Committee of the Whole - 24 Oct 2023


1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
2: ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3: DELEGATIONS/PETITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
3.i: West Coast Environmental Law
4: STAFF REPORTS
4.i: Brennan Park Recreation Centre Phase 1 Retrofit (Grant 1) Update (Validation Report)
4.ii: Innovation Roadmap and Rural Economic Diversification and Infrastructure Program (REDIP) Application
4: RECESS 11:55 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
5: DELEGATIONS/PETITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
5.i: Squamish Community Housing Society
6: STAFF REPORTS
6.i: Proposed Building Bylaw Update: Energy Step Code 3 / Zero Carbon Step Code 4 Option
6: RECESS 2:15 p.m - 2:30 p.m.
7: MOTION TO CLOSE
8: TERMINATION
West Coast Environmental Law
0:00:00 (0:40:50)

The presentation was made by Speaker_17 and Speaker_12, who are advocating for the District of Squamish to join a class action lawsuit against major oil companies for their role in climate change. They cited a public opinion poll conducted by Stratcom, which showed that 69% of British Columbians support local governments suing big oil companies for climate change costs. They also mentioned that two BC municipalities, Gibson and View Royal, have already committed to suing big oil companies and are seeking other municipalities to join them.

The speakers explained that the lawsuit would target the largest international oil companies, such as Chevron, Exxon, and Shell, for the harm they have caused in Canada. They also mentioned that the law firm of RV Finley, which provided the legal opinion for the lawsuit, has expressed interest in remaining involved in the case. The speakers emphasized that the lawsuit belongs to the communities suffering from climate harm and seeking to recover costs.

The speakers also discussed the financial aspects of the lawsuit. They proposed a one-time contribution of $1 per resident to reach the certification stage of the class action lawsuit. They mentioned that the overall budget for the lawsuit could be in the millions, but this cost would be shared among multiple municipalities and potentially supplemented by private funding. They also mentioned the possibility of finding lawyers willing to work on a partial contingency basis. The speakers expressed hope that the District of Squamish would demonstrate its climate leadership by joining the lawsuit.

SPEAKER_17
0:00:00 (0:01:42)

public however it is available to City councils upon requests and making big oil pay for climate costs is also popular with the general public a public opinion poll that was conducted by stratcom last year demonstrated that 69% of British Colombians either somewhat support or strongly support their local governments suing big oil and interestingly there was more than 50% support from every region of the province and also very interestingly there was over 50% of support from people regardless of which major political party they support because this is not just an issue for Center left voters fiscally res fiscally conservative politicians and voters also support local governments suing big oil for climate costs because it would be fiscally irresponsible for local governments to Simply pass on the full cost of climate change to the residents without trying to recuit coup some of the money from major polluters so far two BC municipalities have committed to suing Big Oil Gibson on the Sunshine Coast and vew Royal in the capital region they are looking for other BC municipalities to join them in this class action at the ubcm I spoke with dozens of counselors and Mayors and there are several councils that are seriously considering joining this lawsuit we hope that the District of Squamish will demonstrate its climate leadership and take this important and FIS prudent step to protect its residents from paying for the soaring costs of climate change and I thank you for your time and now my colleague Andrew Gage and I would be happy to take your questions

Eric Andersen
0:01:42 (0:00:10)

thank you Miss kosa questions Council sorry councelor Stoner Then followed by councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:01:52 (0:00:14)

Hamilton thank you through the chair thanks so much for being here in your presentation today I'm curious about who decides who gets named in the lawsuit and which companies or states that would

SPEAKER_17
0:02:07 (0:00:29)

be that would be the local governments themselves that will work together with their legal team to decide which companies they're suing and what was the other question who is named well the local governments will work whoever opts in for this will decide amongst themselves who you know who is the lead plaintiff sort of thing that's all going to be up to the local governments I guess and their legal team Andrew do you want to add anything

SPEAKER_12
0:02:36 (0:00:51)

just that we we've generally suggested the largest International companies it's a it's a feature of Canadian law you can sue global companies for their the harm that they cause in Canada we're not limited to just suing Canadian companies so you know certainly Chevron Exxon shell you know these large International Players would all be obvious Target targets to include in the lawsuit and the work that Fiona reference that Richard heii did you know actually says that you know Chevron was responsible for about three a little more than 3% of human cause greenhouse gas emissions similar amounts from Exxon and Chevron and other large companies so those are the types of companies we're talking about it certainly could be a decision made by the local governments to go more broadly and include a larger range but the biggest bang for the buck is going after those ones that have contributed the

Jenna Stoner
0:03:27 (0:00:16)

most okay that's helpful that decision hasn't been made yet the other question that I had was you mentioned that none of the money is going to West Coast en environmental law but if it's not West Coast environmental law who is representing who is expected to be the lawyers who would represent the law or

SPEAKER_12
0:03:44 (0:00:32)

the suit again the local governments will have to make that selection themselves the law firm of already Finley that did the legal opinion has expressed interest in remaining involved in that case so they would be an obvious firm to approach and they they've been working with class action firm on that research so you know that's who we would probably suggest but ultimately the local governments themselves need to have a legal team that they select this case is one that we advocate for but it belongs to the communities that are suffering the climate harm and that are seeking to recover

Jenna Stoner
0:04:16 (0:00:35)

that great thanks and then my last question is just in terms of timing of dollars required I heard you mention that the payment's not actually required until critical mass of communities sign up obviously there's a question mark in terms of how quickly that might happen but do you have a sense of kind of when that Tipping Point might be like if we were to put it in our budget does it need to be for this year for next year there's a there's a procedural thing with Municipal governments in our budgets so it's helpful to know when we need to actually include it in our budgeting

SPEAKER_12
0:04:52 (0:01:23)

process getting that one okay so the Township of view Royal you know the resolution they passed basically made a commitment to put those funds forward at a time when a critical mass had been identified so that was actually in the resolution itself I think that you know it depends partly on sort of your own accounting and budgeting processes many my local governments actually have considerable the funds set aside for legal purposes on an ongoing basis $1 per resident is not a massive portion of such budgets if it does require a specific amount to be added to your budget then you know I would I it is it is difficult to actually you know look into a crystal ball and you know give an exact date about whether that's this coming year or not but there is flexibility there I think the law firms you in question I mean we haven't no one no law firms retained but you know an option is to have some funds under existing an existing budget with the commitment to then come through with the rest of the funds in the following year for example and I think the intention and hope is to be as flexible as possible for local governments I'm sorry not to have a more specific answer on

