The following MP3 audio excerpts from this meeting are linked below:
Official District minutes of this meeting are available here: http://www.centralsaanich.ca/Assets/Central+Saanich/Minutes/Council/2009/09Feb02+Regular+Council+Minutes.pdf (Please note that, according to the transcript, District minutes do not appear to be entirely accurate).
Transcripted excerpts from the District of Central Saanich Council meeting, Feb 2, 2009.
Mayor Mar: Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Council meeting of February 2nd. Any late items, Miss Ribeiro?
Sara Ribeiro: Thank you your worship. There are some late items for consideration at tonight's regular Council meeting.
The first item is correspondence pertaining to removal of trees at 1870 crossroad. The correspondence is from E.Kerwood of 1040 Forest Park dated January 28th, 2009, and it's to be considered as new item 2F under section seven, correspondence action required or recommended.
There is a notice of motion from Councillor Olsen to be considered in conjunction with Mount Newton Crossroad Senanus Drive local area service establishment bylaw number 1625 2009, to be considered as new item 1,3 sub-1, under section ten - Bylaws for consideration of first three readings.
And then under section thirteen - correspondence receive for general information, there's twelve additional items of correspondence received pertaining to the Mount Newton Senanus waterline extension project that should be considered under item eight, respectively number items b through m.
Mayor Mar: Thank you Miss Ribeiro.
Councillor Bryson: Your worship if I may also request that we add under Bylaw section bring forward bylaw #1648, they had the hearing last week. It's the Watson street.
Councillor Garrison: move accept the agenda.
Councillor Bryson: second.
Mayor Mar: All in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Mayor Mar: Now accept the minutes of January 19th on page one six.
Councillor Garrison: so moved.
Councillor Bryson: second.
Mayor Mar: Any errors or omissions?
Mayor Mar: All in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Mayor Mar: we're now at the public inquiries period. If you have a letter on the agenda - especially on the tree removal - you'll be afforded the opportunity to address your letter. But if you have a question of Council would you please state your name and address for the record please?
Garnet Irwin: My name is Garnet Irwin, 921 Mount Newton Crossroad, and my question is why did we receive these sheets (holds up sheets) saying there would be hydrants and thus an insurance savings, when there are not going to be any hydrants or savings?
Mayor Mar: Okay. thank you. did you have a question? Yes?
Grace Owen: Yes. My name is Grace Owen. I'm at 906 Mount Newton Crossroad. And I would like to know why there are two attachments mentioned in this petition (holding up a green sheet of paper), that were not included with the petition, and why did the Mount Newton Neighborhood Association people have to go to the Freedom of Information to get these documents?
Ewan Cadger: My name is Ewan Cadger, I'm at 1171 Mount Newton Crossroad - I'd just like to ask - why were some properties left off the catchment list, including some of the original properties in the area, and why some properties didn't receive a petition?
Mayor Mar: Okay - I think we'll deal with some of these when we deal with the bylaw.
Sharon Lawrence: 8381 West Saanich Road. My question is concerning money in the District. I want to know how close we are to the debt ceiling right now.
Lawrence Laban: I'm Lawrence Laban I'm at 1133 Mount Newton Crossroad. My question was regarding my letter I wrote that was on the agenda - I just didn't know whether it would be read out or if it's just going to be filed?
Councillor Garrison: It's in correspondence received.
Lawrence Laban: My second question is - regarding the bylaws that have been prepared - by way of background on that, I'm referring to an email that was sent back in June from the Treasurer to Mr. Frank Towler regarding bylaws that were prepared at that time. It goes "Hi Frank, I've discussed this with Gary and we'll have the bylaws "in our back pocket" regardless of the solicitor's advice." These bylaws that are referred to - were these bylaws actually prepared at that time? And are they in fact - this in regard to the Bylaws for the Mount Newton waterline extension - and I couldn't really find any reference to those bylaws in any minutes or anything, that said that Council had directed them to be prepared, so my question is - did Council direct staff to prepare those bylaws back in the summer, were those bylaws actually prepared, and if they weren't prepared, what's referred to here? And if they were prepared, but not at the direction of Council - I'm not sure of the mechanism and if they were prepared and we're having bylaws brought forward at this meeting today - are these bylaws substantially the ones that are referred to in this documentation from June? And if the bylaws are substantially the same - why was the last meeting indicating that new bylaws would be prepared, rather than - you know - a re-examination of previously prepared bylaws. that's my question.
Mayor Mar: Thank you. Any further questions? The gentleman in the blue sweater.
Chris Paynter: Chris Paynter, 1179 Mount Newton. Why did the District hold the information meeting about the project three months it certified the petition, and why didn't the District allow people to remove their signatures following the meeting, when it became clear that they had been misled? why is the District not requiring a re-petition?
