. Uh, timeline at this time, we're gonna have to, uh, review this in a more holistic lens. So it might be prior to the summer break, it might not. Uh, at this time, it would be difficult to determine a timeline. Okay, thank you. Seeing no other discussion, call the question on P2. That carries unanimously. Councillor Pratt, go ahead, P3. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I'll move it as written. All right, I'll second it. Is there any other discussion, questions? Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Pratt? No, I think the, the motion speaks for itself. All right. Councillor Whitmer? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify this. This is for, um... Sorry, I'm just finding where I am on here. Um, this is for commercial irrigation, not residential. Correct. Okay, thank you. Councillor Martens? Yeah, um, if it's possible, through the chair to the mover, could you please give an example of, um, where this would apply? You wish to do that?Okay. Councillor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you for the question. Uh, per the, the mo- motion itself, uh, we would be exploring which municipality, or which properties, uh, may be connected to the municipal water system, seeing as Schedule A of the Water Regulation Bylaw, Waterworks Regulation Bylaw currently does not permit it. And so, looking at potential changes there where those ex- situations might exist. Okay, so there's no specific example? It's, yeah, you're speaking in generalities. That's all. Correct. Okay. Um, would this have any context to agriculture? Commercial irrigation, yes, would, would have context for agriculture. Okay, so, okay. So there are farms that could be looking at drip irrig- irrigation. There may or may not be. That's why we were looking at this, and how many municipal-, uh how many properties may be connected to municipal water, and may be able to utilize it, and may not be. Okay. All right. Councillor Bailey, go ahead. Now, I can give an example of this, uh, the very first, uh, drip irrigation, it's not in the Township of Langley, but, uh, it was up in Oliver, was Tinhorn Creek. It went from, uh, spray irrigation to drip irrigation, and went down to 30% of their water usage, uh, and they were the first in the province to, uh, receive recognition about, this is a very efficient way to utilize water, uh, in a much better manner. Instead of spraying water all over the ground that is not being utilized by the crop, uh, drip irrigation is a much lower flow, and is also a much more direct application. All right. Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question on P3. That carries unanimously. Councillor Pratt, P4. Oh, turned your mic off again. Councillor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I'll move the, uh, motion as written. All right, I'll second it. Is there any this ques- you should speak to this? Yeah, I think this came out of, uh, conversations with some user groups, as well as, uh, a member of staff there at LSS, who, uh, has been putting in a lot of work to make sure that rugby is, is really supported there at the school and across the township as well. And, uh, would be potentially exploring ways that the, the fields at MacLeod Athletic Park can be either reoriented or reconfigured, uh, to be able to get the most, uh, use out of them possible without negatively impacting any of the user groups that are there currently. All right. Councillor Richter? Yeah, I, uh, was wondering if we had any idea of the potential cost for this. Any guesstimates at this point? Or will that be included in the report that's coming back to council? Through your worship, to Councillor Richter, it, it'd be too early, or premature to determine, as it, the direction noted here is that it, we'd report back to council with potential concepts, design, and required funding envelopes. So once we do review this, um, and look at the concepts, even, we might even require a funding envelope for the design, uh, as well. So, it would be too early to determine at this stage. Okay. So when do the costs come to council? Uh, through, through your worship, to Councillor Richter, uh, when council reports, sorry, when staff report back to council. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Bailey? Yeah, I'm glad to support this, because, uh, when I went and attended the high school girls' rugby there, uh, the organizing teacher from LSS, uh, and I had a, uh, discussion around the usage of these fields. And one of the complicating factors on that is that the closest field to LSS is owned by the school board, and the, uh, and the second field is out closer to the corner of, uh, 216th and, uh, and 56 there is owned by us. So this is something, uh, I'm really glad you see heavy usage of this field, in many aspects, like flag football. Uh, but, uh, apparently, um, by leveling certain swales and that, and, uh, making this field, uh, flatter and, and, uh, easier to u- utilize for, uh, sports like rugby, uh, it would be, uh, a great benefit to both the school board and the, um, and the township users. Councillor Koontz? Yeah, I, I attended the rugby sevens there, and it was, uh, Alicia Paul, so shout out to Alicia Paul. Uh, she's, uh, she's doing great work here at the council table. So, uh, I, I would be happy to support this, because, um, it was a girl's rugby sevens tournament, so I always gotta support the girls. Seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on, nope, w- well, call the question on P4. That carries anonymously. Councillor Pratt. Nope, turned you off again. Councillor Pratt, P5. Yeah, thank you. I'll move, uh, P5 as written. Yeah, I'll second it. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. This would, uh, ex- uh, sort of amend the neighborhood traffic calming policy, and bring forward those p- amendments at the next regular meeting of council. Councillor Martins? Yeah. Um, I- if I could, uh, through the chair, through the staff, if, is it possible to provide, uh, what the, um, proposed wording for pou- 4.2.3 will be, in its entirety? Uh, through Your Worship to Councillor Martins, uh, staff can provide the policy itself. Um, and then, I believe the intent would be to bring the changes forward to the next meeting for council's, uh, consideration in a...Approval. So- It's not my understanding of the motion... My understanding, Mr. Kuner, is that this motion amends the policy, and then you'll bring forward the amended version of the policy. It does say, "Be amended." Yes, the amended policy would then... We would seek counsel- ... forward, but it wouldn't... Uh, this would be directly amending the policy as written. That's our interpretation, but do you see something different? That's our interpretation, but when we bring the policy forward, we just get counsel to endorse it. Bring the policy forward as amended, but it wouldn't be for approval. This... If this were to move forward, that would... This would be the approval of the amendment. It says, "Be amended." So to me, the resolution would directly amend the policy, and then you, staff would bring forward the amended version of the policy. And there, there might be just a little clarification point here. Uh, staff would bring forward the policy as amended, and just see council to endorse that policy. Or- I think, Councillor Pratt, maybe you wanna review... Consider what your intent is here, and then we'll go back to ... . Yeah, appreciated. So the... The paragraph there, as written, is amending the policy today, and then at the subsequent meeting of council, either as an agent for information or as a, uh, I suppose, a report to council, not requiring endorsement or acceptance, seeing as we are amending it today, uh, but that's... The updated version would be just presented to council- Yeah. ... at the next meeting. If you could just include the amended version as an item for information, Mr. Kuner, that would be an option. That, that's fine as long as that's council's intent and- Correct. ... th- this resolution is then carried. That, that, that would be sufficient. Thank you. So, Councillor Martins, back to you. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Okay. So, um, really, I... The reason I'm asking the question I am is 'cause I found it a little confusing as to what the final wording would look like, um, the way the, the, uh, motion is worded. Is it possible for the mover to read out to me what his intention is of what 4.2.3 would be amended to look like? I mean, it, it feels e- e- ... you know, you can do that. Yeah. It feels self-explanatory. It would just be placing these words after those words, but if you wish to have Councillor Pratt read it for you, we can have them do that. Yeah. Councillor Pratt, go ahead. Yeah, so it's not... Yeah, so the, the, the traffic policy, as attached, uh, 4.2.3 currently reads, "For priority locations, the township would develop a traffic-calming plan and conduct a community ballot to determine the level of support for the proposed plan, as approved by council. Roads fronting schools or playground zones are not subject to the requirement of a community ballot." The amendment, as written... I'm just scrolling back up. Adds the words, "And pedestrian routes to schools or parks where documented safety concerns exist and that are authorized by council rev- resolution," after the words, "Roads fronting schools or playground zones," in that second sentence of that 4.2.3. So, you're adding words, but in your amendment, or your motion, you're not taking words away. Yeah. So, the last sentence is going to read, "Roads fronting schools or playground zones," and then the phrase that you've added, and then at the very end, "Are not subject to the requirement of the community ballot." That's correct. That's... That's all included in there as well. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions or discussion on P5? Nope. Seeing none, call the question on P5. That carries unanimously. Councillor Bailey, P6. Go ahead. Yes, I'd like to present this as, uh, written. All right. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councillor Ferguson. Go ahead. The reason this is important, uh, one, this is the deadline day for a submission to UBCM, uh, I believe, at 4 o'clock, so, eh, if I can ask that if this does pass, uh, that it be immediately submitted to the UBCM AGM. Uh, w- where it is applicable, this is an online mental health, um, tool to help all, uh, all first responders, and that is approximately 48,000 members within the province. That includes police, firefighters, paramedics, dispatchers, search and rescue, corrections, sheriffs, and others, including retirees. Uh, the, the stats that are on this are, are pretty scary to someone who's gone through it. 45%, uh, 44.5% of first responders have screened positive for symptoms consistent with one or more mental health disorders. Compared... Compare that 44.5 to 10.5 of the general public. So that is a, uh, a huge, a huge difference, and that is a direct result of, uh, what happens on the job. This, um, this after... is an eight-week program of therap- uh, therapist-guided, uh, care. And the anxiety, uh, symptoms from participants dropped from 49% to 18%, and depression symptoms fell from 58% to 25%. This is desperately needed, this money to fund this University of Regina program, and, uh, it is being requested by, uh, uh, the firefighters and other first responders, and, uh, they see it as an urgent need. All right. Councillor Wittmers. Yeah, just a, a question to the mover. Uh, is this a, a program that is funded in other provinces and the request here is to see British Columbia also fund it? This, uh, this has funding from the federal government. And wha- and what we... what they want here is that the BC government supply this, uh, 200 and... oh, God. 233. 