Eric Andersen
0:06:15 (0:00:04)

that Thank You councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:06:19 (0:01:18)

Hamilton thanks very much and thanks very much for coming today councelor Stoner has actually addressed a couple of my questions which is great and I just want to seek Clarity on so first let me start by saying I absolutely agree that corporations who have caused harm to the public should be responsible should be held accountable to the harms they've caused the public when it's been done intentionally or with knowledge of that harm I also I absolutely see that local governments are an a key player in holding those companies accountable because we in fact are one of the large one of the large or maybe mediumsized organizations that are being impacted by this by climate change mitigation is the so and what I'm trying to do now is understand more clearly what the plan for the suig oil campaign is if we make a commitment to setting aside $1 per resident per year

SPEAKER_17
0:07:37 (0:00:01)

not per

Andrew Hamilton
0:07:38 (0:00:05)

year not per year no just total amount

SPEAKER_12
0:07:44 (0:00:00)

$1

SPEAKER_03
0:07:45 (0:00:01)

res

SPEAKER_12
0:07:46 (0:01:17)

can I can I address that quick quickly the belief is that $1 per resident particularly if we get the critical mass of half a million or more is probably enough at or close to enough to get to the What's called the certification stage of a class action this is a stage where a judge confirms that a case should be heard as a class action and could actually be one so it's a critical stage if we don't get past that stage you know with any appeals arising whatever this case is dead in the water in terms of this model I mean that you know we and any municipality is interested in proceeding would have to rethink things if we are successful at that stage local governments will and for that matter the fossil fuel industry will have a ruling from a court saying here's what local governments will have to prove to win this and yes it could be one that allows you and any other local governments as well as you know potential philanthropists who are out there or third party funders to proceed with a lot more information in any future decision about what funding would be required after that so the $1 per resident is the we're proposing is a one-time contribution to get us to that certification stage local governments involved with then have to make further decisions once they had that information in that

SPEAKER_17
0:09:04 (0:00:20)

ruling but our plan sorry was also to fund raise once we are at that stage where the cases certified will be much easier once the lawsuit goes ahead then we plan to approach foundations and do crowd sourcing and other fundraising Avenues just yeah

SPEAKER_00
0:09:24 (0:00:11)

Sor and just to further clarify for $1 per resident in Squamish which has I believe 24,000 residents that would be a total cost of

Andrew Hamilton
0:09:36 (0:00:46)

$24,000 thanks that certainly helps clarify one big obvious misunderstanding that I had that it was because I was envisioning this to be an ongoing lawsuit because obviously this lawsuit will take several years I assume do you have an idea of how much totally ballpark because I know it's unknown how much could this end up costing are we if we do are if we are successful if local governments are successful at the first stage would we be talking about $100 per resident $1,000 per resident how much would the continuing with the with the potential to continue the lawsuit what sort of scale are we

SPEAKER_12
0:10:23 (0:01:21)

talking so I mean the overall budget could certainly be in the you know millions of but with a class action lawsuit you're looking at sharing that across multiple municipalities you're also as Fiona said I mean our belief is that when a court has ruled hey municipalities could win this case there is every reason for philanthropists for individuals who are concerned about climate change to help with crowdfunding so we don't you know the intention is to keep the cost to municipality we want both a commitment from local governments to show you're serious and to actually get municipalities involved but at the same time we don't want it to be overly onerous I'm not necessarily going to give sort of a final figure I mean but it is definitely in the millions you multiple millions of dollars shared around along multiple local governments there's also the potential of private funding particularly once there's a decision saying that there's a funding here with class actions are often sorry that there's a valid case here that could be one Law class action law seeds are often funded by taking out essentially a loan from a private funer who expects to be repaid with you know considerable interest once Cas is one so there are lots of options there it doesn't necessarily all fall to local governments I don't think we can give you a dollar per resident figure in terms of the overall funds but I think we have every reason to believe it can be kept to a safe and manageable a responsible

SPEAKER_17
0:11:44 (0:00:13)

level also sorry I was just thinking also we're hoping we might find lawyers hoping to find lawyers that would act on partial contingency that sort of reduced rate Bon yeah reduced

Eric Andersen
0:11:57 (0:00:02)

rate

Andrew Hamilton
0:12:00 (0:00:34)

quick one please so the there was a recent piece by Sue Big Oil calling out shall we say the Vancouver the city of Vancouver for not allocating the budget allocating this $1 per resident in their budget so if you're not expecting us to budget the amount until we get a critical mass why was there a criticism on the Vancouver City Council for not having the line item in their budget

SPEAKER_17
0:12:35 (0:00:00)

well Vancouver

Andrew Hamilton
0:12:35 (0:00:00)

City

SPEAKER_17
0:12:36 (0:00:21)

council did vote last summer like summer 2022 to allocate $1 per resident in their 2022 budget so the council passed that motion in the summer and then after the election and then there was the budget and then it wasn't there so it was more the omission of what they pledged that what they'd already committed in the motion so

SPEAKER_12
0:12:57 (0:00:46)

also when Council Carr then brought a motion to put some of the funds back in the budget the reasons given by the majority Council to not do so made it clear they were ideologically opposed to participating in the lawsuit so it was not you know if they had said we're not putting this budget but we were making a commitment to keep those funds available when they are needed that would have been a completely different scenario it was very much a we you know Council has said things like we will not put a single penny of taxpayer dollars towards this lawsuit Without Really recognizing the costs that means that they're imposing on their on their own residents so that was where the criticism came

Eric Andersen
0:13:43 (0:00:02)

from councelor

Chris Pettingill
0:13:46 (0:00:26)

Pettingill yeah thanks and you touched on this a bit but I my understanding had been and maybe it's more in the US but it would be typical once a class action is certified that a law firm would take it on you know believing in the class action and expect a sort of percentage of the settlement and that is the typical model and you wouldn't pay the lawyers is that more of a us thing or does that happen in