Mayor Mar: Thank you. Okay - the lady -
Ellen Connell: My name is Ellen connell and I'm at 680 Mount Newton Crossroad - I just have two quick questions - One is I'm wondering why the Grant application is based on a petition that was done in the year 2000? Many of the property owners in the local service area are new owners and are opposed to the project - the District has also received letters from residents who originally signed the more recent petition but then asked that their signatures be withdrawn. There seemed to be a number of anomalies with the process, and I guess my most pressing question is why is the District preparing Local Service Area Bylaws for a petition that has so many apparent flaws.
Mayor Mar: Thank you. The gentleman in the back.
Ed Johnson: My question is to Councillor Bryson. At the last meeting...
Mayor Mar: Your name and address please?
Ed Johnson: Oh - sorry. Ed Johnson 1299 Mount Newton Crossroad. At the last meeting, Councillor Bryson had to step away when the Senanus waterline issue was brought forward and I don't know if that was voluntary, and my question is, since he's not in the catchment area, and he isn't legally able to access the waterline via the easement, if he's sought legal counsel in this regard?
Councillor Bryson: Mr. Mayor, if there's going to be further discussion of the Senanus waterline, I shall certainly leave the table, because I have received legal advice that I have a potential conflict of interest as a result of my ownership of the property at 1239 Mount Newton Crossroad, and because I farm portions of some properties within the proposed service area.
Mayor Mar: Thank you Councillor Bryson. Yes - Sir -
Hugh Owen: Hugh Owen - 906 Mount Newton Crossroad. The bylaw that's going to be discussed tonight is describing a 3/4 inch connection to each parcel along the waterline. Is Council aware that for many houses in the local service area - including ours - 3/4" connection will contravene the building code. How will you direct the plumbing inspector to deal with that? Thank you.
Mayor Mar: Thank you.
Carole Carmack: Carole Carmack, 900 Mount Newton Crossroad, and I'm wondering why there has been no First Nations Consultation regarding this pipeline? Central Saanich was notified of the requirement from the provincial and federal governments?
Mayor Mar: Thank you. We'll deal with that when we deal with the bylaw. Yes?
Lori Waters: 1179 Mount Newton Crossroad - Thank you for letting me speak. I've recently joined the CRD's water advisory committee, and I have a couple of questions. My first question is - I got our water advisory committee minutes for our meeting tomorrow, and the agenda, and I just wanted to know if Council still endorses the recommendations that were sent forth to the Regional Water Supply Commission last year? This says "The district of Central Saanich considered and endorsed these motions that the Regional Water Supply commission amend the strategic plan for water management, and set out an explicit goal for meeting growth in water demand through water conservation, re-use and recycling, and rainwater harvesting." So, Central Saanich endorsed that, and I was just wondering if you still endorse that? My other question is also regards to water - with regard to the current pipeline plan - I was wondering if Central Saanich was planning to follow its water policy, per resolutions 1032.08, and 1035.08? and I also - the Regional water supply commission has a mandate to do water back-casting, and I wondered if the District of Central Saanich would invite Oliver Brandes and Susan Porter-Bopp of the POLIS project at UVic to come and do a presentation to Council on back-casting as an innovative new way of looking at water management that is sustainable, and will ensure that we have water resources for the future. Those are my questions. Thank you.
Mayor Mar: Thank you.
Ed Carmack: I'm Ed Carmack, 900 Mount Newton Crossroad. I'm wondering why the District is taking, as it's only source of water quantity data, BC Ministry of Environment monitoring well #333 on 617 Senanus Drive? that's one of the oldest and lowest flow wells on that property, and the ministry of environment database shows that more water is available on that property and on other properties on Senanus.
Mayor Mar: Thank you. Any further questions? Hearing none, we'll move on. Thank-you.
/
** unrelated items were discussed during this portion of the meeting - refer to minutes and MP3 plan for additional information on discussion during this section**
/
BYLAWS:
Mayor Mar: Moving on to Bylaws for consideration of first three readings. Central Saanich Sewage Collection Bylaw number 1653 - 6536 Rudolph Road.
Councillor Bryson: Move first reading
Councillor Mason: second.
Mayor Mar: All those in favour? opposed. Carried.
Councillor Mason: Move second reading Bylaw 1653.
Councillor Kubek: second.
Mayor Mar: Discussion?
Councillor Olsen: Point of order.
Mayor Mar: yes, Councillor Olsen?