233, I think, uh, thousand dollars. Um, personally, uh, having gone through the presumptive cancer and the presumptive heart legislations, um, someone needs to take the lead. I do not know, uh, if other provinces, uh, are, uh, funding this. And personally, I don't care. Uh, when you have such a need for such a large, uh, uh, sector of, of public safety, 48,000 members involved- ... right across a whole spectrum of emergency services. I don't mind doing what, uh, uh, the province of Manitoba did with presumptive cancer. If we've gotta be first to the table, uh, that's even better. All right. Uh, seeing no other discussion, I'll call the question on P6. That carries unanimously. So we have- Councilor Bailey, you're on the P7. If I can, uh, ask for a bio break now, and during that bio break, if we can get that sent off- Oh. ... to the UBCM AGM. I've got a thumbs up already, so- Get Robbie to send it. Yeah, it's already been sent. So we, we're almost done with the agenda, Councilor Bailey. (laughs) If you have two motions- Okay, excellent. Uh, then, we'll go into, uh- P7, go ahead. Yeah, I, I'd like to move seven, uh, as written. All right, I'll second it. Go ahead, please. Okay, this is an ongoing dispute. This was done, uh, by the then minister, Robbie Callan, to take single... uh, uh, from, uh, two egress, uh, stairwells down to one. Uh, on average, these egress stairwells average about 10 by 10. So you're talking about 100 square feet per floor. This is, uh, the reason I'm asking for, especially the last part to, staff to, uh, obtain legal review, because what we'd be doing is looking at subverting the BC Building Code. There is an example already. Uh, the, the city of West Kelowna has stepped forward. Uh, they feel strongly enough that, uh, this will very easily, uh, damage, uh, an awful lot of operations, policies, and procedures. Uh, when r- uh, Minister Callan put this in place, he had not consulted the BC Professional Firefighters' Association or any of their members. He had not consulted the FCA, the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, or any of its members. And this is such a serious, uh, uh, violation of protocols and procedures for firefighting and, uh, and rescue that the NFPA, the National Fire Protection Association that sets standards across North America, have raised objections. The excuse that is being used, and I deliberately utilize excuse, is that they say Seattle and New York have single staircase. Seattle is staffed, uh, to a much greater extent than even Vancouver is. So if the province is about to fund all the, uh, fire departments in British Columbia to the same percentage level of Seattle, then, well, I'll have another look at it, but the Seattle firefighters have been fighting this for decades. And then, let's look at their other example, New York. Their buildings are built out of stone and concrete, not wood like ours. And I can tell you from a very personal example, it is essential that you have the two stairwells, and then you can utilize, uh, a, an awful lot of factors. One is evacuation of people that are in the, the structure. If you are trying to go up in emergency, uh, the firefighters and that, and you're trying to evacuate in the same stairwell, that is an impossibility, especially if you have anyone that is dealing with disabilities, whether it be mental or physical. And I have run into both of those in circumstances dealing with stairwells. So this is, is something that was, um, was not consulted with anyone in the industry in British Columbia. I have spoken to the president on the BCPFFA, was not consulted. And I spoke to the now retiring chief of, uh, Vancouver, who I also worked with, and she was not consulted, or any, uh, any of the, the peers, including our fire chief. So this is a, uh, an effort to ensure that the residents and the firefighters in, uh, the township of Langley will be much safer. Councilor Richter? Yeah, I was just wondering, um, the second, um, be it therefore, be it resolved. There's a second one, be it further resolved to get legal review. Do we have any idea what the cost of legal review is gonna be? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, not at this time. We don't know the extent of what the legal review would be or whether we would do it internally or externally. Okay. So when the report comes back to staff, or, uh, is there a way for us to include an estimated cost of legal review? Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Richter, we generally have a legal budget in, in, in various departments. You, um, conduct legal reviews. Uh, we don't indicate specifically how each report is cost when it comes to any internal or external legal, um, expenses. Okay. Well, I just think we need to have an idea of the cost of some of these things before we agree to the principle of it. Thank you. Seeing no discussion, I call the question on P7. That carries anonymously. C- Councilor Bailey, item eight. Yeah, move it as read. Is there a seconder to that? Seconded by Councilor Pratt. Go ahead. Yeah, the intent of this is we are about to- ... repair, the preliminary work is being done at the rainbow crosswalk in Fort Langley and, uh, we are about to repair this and I think it is, uh, very important. And a lot of people have raised the fact that, uh, we shouldn't be, uh, paying to repair this, and I fully agree. But I think that people who choose to, uh, deface public property in a hateful manner, such as has been done in the past over the last now nine or 10 years, uh, I think, uh, we should be looking at, uh, uh, ways to recoup the cost of, of repairs to, um, to the, uh, such structures and public property like this. And, uh, I fully would, uh, would like to see some of these people who have been, uh, blatantly, uh, bragging about wanting to deface something in a hateful manner like this, uh, become fully responsible and pay. All right, Councillor Martins. Thank you. Um, yeah, I, I support the spirit of this motion. Um, I have some comments for consideration, and I did speak with our officer in charge of the RCMP yesterday about this topic. Um, and myself, speaking as a retired police officer, enforcement is not the strongest first line of defense. It's, uh, reactive, can be resource-heavy, and happens after the damage is done. More enforcement does not prevent the next incident. It only responds to it. The most effective approach is to change the environment so the offense cannot easily occur. As an example, uh, Nanaimo, um, recently, they, um, upgraded their crosswalk. Instead of relying on enforcement for vandalism, they installed a durable thermoplastic pride crosswalk that is bonded into the roadway and resistant to change. This approach reduces maintenance, lowers long-term costs, and minimizes the need for enforcement. So rather than increasing enforcement, I would suggest that we focus on prevention through better design, or what is known in policing as CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. The best outcome is when enforcement is not needed at all. Um, Mr. Mayor, if this concept, if it... Is it too far off from the original motion, or could we consider adding an amendment to conclu- include considering CPTED options to prevent the offense in the first instance? Yeah, I'll, uh... We've got three other speakers, but I'll come back to you for that. Thank you. Councillor Richter? Um, I, again, I agree with the intent here. Um, I just guess I would query, what is the actual likelihood of catching these people in the act? Have we been doing it all the way along? To your Worship, to Councillor Richter, it's just... I think we review every item on a case-by-case basis. I think there's been some success, um, with respect to, uh, catching some, um, some individuals who have, uh, caused some damages. Um, and those individuals, some of them have been charged, but, uh, we, RCMP files, there is some investigations still ongoing. Okay, thank you. Councillor Whitmer? Yes. (clears throat) Thank you. Um, my, my question, I guess, through to staff was, or is that, do we currently have a, a, some kind of policy or, um, structure within bylaws or within other forms of enforcement that we currently do? And, or do we have nothing sort of around this topic at the, at the current time? To your Worship, to Councillor Whitmer, generally speaking specific to, uh, items regarding cost recovery option, they're, they're, they're quite limited in nature, uh, right now when it comes to, uh, a- any policy or, um, bylaw currently. Okay, so this would be a new thing for us to have. Um, o- outside of the, the rainbow crosswalk, um, is the... What are some of the ex- uh, do, do we have examples of people where they're doing intentional damage to the highway markings and traffic control devices and these sort of things? I know that's listed on here as another area. Is that just anticipating the future and a policy that would cover sort of a lot of things, um, or do we... Are we having problems in, in those areas as well? Uh, to your Worship, to Councilor Whitmer, uh, generally speaking, we do have policies when it come... um, sorry. We do have events that occurred that relate to damages to our highway markings, traffic control devices. One example off the top of my head is there's still, uh, uh, several burnouts occurs on s- uh, certain parking lots or, uh, traffic, uh, control, um, sorry, line markings as well. And, uh, sometimes there's graffiti and damages to specific, um, traffic control devices too. Right. Okay. Well, I- I'm certainly very supportive o- of this. I do like the, the suggestion, um, that maybe we could add and find ways other than just strictly enforcement, but maybe better ways of design and better ways of building these things so that they, uh, are, um, more difficult to damage. So thank you. Councilor Bailey, do you wish to speak a second time or can I deal with the amendment first? Second time. So can I speak, can deal with the amendment first, and maybe you'll be able to speak to a motion as amended? It will deal with the amendment actually, and, and probably make the amendment not necessary. Uh, well, I think the amendment's gonna get moved either way. So why don't we just go and deal with the amendment? Councilor Martins, go ahead and move your amendment. Yeah. Um, so I guess w- if we just add an additional line, um, and that staff, uh, consider, um- ... other options from a CPTED approach. That's C-P-T-E-D. All right. Is there a seconder to that? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Kruse. Go ahead, Councilor Martins. Yeah, I think I spoke enough to it. All right. Anybody... Councilor Bailey, on the amendment. Yeah. Uh, when we initially looked at, uh, at, uh, fixing the rainbow crosswalk, staff did look at Nanaimo, and they did look at the thermal and that, and they have, uh, recommended that the best way to deal with this is the proper paint that, uh, it will be applied there. Uh, the plastic will not stand up and does not stand up as well as, as, uh, as, uh, the paint. You know, uh, maybe it's because of our backgrounds on this one, we're both, uh, thinking of looking at it, and, uh, that was one of the options that staff looked at, and said that the paint will stand up better and is easier to maintain than the, uh, plastic in Nanaimo. Councilor Widemarsh. Yeah. And, and I... You know, that's help- helpful information, and I appreciate that that might be the case, um, uh, for the crosswalk, but this, this, uh, resolution is, uh, much bigger than just the crosswalk. It includes the crosswalk. And I think what it does is, by having this additional point is, it does allow the option to look at other options, whether it's for crosswalks, or whether it's for highway markings, or whether it's for, uh, other things, that there's more than just simply bylaw, uh, enforcement or, or, or RCMP enforcement. There could be ways to design things in a way that are less... uh, could be less damage to them. So, it just makes it more general, and it gives an option. And for us to consider that as a part of it, rather than just strictly coming up with more fines and more enforcement, even though that might be necessary, uh, and that wouldn't be precluded by this, uh, resolution. Councilor Pratt. Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship. I, I, I appreciate the, the spirit of the amendment, and perhaps staff can clarify in a question through you to them. Are CPTED principles included, uh, in our public spaces design and our transportation and mobility design? I believe in the TMS update that we undertook recently, CPTED was included as something that, moving forward as well as any rehabilitation projects, that CPTED is used as a lens that staff look through. Uh, through Your Worship to Councilor Pratt. Generally speaking, yes, I believe even in some neighborhood plans, we, we have that, uh, policy within them, um, as well. Thank you. All right, seeing no discussion, we'll call the question on the amendment. Amendment carries. Councilor Ferguson, Councilor Pratt, Councilor Rint, and Mayor Woodward opposed. So, we're now back to the P8 as amended. Is there any questions or discussion as amended? If not, call the question on P8 as amended. If not, carries unanimously. Is there any other business? Yes. Councilor Reker. Yeah, just a question, actually two questions through you to staff. Do we have a current cost of, uh, for building and paving one kilometer of road? Uh, th- through your Worship, to Councilor Reker, not, not at the top of staff's head. It, it all depends on whether that road requires any, uh, improvements, the s- standard of the road, whether it's urban standard, curbs, gutter, utility relocation. So, it does depend. It's not as simple as just having a general cost. It... Each road is specific on some of the, uh- So, we don't track those costs at all? Through Your Worship to Councilor, we do generally track those costs, but those costs are also determined on specific roadways and whether there's any approvals, uh, required and, uh, cost increases. Okay. My second question is, um, myself and Councilor Widemarsh... I don't know if anybody else got this letter, um, from a resident with a bylaw complaint concerning auto wrecking and storage of wrecked vehicles, um, on a property in Walnut Grove. Can I just hand this to staff and staff will look into it? Or do I need a resolution to give it to staff? Are you aware of this item, Mr. Clark? Uh, through Your Worship, Councilor, I, I might be... Staff might be already aware of these items, um, a- and happy to also, after the meeting, take the specific correspondent, and we can st- uh, staff will review it and advise council. Okay. So, you'll give us back an update on whether this complaint has come in to staff to investigate, I guess? Uh, through Your Worship, Councilor, if it's the same one that's come in to the top of my head, then yes, we, we're going to be providing council some further updates. Okay. Thank you. Any other business? Oh, I'm seeing none. Any... Does anybody have any items for closed? No. Seeing none, can I get a motion to resolve into closed? Moved by Councilor Bailey, seconded by Councilor Pratt. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? And that carries. Can a motion to termin- Oh, Councilor Reker, did you have something? Yeah. I was just wondering, I was just wondering if we could possibly have a 10-minute break right now before we start closed. Yeah, that's why I would definitely like to, uh, do that before closed. So, uh, appreciate everybody bearing with me for those 15 minutes, and we'll convene in closed at 3:55. Get a motion to terminate. So moved. Moved by Councilor Pratt, seconded by Councilor Rint. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? And that's carried. Thank you.