SPEAKER_12
0:14:13 (0:01:12)

Canada it does happening it is more of a us thing it does happen in Canada but because you know this is an un you know one of the reasons we're looking for a ruling from the court that there's a sort of arguable case here is so this is a novel case it's a case that is requiring the courts to do things that haven't been done before in the US there is a tradition of massive punitive damages in cases of this type it's a you know the bar there there's much more experience in the bar in sad of Mass to litigation so it's more common there and lawyers there have been prepared to take more risks our belief is that lawyers here will do it on a partially conting Bas contingency basis where they are you know not necessarily expecting the full payment upfront but that it's probably I mean local governments can certainly look for a firm that's willing to do it entirely on conting contingency but we think it's much more likely that there will need to be some funds put forward either by the municipalities themselves or through crowdfunding and other sources of funding even once the case is

Chris Pettingill
0:15:25 (0:00:42)

certified okay thank you and then another question so if I understand the proposed process is municipalities commit once there's equivalent roughly to half a million in commitments we Pony up the sort of the first step of certification happens and it's either accepted or denied if it's denied we all go home if it's accepted at that point individual municipalities have a choice of whether or not they continue and to what degree and they could exit at that point and other municipalities could they enjoy the class action at that point or is it you got to get on

SPEAKER_12
0:16:07 (0:01:14)

now yeah okay so how do I answer this one so the class action would probably cover all local governments unless they actually choose to step out of the municipality whether or not they're putting funds forward so I mean you could have PE municipalities that are sort of writing on the coattails of those that are actually taking active climate leadership here and putting funds in there is no commitment if you put in a dollar per resident now there's no commitment to put in further funds you could at that point write on the coattails as it were of whichever local governments were going forward but our hope is that by developing this critical Nas of local governments that are supporting the lawsuit financially and also morally that they will continue to work together so that even that the lead plaintiffs are well supported as the case goes forward and throughout but certainly if Squamish puts in a dollar per resident and decides after the certification that you know okay it's great it's certified but we don't have any additional money I mean there's no obligation per se no legal obligation any I mean might be a moral obligation but that's up to the Council of the day to

Eric Andersen
0:17:21 (0:00:02)

decide councelor green

Lauren Greenlaw
0:17:24 (0:00:20)

law thanks for the presentation through the chair I was just curious following on some of councelor Hamilton's questions if we did have a situation where costs were escalating and we were no longer comfortable with the cost of that were being incurred by our residents would there be an option to say to step

SPEAKER_12
0:17:45 (0:00:38)

back yeah as I said I mean the lead plaintiff we do want local governments to consider being lead plaintiff and who's actually named they cannot easily step back they would have to find another lead plti and apply of the court to substitute their name and there'd be a whole process around that but for anyone other than the lead plaintiff there's no obligation Beyond this the initial commitment that's made to continue that commitment obviously we hope that they would because that helps the lead plaintiffs financially and helps make sure the case is ultimately successful but that would be a decision that a future council could make

Lauren Greenlaw
0:18:24 (0:00:09)

yes thanks and secondly sorry Fiona could you repeat the name of the report that you referred to that's not available to the general public but is available to Municipal governments

SPEAKER_17
0:18:33 (0:00:12)

it was written and the legal opinion by arve finle as the law firm

SPEAKER_12
0:18:46 (0:00:00)

we can

SPEAKER_03
0:18:46 (0:00:00)

provide an email

SPEAKER_12
0:18:47 (0:00:03)

address of a contact

Armand Hurford
0:18:51 (0:00:17)

there thank you one quick question the critical mass was that I heard councelor pening the 500,000 was that what critical mass looks like in this context so could have been City of Vancouver almost is that what is that where we are

SPEAKER_17
0:19:08 (0:00:23)

yeah kind of could have been but I mean but they were the first we'd only launched our campaign in June they joined in July it was very unexpected because we hadn't mobilized other local governments you a class of one city it wasn't very much of a class so we were looking for others to join them but yeah that Vancouver has 670,000 so that would have been financially very helpful

Armand Hurford
0:19:32 (0:00:35)

okay thank you so we have a little ways to go at this point I'm just trying to understand the time that we have I think I'd like to I have a couple motions ready I think here I'd like to let the district sish requests the legal opinion be shared and that this be referred to U this matter be refer to Future strap plan strategic plan review and I'll speak to it if it's

Eric Andersen
0:20:07 (0:00:03)

seconded councelor Hamilton seconds mayor

Armand Hurford
0:20:10 (0:01:20)

Herford thank you and thank you for the offer for sharing the legal opinion I think it's really important that we have as much information as we as is available to us to make a decision like this and I'm referring this to a future strategic plan review which will be upcoming and I look around the walls here at our strategic plan and under the piece under the pillar of prepared for the future is where most of our climate pieces live although we know that climate is very much woven in amongst all of them as are the costs associated with mitigating and adopting so I think that's the appropriate place to be making budget decisions and we've had a great presentation from this delegation but I think that through our strategic plan into our budgeting process is where we make financial decisions like this in the most prudent way I am supportive of this direction I want to make sure that we still use our don't let our enthusiasm overwhelm what is good process for us as a local government so I'm happy to move this forward and I think that's the most respons possible way to do that at this juncture thank

Eric Andersen
0:21:30 (0:00:04)

you further comments Council councelor Pettingill followed by councelor French

Chris Pettingill
0:21:35 (0:00:32)

yeah when is the next review planned I guess my understanding is that we would typically consider this as refer this sort of thing to budget and then and we do actually also in our strategic plan of climate change action we do what is required to mitigate and adapt to climate change in our community which is another I think we have a couple C pretty directive things in our strategic plan so I'm just trying to sort out if we actually are better to push this to our next budget discussions or if it goes into strategic planning

Eric Andersen
0:22:07 (0:00:01)

mayor Herford quick

Armand Hurford
0:22:09 (0:00:23)

response yeah just that I just remind that our budget process is fed by our strategic plan so I think it's one and the same we'll need to address the Strategic Plan before we get to our next budget cycle so and we have we have committed to a review there which should be early in q1 is my understanding