Councillor Olsen: Point of order your worship. Just in regards to section 38 of the procedure bylaw - part 38 - that "every bylaw shall be read three times, prior to its adoption and final passing, and each of such readings shall be on a separate day, unless otherwise ordered by a 2/3 vote of the Council present." Just as a new Councillor, I didn't see this when we passed a bylaw a few weeks ago, and I just think maybe we should look at this as to whether we're following procedure in doing three readings on the same day.
Mayor Mar: Okay. Well, maybe I'll ask staff for clarification?
Gary Nason: what we've done in the past your worship is that there has been a motion to give all three readings to a bylaw on the same evening. It's standard practice in virtually every municipality that I know. The requirement though is that there be one clear day between third reading and fourth reading. You can't give first second and third reading and final adoption,i.e. fourth reading, on the same night. There has to be one clear day between third and fourth but it's very typical and standard procedure for Council to give first three readings of a bylaw on the same evening. I guess if you were following the procedure bylaw to the absolute letter, there would be a motion to give first three readings of a bylaw on the same evening.
Mayor Mar: Thank you Mr. Nason
Gary Nason: But it is permissable.
Councillor Bryson: Your worship, in respect, I think the analysis is correct, and I would move that we make a decision to allow, in this situation, first, second and third readings of this particular bylaw.
Councillor Kubek: seconded.
Mayor Mar: Councillor Olsen?
Councillor Olsen: Just for further clarification because we've got a couple of other bylaws following, will this then be the case for each of the bylaws that we read? Each is handled separately - as a separate case - is that correct?
Mayor Mar: It should be yes - Is that the motion made for all three, or unless we do it for all three before the meeting, and say we're going to give a third reading, it should be all bylaws?
Councillor Bryson: Your worship, the motion I made was specific to this bylaw. My interpretation of the procedures bylaw is that there would be a separate discussion for each bylaw. That was the motion your worship.
Mayor Mar: Any further discussion? Hearing none those in favour? Opposed? Carried. And now
Councillor Bryson: Move Second reading bylaw 1653.
Mayor Mar: discussion? Hearing none those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Councillor Bryson: Move third reading bylaw 1653.
Mayor Mar: discussion? Hearing none those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Councillor Kubek: Move consideration of first three readings of bylaw 1652.
Councillor Garrison: second.
Mayor Mar: those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Councillor Kubek: Move first reading of bylaw 1652.
Councillor Garrison: second.
Mayor Mar: Did you say first?
- discussion about what reading it is -
Mayor Mar: those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Councillor Kubek: Move second reading of bylaw 1652.
Councillor Garrison: second.
Mayor Mar: Discussion?
Councillor Olsen: Point of order - this point as well, these should be handled each as the point, following the procedure bylaw.
Councillor Kubek: We did follow the procedure Mayor Mar, we made a motion and voted on it. I was the first one to move consideration of first three readings.
Councillor Olsen: Okay - thanks.
Mayor Mar: those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Councillor Kubek: Move third reading of bylaw 1652.
Councillor Mason: second.
Mayor Mar: those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Mayor Mar: Now we're at the Mount Newton Crossroad Senanus area servicing establishment bylaw number 1625. Mr. Nason...
Alastair Bryson: Your worship - I'm going to remove myself from the chambers on this particular item. I have received legal advice that have a potential conflict of interest as a result of my ownership of property at 1239 Mount Newton Crossroad and because I farm some portions of properties in the proposed service area.
Mayor Mar: Thank you Councillor Bryson - staff can you note that.
Cllr. Garrison: Mr. Mayor perhaps staff could give some general comments with respect to where we're at on this file and some of the concerns that were raised earlier.
Mayor Mar: Mr. Nason could you comment
Gary Nason: Your worship, first of all, just where we are at with respect to this particular process, the bylaw that is before you this evening is the Local Area Service Establishment Bylaw for the Mount Newton Crossroad Senanus Drive waterline project. And the bylaw is on the agenda pursuant to the motion which was passed by Council on January 12, and at that point in time, staff were instructed to proceed with the preparation of the necessary Local Area Service and Loan Authorization Bylaws to further this project on the basis of project option number one, that, as we know, is the lowest cost option which is domestic water supply, no hydrants, no fire pumps. We were also instructed to engage the District's engineering consultants to prepare an analysis of the feasibility and estimated cost of enhanced waterline option - I'll call it option 1a, I guess - which would include the provision of fire hydrants, a pumping station, and other infrastructure enhancements as may be required so as to ensure minimum acceptable fire flow capability to meet insurance underwriters and fire department standards.