John French
0:22:32 (0:00:34)

brch thanks chair I'm supportive of this motion I believe it to be thoughtful and a measured approach the request to dedicate a dollar a person to sue fossil fuel companies might seem like a fairly insignificant amount that's about $25,000 for Squamish and we're facing a significant amount of non-discretionary spending in the next two years so $225,000 really is a significant amount of money and I think that the process the mayor is suggesting is the best approach at this

Eric Andersen
0:23:07 (0:00:02)

point councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:23:10 (0:01:15)

Stoner thank you through the chair I won't be supporting the motion on the floor I think that our strategic plan has really clear direction that we need to be taking all steps and actions towards both addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change as the presenters have demonstrated our budgets do show us on an annual basis how much we're already spending and we're going to need to spend going forward to mitigate the impacts of climate change and I think that this ask is reasonable 25,000 yes it is it is a fair bit of money but it is also so needed to encourage those who are actually responsible for driving the impacts that our taxpayers are now putting the bill for and so I think that deferring this to strap plan is not bold enough I think what we need are folks who are willing to take a first step to join the class action to have other communities come on board and recognize that this is a sign of leadership and so I won't be supporting the motion on the floor and if it's not supported I'll move that we join the class action lawsuit now and we refer the amount to the 2025 budget and if we need to pay for that sooner then we can look at using Council contingency for a portion of those

Eric Andersen
0:24:26 (0:02:03)

funds I'll offer my question but I'll just check with our secretary as to whether we have the motion as a request to obtain the legal opinion from RV Finley and a referral to our next strategic plan review I will be supporting mayor herfords motion I do think that it's appropriate to that we T that we do both of these matters and bring It Forward again for future discussion I see a complex picture our local carbon engineering Venture is now owned by a subsidiary of ocidental petroleum that topic is address in the brief we had before us from West Coast environmental law it's also a complex picture around the world we see people on the Prairies asking for a class asan log suit against big egg for locking farmers in around the world for use of fossil fuel-based fertilizer products we also see in Europe law firms very analogous to West Coast Environmental law asking or leading a charge on suing big wind I have a friend who is building a wood wind turbines large scale and he responded to an article in the guardian about Big Oil lawsuits as follows let's all start to dig where we stand for measures in the right direction knowing where the major emission sources are is good for prioritizing our efforts but to leave it to others to solve the problem is too weak on the question whether it's customers or suppliers who are going to lead the way the answer is both at the same time everyone will be more credible if each takes the steps they can and this will also bring political results so here in Squamish BC and Canada I think we need to be not only supply side environmentalists but demand side environmentalists and at the same time so I'd like to register my voice towards this Balan Focus consideration and we'll do so ongoing as we review it if the motion passes at a strategic plan VI

Chris Pettingill
0:26:30 (0:02:43)

coun yeah I guess I'm leaning more towards the direction that councelor stoner's talking about I feel that our strategic plan Direction our community climate action plan our climate emergeny emergency declaration gives us all the Strategic directions to follow through it's a question from my perspective of how to budget it and so I'd be interested in actually referring this to staff to understand how we might fund this and you know we have talked in other instances about a need to increase our Council contingency doing so then gives us the option of not having to use the money until we need to but having that extra flexibility something we may have done anyways that's maybe not the best option but I think there are things we can explore and so I guess I'm really interested in having that discussion about when is the time and what are the best sources and I think it would also be useful from my perspective to articulate our desire to find a solution and a way forward and not to just maybe we'll do it maybe we won't I think if we can incorporate that in the resolution it would make it much stronger so I'm not sure if there's a way we can amend this to add a bit of strength and maybe all think about that as well but I think for me that's you know I what I have in the front of my mind right now is the letters I'm getting at the regional district from the residents of Gun Lake and they're talking about 30 to 20 to30 million in immediate costs and these are you know direct results of the fossil fuel industry I don't see that the province or the regional district local governments have anywhere near the money to pay for this but the fossil companies who have been lying and misinforming about the impacts of their products have been raking in massive profits and like my colleague said yes everyone needs to pay and that's what this is about the fossil fuel companies haven't been paying and that's the problem and that's why a class action lawsuit is Justified some of the other class action lawsuits that were referenced may or may not be valid and if they're valid they should proceed if they're not then they shouldn't this one it seems is quite valid and I think we have a place to pursue it so I guess to summarize I would like to see a commitment that we are going to act but I agree it's worth seeing this legal analysis and worth having some research from staff about what are the mechanisms we could pursue to fund this whether it's in this budget next budget or the one after but what is the mechanism to give us that

Eric Andersen
0:29:13 (0:00:12)

option councelor Greenlaw then councelor Hamilton and let's be mindful Council we're well over time on this topic and we do have some Hefty presentations coming from our staff go

Lauren Greenlaw
0:29:25 (0:00:57)

ahead thanks through the chair I won't be supporting the motion on the floor I would like to Echo some of the comments made by my colleague councelor Stoner and councelor Pettingill I think we need bold action and Leadership this is the most important moment in human history and we need action this is a very lowrisk op option and I like the idea of putting the funding into the 2025 budget that would give us some time to Source funding so it's not an immediate pinch on taxpayers right now our own integrated flood ma Hazard management plan models indicate that sea level rise of one meter and flooding events could result in Damages exceeding $450 million and nearly 60% of our residents could be displaced and that is just flooding we're not talking about fires we're not talking about heat domes we're not talking about any of that this is a massive cost and I think we need as fast of action as we can have thank you

Eric Andersen
0:30:23 (0:00:00)

councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:30:24 (0:00:16)

Hamilton I'd like to request that we sever the motion into the request for information from arve Finley severed from the moment that we see the this question

Eric Andersen
0:30:40 (0:00:08)

back mayor Herford would you consider that a friendly

Armand Hurford
0:30:49 (0:00:09)

Amendment I don't know I see these two sort of tied together as where the decision point is made so

Eric Andersen
0:30:58 (0:00:05)

I'd like to call the question on mayor herfords motion and that is to request a point of

Chris Pettingill
0:31:04 (0:00:09)

order my understanding is that a request to sever is not we don't vote it's just automatic or is that

SPEAKER_14
0:31:13 (0:00:03)

something anybody can second it

Eric Andersen
0:31:16 (0:00:14)

councelor Stoner is seconding a motion by councelor Hamilton would you speak to that councilor's owner

Jenna Stoner
0:31:30 (0:00:06)

sorry the motion is just to sever and I'm just supporting

Eric Andersen
0:31:37 (0:00:14)

that then I'll call a question on whether to sever the motion into those two

Jenna Stoner
0:31:52 (0:00:02)

components you have to say out loud who is

SPEAKER_05
0:31:55 (0:00:01)

opposed excuse

Eric Andersen
0:31:56 (0:00:24)

me that is could I have the votes again in favor of sing councelor Stoner councelor Hamilton councelor Greenlaw to sing councelor French councelor pingel mayor Herford councelor Anderson a motion is defeated so go back to Mayor herfords original

Chris Pettingill
0:32:20 (0:00:28)

motion so yeah another process question is an amendment to sort of propose that we request that staff come back rather than this being referred to the strategic planning that staff come back with options for where this might be funded from is that an amendment or that would have to be defeating this and trying a new

SPEAKER_14
0:32:48 (0:00:01)

motion

Eric Andersen
0:32:49 (0:00:02)

mayor

Armand Hurford
0:32:52 (0:00:04)

Herford sorry I saw Miss Arthur's want to chime in on

SPEAKER_14
0:32:56 (0:00:16)

this sorry I was just going to say that an amendment is it actually pertinent to the motion on the floor if what you're proposing is a new motion you have to vote on the original motion and then bring forward a second emotion

Eric Andersen
0:33:12 (0:00:27)

motion thank you Miss Arthurs mayor Herford did you have at this time then I'll call the question on mayor herfords motion all in favor May councelor French mayor Herford and councelor Anderson Mo and opposed councelor Stoner councelor Hamilton councelor pingle councelor Greenlaw motions defeated councelor

Jenna Stoner
0:33:40 (0:00:28)

sooner I'd like to put forward a motion maybe and I'll let somebody sever it if they want to that the District of Squamish joined the sub Big Oil class action lawsuit and include $1 per resident in the 2025 budget and that we request a copy of the RV Finley legal opinion be sent to District of Squamish Council I'll speak to it if it's

Eric Andersen
0:34:08 (0:00:04)

seconded councelor green LW second councelor

Andrew Hamilton
0:34:13 (0:00:02)

Hamilton speak to

Eric Andersen
0:34:16 (0:00:01)

counc soner first thank

Jenna Stoner
0:34:17 (0:01:50)

yeah thank you through the chair I think that this is an important motion to put on the floor to as I mentioned show our climate leadership I think we as councelor Pettingill had mentioned have strong policy that suggests that we are trying to do everything that we can to both mitigate and adapt to the changing climate and I think that this is in line with that work both within our community climate action plan having previously articulated a clim or declared a climate emergency as well as what's in our Council strategic plan the option to put $1 per resent in the 2025 budget I think gives us the flexibility to have the conversation of where we're going to fund that from whether it's from Reserve whether it's from taxation and I think because we do have Council contingency that it would enable us to bridge if there's a need to put money forward in 2024 we could put a portion thereof through our Council contingency or something there like so I think that this gives us the time that we need to effectively include this in our 2025 budget discussions but allows us to bridge and make the effort to be part of this early and often and encourage our other mun IP alties from around the province to participate as well for me I do think it is important that we get the legal opinion from RV Finley and I've heard from my Council colleagues that I think that there's there information in there that they would appreciate to read I don't for my you never know what's in a document that you don't already have but I don't think that there's anything in there that would actually change my opinion as to whether we're going to participate or not in this I think when we do receive it and if there's something that's really stand out then maybe we come back and we make another motion to withdraw but I think that from what I've heard and what I've done my research on that this is a prudent approach to take in order to make sure that the pler pace principle is actively in effect

SPEAKER_17
0:36:08 (0:00:01)

thank you

Eric Andersen
0:36:09 (0:00:06)

let's be mindful of our time Council I'll go to council Hamilton do you had any additional comments

Andrew Hamilton
0:36:16 (0:00:26)

I think I have a question for the Mover there seems to me there's a disjoint between committing to the suig oil campaign and the question of budgeting at some future date those two things in my mind are tied if we agree to sue Big Oil we agree to absolutely budget

Jenna Stoner
0:36:42 (0:00:04)

it my motion reads that we include $1 per resident in the 2025 budget in

SPEAKER_00
0:36:47 (0:00:02)

the 2025

Jenna Stoner
0:36:49 (0:00:13)

correct so it gives us a year to decide how we're going to fund that if money is needed in advance then my suggestion would be that we use Council contingency in 2024 to cover a portion

Eric Andersen
0:37:03 (0:00:05)

thereof for the questions or comments Council mayor

Armand Hurford
0:37:08 (0:00:49)

Herford thank you I'll be I'll be supporting the motion however I want to remind Council that you know we've had a presentation from a delegation a delegation that I agree with but in general making financial decisions based from an Ask of a delegation without the staff lands without seeing what needs to maybe come out of our come out of our priorities and out of our actions isn't best practice and that's what my initial motion meant to capture but I am supportive of this of this direction in general although I look forward to seeing that the legal opinion and hopefully it supports this it's a bit of a bit of a leap of faith but I do think it's an important initiative so I'll take that

Eric Andersen
0:37:58 (0:00:02)

quickly councelor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:38:00 (0:00:05)

sorry I actually want to make my attempt here is to move progress a motion to sever

Eric Andersen
0:38:06 (0:00:48)

please second by councelor soner would you speak to this then I'll call the question on the motion to sever that is to the request the RV Finley opinion report and to join a class action lawsuit with $1 per resident to be provided for in the 2025 budget call a question all in favor councelor French councelor Hamilton councelor Stoner councelor Anderson in favor and opposed councelor Herford councelor Greenlaw councelor pingle opposed motion