So as instructed by Council we have prepared in consultation with the solicitor the bylaw which is before you this evening. This strikes to one of the earlier questions from the gallery. If this project is to proceed, in whatever form is ultimately decided, actually at the end of the day, four bylaws would be required: an establishment bylaw, a construction bylaw, borrowing bylaw, and a parcel tax bylaw. It's only necessary at this point in time, if you wish to proceed further to detailed design of the project option - it's only necessary at this time to create the local area service establishmemt bylaw. So that's the one bylaw that's before you this evening for consideration of further readings as you indicated in your motion.
Your worship, the second part of the motion back on January 12th asks that staff be instructed to engage the District's engineering consultant to look at another potential modified option. I can tell you that the engineering consultants are working on that. We are targeting the February 23rd committee meeting to bring back that report, and, basically what that report is going to do is report out on the feasibility and estimated costs in 2009 dollars of a domestic water supply option which would include fire pump capability and hydrants to meet minimum acceptable fire underwriter standards fire flow specifications. And, because of course the consultants would be looking and investigating the 2009 cost of doing that option, they'll also revisit the 2007 dollar estimate for the domestic water supply only - the most basic option. They have to do that as part of their analysis. So - we're targeting the February 23rd committee meeting to bring back that information, also advice as may be required in regards to any repetitioning requirements, if Council chooses to go with a different option, and accordingly, it would not be my recommendation that you certainly adopt this bylaw 1625 which is before you, before that February 23rd meeting. It would also be not my recommendation that you give first three readings to this bylaw tonight. I think the most prudent course of action would be to await that report, and we'll have some updated information. It will have some updated cost information in it, and discussion of an alternative option. Of course, legally, it's within your purview to give first three readings, but I would recommend that you defer consideration until after information is received. If you wish to proceed, then you may wish to consider giving it first reading only, which would just be introduction, and essentially tabling the bylaw for consideration. It wouldn't be further advancing the bylaws. If you wish, there were a large number of questions, some of which I won't be in a position to answer because I don't have our finance director or engineer who were also significantly involved in this file. I do have some answers to some of the questions that I've been able to take down.
Mayor Mar: councillor Mason?
Councillor Mason: I move that we defer this until the report is brought back and we've had an opportunity to review it.
Mayor Mar: Is there a seconder? No seconder. There's no motion on the floor. Mr. Nason, maybe you could just highlight some of the questions that the public has asked - the ones you can answer.
Gary Nason: Certainly your worship, I'll do my best. They may be incomplete answers based on the fact that the entirety of all the questions asked - I'm just hearing some of these questions for the first time.
In regards to the questions about the petition, the issue of a couple of properties being omitted and the list of attachments which was the map and the list of properties - I have to re-emphasize that this was a not a District initiated process, it is a petition from proponents in the neighborhood, and we have had what we consider to be a full range of legal advice and analysis done on each of the concerns with respect to the petitioning process, the petition itself. The District's position at this time is that the petition is valid.
The issue of individuals wishing to remove their names from the petition - we sought legal advice on that issue as well, and that is not legally admissable to do after the petition has been legally certified and confirmed as valid. With respect to the issue of how close is the District to its debt ceiling, the District is one of the very few in British Columbia that does not have debt in the sense that we have a modest amount as being part of the Capital Regional District for our participation in the Panorama Leisure function, but that's CRD debt that we're also involved in with North Saanich and Sidney, but in terms of our own debt as in having gone out to borrow for other capital projects, we are one of the few municipalities in BC that does not have any of our own municipal debt.
There was a question with respect to the bylaws, previous instructions to staff to prepare bylaws. Again, according to my notes, Council did instruct staff to prepare the necessary bylaws back in April of 08 to proceed with preparation and introduction of the necessary bylaws. We were working through that process during the months of April and May and June if I can recall, the bylaws were never... in fact, when I say bylaws, I seem to recall only two at this point in time that have been developed or were being under development at that time - the establishment bylaw which is before you tonight and a construction bylaw. But, as council will recall, in June, when the issue of the Regional Growth Strategy, Regional Context Statement Amendment came before us on the advice of staff, we recommended that Council did rescind that motion to prepare the necessary bylaws and essentially the bylaws did not progress further, and they were only reactivated, and the only one that is really before you tonight is the establishment bylaw that we're reactivating on January the 12th pursuant to the last Council motion.
Maybe skipping around a little bit, with respect to the issue of why did the District hold a neighborhood meeting three months after the petition was concluded. Essentially, after the petition was confirmed as valid and certified, a number of concerns - a large number of concerns - came forward and we were asked to meet with a number of individuals who were expressing a wide range of concerns. We did that, I presented a report back to Council I believe in May, with a recommendation that a neighborhood meeting be conducted, hosted and sponsored by the District. we held that meeting in May - sorry - in June, in the fire training centre. The District initiated that process and sent out the invitation to all property owners in the area, and we endeavored to make a presentation to the neighborhood in regards to the details and specifics of the project.