SPEAKER_05
0:38:55 (0:00:08)

carries yes I'll go back to calling the

Eric Andersen
0:39:03 (0:00:06)

calling the question on the councelor Sooners motion as

Jenna Stoner
0:39:10 (0:00:04)

severed so I think we want to call the question on the first portion which is at the District of join

SPEAKER_03
0:39:15 (0:00:00)

the

Jenna Stoner
0:39:15 (0:00:05)

do big oil action lawsuit and include $1 per res in the 2025

Eric Andersen
0:39:20 (0:01:32)

budget Council calling the question in favor of that portion of the motion councelor mayor Herford councelor Greenlaw councelor pingal councelor French councelor Stoner in favor and councelor Anderson councelor Hamilton opposed motion carries now for the second motion that we re request the arve Finley opinion report all in favor unanimously in favor not motion carries thank you very much thank you to our presenters a lively discussion important and yes we should have been thinking about budgeting appropriate time for your welcome observations and information thank you very much

Brennan Park Recreation Centre Phase 1 Retrofit (Grant 1) Update (Validation Report)
0:40:50 (1:06:58)

The council meeting presentation was delivered by K Bragg, the Director of Facilities Planning and Construction at the District of Squamish, and Shane Gilbertson, the Project Manager of Facilities Planning and Construction. The presentation focused on the phase one retrofit works for Brennan Park, which is the start of all works at the park. The objective is to obtain Council endorsement for phase one work, update the current works, review the validation report, and seek endorsement to advance the project to the next stage, which is just prior to construction.

Brennan Park is one of the district's older facilities, built in 1977 with an addition in 1992. It is the only Recreation Center in Squamish, with a total size of over 70,000 square feet and over half a million visitors per year. However, it is currently under capacity and not up to current BC building code or seismic requirements. The district has a real estate facilities master plan, which outlines a priority process for upgrading district facilities. Brennan Park falls under the 'core' category, which includes facilities that are required to operate and govern the community, provide safety, and essential services.

The district has two grants in application or approved with the Government of Canada for the Brennan Park project. The phase one grant, called the Green Inclusive Communities Building Grant, focuses on accessibility and sustainability. The total project cost is $16. 3 million, of which $1. 7 million is funded. The phase two grant, called the Investing in Canadian Infrastructure Program (ICIP), focuses on sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The total project cost is $14. 2 million, of which $10. 4 million is funded. The district is still waiting on a decision from the second grant. The grants are very specific and require careful management to ensure they are applied correctly and meet the requirements of the real estate facilities master plan.

Eric Andersen
0:40:52 (0:00:32)

we let Mr brag set up for a presentation on the Brennan Park recreation center phase 1 retrofit update and this is a grant and validation report that Mr brag will be presenting and if you have a co-presenter Mr brg if you may be introducing that

SPEAKER_03
0:41:25 (0:00:57)

person

SPEAKER_02
0:42:23 (0:17:42)