There was a question with respect to why the grant application was based on a 2000 petition. That is not the case. We responded to that question in correspondence to Miss Faulkner who is a Solicitor, I believe, who is working for the Mount Newton Neighborhood Association. The petition was referenced in the Grant application, but it was put forward as an indication that there had been a degree of support and that there would likely be a degree of support for this project. The Granting agencies were fully aware that were this project to proceed, it was clearly specified by Council of the day that it would be subject to a successful petition and subject to a successful awarding of a grant.
The issue with respect to the three quarter inch connection - one three quarter inch connection per property owner - that was a stipulation of the previous council when we were asked to engage an engineering consultant to put together various options for a project from the most basic domestic water supply right up to domestic water supply plus fire flows plus agricultural irrigation. The council of the day stipulated that the project proceed on the basis of the cheapest, least expensive option with the stipulation that all properties would be serviced with just one 3/4" connection. there were some concerns indicated by the council of the day in regards to furthering development potential in the area, and I can't comment on the specifics of the building code applicability and how we would address that issue. I'm not in a position to do that at this time.
Your worship that may be it in terms of some of the questions - there were a number of questions that Ms.Waters asked with respect to motions from the regional water supply commission - I'm not in a position to answer those as I don't have those documents in front of me, and your worship, I think I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Mar: Mr. Nason, thank you for attempting to answer the question. Councillor siklenka?
Councillor Siklenka: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we do first reading for this bylaw tonight but defer any additional readings until such a time as staff on February 23rd can give us more information.
Mayor Mar: Is there a seconder? seconded. Discussion?
Councillor Olsen: Yes, I'd like to table that motion, with respect, as I've got a notice of motion before this, which was submitted as one of the late items.
Councillor Kubek: Motion to table.
Mayor Mar: seconder? Those in favour. Opposed. Carried. Your motion Councillor Olsen.
Councillor Olsen: Thank you your worship. Whereas correspondence which is attached as appendix A-D, the District has been shown the desire by the Central Saanich West Voters Association, and the Mount Newton Neighborhood Association, to accept the dispute resolution process by a quote "independent third party" which would be quote "a fair and impartial mechanism for dealing with this complex and long standing problem" and that such a process would likely negate a potentially liability for the District which would negatively affect all citizens and taxpayers, therefore be it resolved that Council proceed with an independent third party to carry out a dispute resolution process in order to limit any potential liability to the District and two, Council instruct staff to alert the appropriate provincial government ministry that it is our desire to accept provincial government assistance as previously offered by the province.
Councillor Mason: second.
Mayor Mar: Mr. Nason did you want to make some comment?
Gary Nason: Your worship I just indicated to you that I overlooked responding to some correspondence from the Tsartlip First Nation in regards to the issue of consultation and so on. I'm in a position to do that but it's not applicable.
Mayor Mar: councillor Mason?
Councillor Mason: Yes - I've responded to this before - I think it really really makes sense, before we go any further down this road, to the benefit of ALL parties, that we do have an engagement, that we do try to get resolution, and you know - we're going down the road - it's going to be very expensive for the municipality... for the greater good of the municipality, and for the legal costs, I think it is irresponsible of us not to go to mediation.
Councillor Olsen: Yes, in speaking to the motion your worship, there has been a desire by the parties - and, part of this local service area - correct me if I'm wrong - is to define the area which is going to pay for this service. In effect, if there is litigation that comes from this, then in fact the rest of the community is affected by moving forward. And, in essence, if we as a Council move forward with this bylaw and it brings that - we bring that upon ourselves through the decision, then we are potentially bringing in the rest of the community, and they will be - their tax dollars will be - paying for this process. I think that's important. It's a very important point to me that if we're going to in fact keep this a localized solution, then we need to do everything we can to stay as far away from potential litigation which has been referenced in appendix C, and take the offer of the provincial government if it still stands, referenced in appendix D, and in light of the new information that was sent in from the First Nation, have that in mind too as we move forward. This is, as noted, a very complex issue.
Mayor Mar: Any further discussion? councillor Kubek?
Councillor Kubek: Ms. Ribeiro has gone up to get information with regards to a bylaw. I guess the concern that I have is that for sixteen years this has gone on and that if Councillor Olsen was concerned about litigation in the municipality he would have passed bylaw 1639 - I believe it is. Ms. Ribeiro's checking on the water bylaw to do with the residences if we were worried about litigation. In regards to the solicitor's advice, our chief administrative officer has already dealt with that situation. And I'm just wondering, as we deal with some of the letters on here and some of the concerns that Councillor Olsen has raised if he's not then thus in conflict, with regards to that issue. So, I guess, this has gone on for sixteen years. This is the first of four bylaws to proceed with, and I'd like to see us proceed.
Mayor Mar: Councillor Mason?
Councillor Mason: With all respect to Councillor Kubek's comments about sixteen years, I believe that for sixteen years, this has been turned down. It hasn't been held up, it has been turned down. And it has been brought forward every time there is a new Council. So, I don't think we're looking at delays - we're looking at a difference of opinion.
Mayor Mar: councillor Olsen, and then Councillor Siklenka.
councillor Olsen: With regard to Councillor Kubek's comments, with regard to me being a First Nations and being in Conflict, I have been in contact with the Municipal Solicitor in regards to First Nations and there doesn't seem to be any conflict of Interest there and I'm comfortable staying in the discussion.
Mayor Mar: Councillor Siklenka?
Councillor Siklenka: I'd like to go forward with first reading this evening. The purpose of that is to bring in new information and to find out what this is actually going to cost in 2009, before we finalize. This is new information that we need out there.
Mayor Mar: Councillor Garrison?
Councillor Garrison: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I'm prepared to do first reading. I think we're going to get further information with respect to the cost. I think this motion before us is the same motion, re-worded from the last meeting. To some extent I don't like to have things just keep repeating. Council made a decision and you keep bringing it back. It's certainly a Councillor's prerogative, but you have to respect council for making decisions and moving forward. So, in any event, I'm not going to support this motion but I am going to support first reading.
Mayor Mar: councillor Olsen?
councillor Olsen: Thank you your worship. I believe at the last meeting it was pointed out that all the information was before Council. I, in fact, am a new Councillor to this table and all the information was not before me. It was not before me that back in 2005 a letter had come from Central Saanich West Voters Association also seeking dispute resolution, and the quote that this would seem to be a fair and impartial mechanism comes from that letter. This is true - it is a similar motion as the last one - but it has more information now backing it - that the only thing standing in the way of a fair and impartial dispute resolution would be Council in passing a resolution to create a local service area. This is a new motion, because new information I was not aware of the last time this came up, now I think further strengthens the motion for us to what I believe is right, and that is to keep this a local area issue - a localized issue - potentially keep the rest of the District out of this discussion, and move towards a fair - I'm quoting - "a fair and impartial mechanism" for dealing with this conflict and longstanding problem.
Mayor Mar: I just want to offer my comments. It's been said that they've been offered - asking - for water sixteen years, and that is the untruth. Apparently when the District Chong, Co and whenever parliament Lunn made the announcement on the 1.1 million dollar grant, some of the people from Senanus drive came up and said we've been waiting for 35 years for water. And when the District was formed, they said that we asked for potable water and the District said you'd have potable water in three months - that's what they said. And also, I started my political career back in two - nineteen eighty seven and that was around the table when I first got around the table and there was never ever a chance that it ever passed. And it wasn't turned down, it was just that the motion was made, and they would not accept it. So - you know - never moved it forward until three years ago moved it forward. So I'm just stating this as a fact. Councillor Olsen?
councillor Olsen: Thank you your worship. I just want to point out that I'm not - this motion is in no way skirting around the fact that I do believe there is a water issue on Senanus and potentially on Mount Newton Crossroad. I never once stated that I don't believe there is a water issue down there. I'm arguing for the fact that there is likely a water issue and likely a human issue. Mediation isn't necessarily going to not get Senanus water - it will just work us through a fair - it would be a fair and impartial mechanism to find a solution potentially for water. I've never argued that a waterline is outside of a mediator's decision-making process. That has never been a part of it. I agree that we need to find a water solution. I agree with Councillors on that. I just think that we also have a situation that is sixteen years or thirty years or a hundred years in the making, and that is the human aspect of this. And I really hope that we can send this to an independent third party who doesn't have a history in this - the historical involvement in this - and can come to the table with a clear mind and move us forward to find a decision and a solution for something that - and I agree with Mr. Kubek - it's been going on for way too long, and mediation can be that solution.
Councillor Garrison: question.
Mayor Mar: Question has been called and I'm going to make this statement again like I did last time. Regardless of how I vote, the motion dies.
- commotion- from the gallery - can't hear statements at table.
Mayor Mar: I'm talking about the motion that's on the table. If I vote in favour of the motion, it dies.
- commotion- from the gallery - can't hear statements at table.
Mayor Mar: My explanation is that if I was to vote in favour of the motion, there would be a 3-3 vote - the motion dies.
Gallery - "How do you know that?" "You're assuming..." "How do you know the vote?"
- commotion-
Mayor Mar: I didn't say...
- commotion-
Mayor Mar: I'm not saying it would die right now
- commotion-
Mayor Mar: I'm saying it will tie the motion...