good morning good morning mayor and Council thank you for your time this morning my name is k Bragg I'm the director of facilities planning and construction at the district with me I have Shane Gilbertson he is the project manager of facilities planning and construction this report to council is on Brennan Park is for the phase one retrofit works it's the start of all the works at Brenham Park and it's for the validation portion or the validation phase of the of the project there's a lot in here I'm trying to compress as much as I can to the presentation there's been a validation report that supplied with this which again it's got a lot of deep information in there the objective is to obtain Council endorsement for phase one work also update the current Works review the validation report and seek endorsement to advance the project in the next stage which is just prior to construction is where we go to the final Class A so to speak construction price when we've gone to Market so quick background on the on the building itself it's one of our older facilities it was built in 19 1977 originally it was phased construction as well with an addition supplied or built in 1992 with the Aquatic Center with the pool it's the only Recreation Center in squish the total size is just over 70,000 square ft and we receive half or over half a million visitors per year and this is pre-co numbers currently it's under capacity and it's also not up to current BC building code and it's not built to our current seismic requirements as well just a little bit of background on where out and priorities in the overall real estate facilities master plan in 201829 the real estate facility strategy and also the real estate facilities master plan was created one of the goals was to outline a priority process on what goes when on all district facilities the nature is that the district has competing projects that all require upgrading or a lot require upgrading at the same time and we have limited funds you can see the buildings have been classified into three areas which is critical core and support the critical ones are the ones that are required to operate and govern the community provide safety and essential services and these include the Fire Halls and M Municipal Hall and Public Works facility which is all currently in plan to or under construction and then we've got the next level which is core which is where Brandon park facility sits in at the moment oh they're actually further so at the moment the priority is slightly out of sync where doing brenen Park before the second fire hall being finished and the start of Public Works facility one of the reasons this is done is because it's been fastracks due to the opportunity of funding that was available through the grants these are further organized back when the real estate facility straty was done in 2018 just after that District went to the community Through A needs assessment and had engagement and received information on what the community is looking for at the brand Park and the main items came across as a general refit renovations to the facility a new customer service area A New Wellness Center a second pool and a second ice rink currently the district has two grants either an application or approved with the government of Canada and also the phase 2 one is in conjunction with The Province the phase one Grant which is the work that we're talking now which is what the application sorry which is what the validation report is about it's called the green inclusive communities building Grant the total project cost is $16.3 million from which $1.7 million is funded this one the grants focus on different areas this one has a strong focus on accessibility and also sustainability only 5% of people who applied or entities that are applied received funding for this one and this one's approved and as noted this is what we're talking about in this report the phase two which is the second Grant and it's under application right now it's called the investing in Canadian infrastructure program or we refer to it as ISP total project cost is $14.2 million of which $10.4 million is funded the focus from this grant is purely sustainability and that's to reduce The Green House gas emissions of this particular building and the district's still waiting on a decision from the second Grant the ISP one there both grants are very specific and what we're and how they applied into the jobs for example we can't just apply them to the pool or I rink it just it wouldn't have been eligible grants are also a complicated process they require lots of layers and management working through there can't be any stacking they must be deployed on certain areas within the building without any crossover we need to match what the grants requirements have with our real estate facilities master plan we also need match with the phases what goes on with Brandon Park itself the greenhouse gas emission calculations need to line up with what's possible on the building compared to what they what they're requesting and then also obviously costs need to line up as well there's a lot involved in working the two together so the district is close on finalizing details with gicb it's approved but we don't have a contract signed it's just some minor items to complete on that and once that done once that's done we're anticipating that the second Grant will then flow through after that we just need to resolve the contract with the first one first just to note we can move forward when we are being funded already it's just a contract hasn't been signed yet so the current work on the project the team was engaged in December 20122 that team consists of Architects Engineers Builder Consultants And Trades they've done an exhaustive res review of the existing building this includes Hazmat material testing we've x-rayed the walls to see what's in the wall to resolve the latent conditions in there and the unknowns we've engaged and continually to engaging with environmental geotechnical surve and archaeological side of the project we've the project teams had user group discussions and we're also looking and diving into the operational impact of you do a renovation on an existing operable building and what that leads into is a validation report and what is a validation report it's a report has a ton of information in there it outlines an enhanced price scope of work that identifies in detail project risk timing and costing and this is done very early in the project compared to standard construction so the integrated project delivery process is a contractual Arrangement between a client and the project team typically in a standard construction management model we'll see many different contracts for the client so the district's involved in has a contract with an architect a separate one with the build and then a separate one of Consultants what ipd does is it puts it all under one contract everyone's at the table together and we all walk down the same path together so we have a single contract with all the partners there as noted it's very early project team involvement it's not with construction management you'll typically get the architect on and then you flow through its lineal and the Builder comes on Deck a little bit later what this does is have everyone at the table there there's a voice from everyone to create a product very early again and what this does is increas Ines end certainty and reduces the risk of the project as a whole but there is a higher cost up front for doing this there is a element of risk and profit that's split within this agreement and this changes before or after construction and it changed on a project by project basis instead of sharing the profit we could opt to if there's any savings in the project you could be reinvested back into the project it's actually quite hard to see on the overhead screen here but this is a eye view of the project itself and you can see on the right side there's logger Lan what this shows is the amount of area that we're touching with this phase one work the blue area is the retrofit which is mainly through the lobby there and you can see to the north of the top the upper side of the area that is the icer change rooms and then the pink area that's outlined is the new building which is new customer service area and there's a little bit of external work outside of the that southern entry there so diving into the actual building itself you can see the ice rink sure my mouse can come across here yeah so the ice rink's just here the lobby is across the center here so the main focus of work is retrofitting the existing Lobby there's a new elevator in the center of the lobby that gives access to the mezzanine floor so if you pick this one up this is the Upper Floor you can see this is the ice rink here and the mezzanine so the elevator accesses the mezzanine upstairs and the room up there will be retrofitted into programming space there is a minor retrofit of the existing icerink change rooms and I'm saying minor because we're just bringing up to make them nicer we're actually quite Limited in what we can do there for size the communities come back and said they want larger change rooms for us to do under this grant it's very difficult because it's all structural down there it's actually below ground so we don't have the funds to do that under this particular area however we do note that in the future with the planned ice ring that we can create change rooms with the new ones and then keep this one at secondary so whilst we're doing it's mainly aesthetic upgrades to the ice change rooms we've also added accessibility by adding a new change room you can see that there on number six we've also got a new customer service area which is this pink area just here so that's the new square footage that's added and also the ice rink insulation in the roof it's going to be retrofitted with a high insulating value U material the energy recovery system which is the Heat and the cooling system between the pool and the ice rink is going to be renewed and that into Focus to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and the cost to run this building and then also is a part retrofit of the existing hea and cooling system see some montages or renderings from the architect this is standing in the lobby looking towards the West so loggers Lane is behind in this particular spot and you can see in the center of the area there that's a new elevator the elevator has been put centrally because the new reception desk is here and the reason the reception desk is there is it gives staff a very good overview of what's happening and what's coming in and out also the community can access the reception desk it's is very centrally located you'll see on the right here there's some windows added and that's where the new mezzanine programming space is it's proposed to redo the ceiling have new finishes throughout new lighting throughout as well this is another view from the other side of the lobby so this is looking towards the west and you can see in the left hand side sorry the East you can see in the left hand side their reception desk which is very Central this is the upstairs mezanine which is the programming space and just to note there's all new finishes in there we're opening up the area there's walls coming down on the left hand side you can see some windows towards the lobby and opening that up on the right hand side we have some windows as well this overlooks the ice rink the scope and cost of this is working we working on that at the moment this is a file wall so this is a very costly exercise to put Windows in we're working out the final details of that one the shedule we're aiming for a start in q1 2024 we've blurred this a little bit we don't have an exact start date because as we work through the programming and operations and what we can start we have an option to start one of the portions of the work as we overlap or we can wait for approvals and then we start Allin one we haven't got that far with the team just yet we're working through that one so cost indication as the project teams worked through the past eight months there's additional work that's been uncovered it's an old building we also want to go through this cost exercise and reduce our unknowns as much as possible and reduce the increases we can do that by adding robust contingencies and working on a what we call a risk register and what the risk register is it's mainly from the contractor side and the design side is they list it's like a Murphy's Law if it could happen it will happen so we list everything in there and this risk register is in the it's in the validation report and we're just trying to reduce the known unknowns and we put a cost that as well so it's like another contingency we have uncovered additional work here which is work for electrification there's additional structural increases required for the new mechanical units that are going in there we have to update some seismic areas and also update to BC building code and there's a bu BC building code change coming up at the end of this year which causes some additional work possibly as well we've also added client side contingency again this is for our sake of being professional and working through and trying to reduce the changes to cost between now and we start construction total project cost is 21 million the grant initially was 16.3 through this validation phase and the preconstruction it's been identified there's additional work involved in there and that brings it up to 17.3 the risk register as listed in the validation report is 1.6 million the grant scope we had to initially when we applied for the grant we had the ice rink insulation in there throughout the process of working with the grant supplyer we could have pulled it out and we did pull it out as far as the scope of work in the last few weeks the grant suppli said that we must keep that in there and so we've put that back on top of the budget we can pull it out but the chances are it's got to go back to government of Canada for review and it could delay the project by 6 to 12 months so it's got to be done anyway at some point so we've left it in there because it was part of the original scope client side contingency we've allowed 1.2 million which is around 4.7% there's a few fittings and equipment in there but that's a that's an overall contingency as well so it's pretty comfortable where we're sitting at the moment and just to note there's no additional funding from the grant supplier you know this is an ipd project which what it fits quite nicely in these situations where if we have to Pivot we'll have to change scope rather than increasing the budget for it so the added value items or a wish list we've got one in the validation report as well and you'll see it ranges from accessible pool lifts we don't have one in the water for the pull at the moment to Glass walled elevator this is just a list that's not priced at the moment and there's and they're not in any particular order and this will be decided once we've got the final market pricing and we start construction we'll know exactly how far close to budget we're sitting on a sustainability points this graph is Prov this is from the real estate facility strategy so 5 years old but it gives a very good indication of where the cost of running this particular building is in relation to our other facilities in the district these first two columns is the first one's the ice rink and the second one's the Aquatic Center so you can see compared to say the RCMP building they're significantly higher in cost so there's a focus on sustainability in this which is why the grant fits in quite nicely so on the sustainability side we're aiming to reduce or phase one calculations have come back at reducing energy by 40% just to comparison by 2030 the scor's community climate action plan is stating that we should be reducing it by 60% so the return on investment for this particular Grant is fairly significant you know this is a $16 million on a small portion of the whole renovation but we're actually getting some quite good sustainability Returns on the on the cash on this one this gives an overall Savings of 300 tons of carbon dioxide and we also have a goal of reducing landfill by over 85% and that's a goal it's quite difficult when you've got old buildings and they do have Asos in them the Arts culture and Heritage this is the first facing public building under the real estate facilities master plan we do have an opportunity to create an identity and express gormish as Heritage and art the districts engaging First Nations currently squish arts and also user groups and just a note this is still developing but it is in line with the Arts culture and Heritage strategy with Community engagement there is a plan underway and again this one's still developing as well we've had user groups already with the Architects that talk directly in particular ice user groups and we've got very detailed information to create a product that is very user friendly and we're also working on creating you managing Community expectations here what is happening when also the impact on operations and programming the next steps is to finalize the scope of work we still have a little bit to do Under the validation report and this is just minor items we do need to get the grant contract signed for gicb also the ipd contract needs to be signed and then staff will come back to council with a final construction cost just before sorry final price just before we go to construction cost so we know where the Market's sitting and just to note right now we're at class CB so we're pretty confident of where we're sitting with the contingencies allowed would you like me to read out the recommendation