- commotion-
Mayor Mar: (raises voice) On the motion that's on the table - those in favour of the motion?
Mayor Mar: those opposed?
Mayor Mar: The motion fails.
Councillor Kubek: Motion - lift from the table Bylaw 1625.
Councillor Garrison: second.
Mayor Mar: those in favour? opposed?
Councillor Mason: (interjects) Your worship - is there no discussion?
Mayor Mar: carried.
Councillor Kubek: I'll move first reading of Bylaw 1625.
- from gallery: "Point of order your honour - this has already been decided - you don't even need a second - there's no need for the rest of the meeting."
Mayor Mar: Is there a seconder? (Pounding gavel, pounding gavel), seconder?
- from gallery: "no need for the rest of the meeting."
Mayor Mar: Discussion?
Mayor Mar: Councillor Mason?
Councillor Mason: Well, I'm absolutely amazed at proceeding forward when our staff that we defer.
- from gallery: "Amen." "Hear Hear"
Mayor Mar: Quiet out there. Order please. Councillor Kubek?
Councillor Kubek: In regards to Councillor Mason to listen to the chief administrative officer, he said first reading so that's what we're doing - that's what the Chief Administrative officer said.
Councillor Siklenka: I'll second that first reading so that we can attain additional information being so that we don't run off and do all three readings tonight - I will support the first motion to do first reading and gain more information - thank you.
Mayor Mar: Is there more discussion? Councillor Olsen?
councillor Olsen: Thank you your worship. I just want to note that I believe that a mediation process would in fact get us more information.
Mayor Mar: Any further discussion? Hearing none, those in favour of the motion? Opposed? Carried.
- from the gallery- "why bother?"
- from the gallery- "Say - this vote may have been improper because Councillor Kubek - "
Mayor Mar: order.(Pounding gavel, pounding gavel)
- from the gallery- "Councillor Kubek has pecuniary i-"
Mayor Mar: SHOUTS: "YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER" (Pounding gavel, pounding gavel)
- from the gallery- "pecuniary interests in this because he's a developer... so he should be excusing himself"
Mayor Mar: SHOUTS: (Pounding gavel, pounding gavel) "If you don't sit down..."
Mayor Mar: Mr. Nason - on the questions...
Gary Nason: Your worship there were - there was actually two other points that I should - I believe there was a question with respect to the issue of fire hydrants and a notation in the petition information that there was a document which indicated that the project would entail fire hydrants and fire flows. To my knowledge, your worship, the District was not involved in the preparation of that background piece. The second item relates to a question but also correspondence from the Tsartlip First Nation. They've written a letter indicating or requesting that Council hold off on proceeding with any bylaws - they've asked to be consulted. They've indicated that it is the District's obligation to consult with them, and they make reference to an environmental assessment process. And they attach to their letter of June 27th correspondence - they attach to their letter correspondence from Western Economic Diversification June 27th of 2007. I should point out that that letter pre-dated authorization of approval of the grant, and that based on a preliminary review, Western Economic Diversification requested that the District provide an environmental assessment document. Your worship we were subsequently advised that in March of 2008 the District - that Western Economic Diversification had determined the project would be excluded from the environmental assessment document process, so in other words, at this point in time, we are not required to
undertake that particular process were this project to go forward. At this point in time, this is the position from Western Diversification. The obligation to consult that the Tsartlip has referenced in their correspondence is in the context of that environmental assessment review process. But having said that, as we previously advised, that were this project to proceed - again - in whatever scope or form - we've indicated that we would be undertaking what's called an archaeological overview assessment - the baseline overview assessment from an archaeological perspective. We would be doing that as part of the design process. And, in the context of that process, we would be undertaking consultation with the Tsartlip First Nation. I also can advise though that during the course of the last decade, I've had a number of meetings with my colleague in Tsartlip ** - the previous Band Administrators - and the potential waterline project was certainly discussed in that context of water and sewer servicing agreements. But on the issue of consultation - to my knowledge - there was no requirement for the District to formally consult with Tsartlip, prior to submission of the grant application. To the best of my knowledge we did not formally consult with Tsartlip, however, it would be our intention to do that - were the project to proceed - in the context of the archaeological overview assessment.
[** During this dialogue, Karen Harry - Tsartlip First Nation Band Administrator - sitting in the front row of the gallery at the Council meeting - put her hand up several times to address this. The mayor did not allow her to speak.]
Mayor Mar: Thank you Mr. Nason and I'd just like to offer my comment that I met with Chief Morris almost two months ago and we discussed this waterline issue? And I touched with a few things and I said "I'm not pressing you" but I said that you know "just to let you know that there is that application out there" and he's never responded. And that's almost two months ago, so... I mean... for them to say now that we never... (trails off) Councillor Olsen?
Councillor Olsen: I just would like to make a general comment that it's not a requirement, yet, I was at rookie school last week for Councillors and it was noted to me that there are several municipalities and Districts that - even though it's not a requirement - have a very good working relationship with the First Nations and I think that this is a very important relationship for the District of Central saanich.
Mayor Mar: Any further comment?
Mayor Mar: Ask Councillor Bryson to come back please. (pounds gavel.)
Councillor Bryson returns.
From Gallery: Larry Laban - I may be out of order, but I just want some clarification for what I asked about. A letter which I wrote which was on the agenda - I was advised that it might be brought up during this discussion regarding this issue? For the tree cutting ones - the people had the opportunity to say something, and they were on the agenda - so what's the position of Council, your worship, regarding my letter?
Mayor Mar: Okay. We did this and your letter - your letter's under correspondence and we received it at the end there and Mr. Nason has responded to all those questions that were on the table so we will allow you a brief discussion with your letter.
Councillor Garrison: Let me uh - his letter was in the back, Mr. Mayor. It's on Senanus so it was received.
Mayor Mar: okay well then - all the Council has read your letter, okay?
From Gallery: Larry Laban: I understand that but Council also had copies of letters from the two or three people who were invited to talk regarding the tree issue, and they had the opportunity to discuss it. I'm just not sure if that's an expression of yourself, your worship, or if it's procedure to allow some to speak and not others? I'm not sure how it works.
Mayor Mar: What's Council's decision?
Councillor Garrison: Mr. Mayor - the process is - we have passed a motion, that when items that have been - when we've made a decision and moved on - just that's the process. We made a decision that if Council has made a decision to move on an item that we receive the correspondence for the information of Council but we're not going to - as an action item at the front - to keep bringing the same item back every week.
From the gallery: Why follow process now?
From the gallery: You also have your process Bylaw you're not following.
*commotion*
Mayor Mar: order
Councillor Garrison: I don't think we're in a position - they may disagree with us Mr. Mayor, but we're following the bylaw and process which is outlined.
From Gallery: Larry Laban: Was the process then followed for the lady who was asked to respond to her letter that she sent in? Is that the same process? Please? Your worship?
From Council table: (no response.)
From Gallery: Larry Laban: Have I been censored?
From Council table: (no response.)
From Gallery: Larry Laban: Thank you your worship. (sits down).
Councillor Siklenka: I don't think he heard you.
From Gallery: Larry Laban: I'm sorry?
Councillor Siklenka: With respect - I don't think he heard you. If you could just speak up.
From Gallery: Larry Laban: What I said was that when I sent the letter in I wanted to get it in on time so that it would before Council and on the agenda. And it was so, and the other people who spoke who also made submissions regarding the tree cutting and they were on the agenda and I was just wondering - with all due respect to Councillor Garrison I believe it is - and I understand - I follow your thought process councillor, but with all due respect, when I did bring it forth, it was said that I may be given the opportunity to speak while the motion - I assumed that would happen before the motion for the first, second third bylaws were read. And either approved or disapproved. And at the point where - I didn't want to get up in the middle of that, so I thought that I would be allowed the opportunity to speak to address my letter, as the other persons were. However, obviously your worship, it's at your discretion whether I'm granted that privilege, whether my request is other or is functionally different than what theirs was.
Councillor Garrison: With respect Mr. Mayor, I'll explain to once that it is functionally different, because the tree bylaw was a new item before Council, and items that come in as a new item, generally, are put on the agenda for action and those people can speak to them. After an item has been dealt with and Council has moved on, we move forward. It's Council's procedure that those items - more information that comes in is put in the back for correspondence so that Council can read it so that we're not having the same item come forward every week but the information is still presented to Council because Council has already dealt with the issue. And now I understand this speaker may disagree with that, but in any event, if perhaps so if there's any items with respect to the tree cutting bylaw, for example, the tree-cutting issue - following we've dealt with those letters, we've made an action item - more than likely that would then go on the back receive for correspondence. We wouldn't need an action item brief before Council again.
From Gallery: shame.
From Gallery: Larry Laban: I recall last week there were letters about the tree cutting item. These were subsequent letters about...
Councillor Garrison: This is not a debate sir.
From Gallery: Larry Laban: I'm just bringing forward what I believe to be fact, Sir, I'm not trying to debate.
From Gallery: No transparency!
Mayor Mar: Sorry about that. We'll move forward - next item.
From Gallery: Larry Laban: Thank you for your consideration.
- end of Senanus bylaw item discussion -