Eric Andersen
1:00:05 (0:00:11)

or that shouldn't be necessary Mr brag thank you very much I'll turn it over to council for questions for our presenters first up councelor

John French
1:00:16 (0:00:42)

French thanks chair oh which question to ask first it's a dilemma I think I'll start with this one the team value section of the staff report highlights Innovation communication trust enjoyment and collaboration and then from the report quote all team members feel safe to speak up at any time this is amazing to me and creates an environment that pulls for success but writing all of that easy executing it in real life bit more difficult so just want to do a check- in on this do all the team members truly feel safe to speak up at any time I'll leave that

SPEAKER_02
1:00:59 (0:00:44)

through the chair that's a good question so we're heading into our second ipd now the first ipd is through the fire hall this fire hall number two which on tanelus there and we had the same overview from ipd where everyone sits at the table it's a collaborative approach what we've experienced is different communication compared to standard construction there is a lot more people speaking up there is a lot more information that gets put on the table a lot more items that do get worked through and less information gets buried throughout the process so it's definitely a more open process there's more people at the table you know the participants have a vested interest it's not often worth a government job where you share the risks and profit so we see voices put on the table and issues are worked through pretty

John French
1:01:43 (0:00:51)

swiftly okay perfect and you answered my follow-up question on that so in the report it talks about leave the bestus in the walls and build two-hour firewalls or pull it out and replace with nonflammable interior wall materials and then the report goes on to indicate the preferred Way Forward is to pull all that stuff out and replace with I would imagine metal steel studs so I just want to know for certain is that the direction we're going and are you looking for specific Council feedback on those two

SPEAKER_09
1:02:35 (0:00:21)

options yeah through the chair so the direction we're going is again keeping cost low finding the best option that we're going to have to leave some but upgrading some walls where brand new ones are being built this just goes in line with a code compliance report that we had completed as well to make sure that we're meting today's code and eventually new codes coming

John French
1:02:57 (0:00:18)

up and there are frequent references to demolition in the document and I'm wondering in this context is demolition referring to actually deconstruction for use recycling as the preference and then demolition only as The Last

SPEAKER_02
1:03:16 (0:00:15)

Resort through the chair yeah demolition includes that 85% so we whatever we do we need to reduce reuse recycle and put that into the 85% it's not a matter of demolishing and it gets outside of that

SPEAKER_09
1:03:31 (0:00:14)

80% and you through the chair just add that we're through the IP process it's always discussed about where we can reuse materials if possible it's a challenge to do so with today's like strict building codes but absolutely it gets discussed at almost not every meeting but it's top of top

John French
1:03:46 (0:00:18)

of mind for sure great and that's consistent with our two Fire Halls and chair will you indulge me in one more I think this one's quick and easy it looks like two accessible parking spots are going to be lost at the existing pool entrance will those two spots be relocated somewhere

SPEAKER_02
1:04:04 (0:00:21)

somehow through the chair it's good question we don't have an answer to that yet but as an overview they will be relocated in conjunction with the parking at Brenan Park needs an overview there's a lot of space and a lot of open areas that we can have a much more efficient space so we'll be definitely redoing the accessible and making sure that within build code and you know in reality making sure it's nice and close to the

Eric Andersen
1:04:26 (0:00:03)

entrances counc

Andrew Hamilton
1:04:29 (0:01:12)

Hamilton thank you very much for this report I really actually I really appreciated the detail in the valuation reports that was just called that is gives me a lot of confidence that we are getting things under control before we understand the project before we start the project which in my mind is the first step to actually controlling our cost potential cost escalations so this is I I'm very happy to see this and read it one question I've got a question about the way where we talk about the budget and it may be me misunderstanding the way we talk about it in the background slides in the slides you say in background material total project cost 16.3 million right and we still talk about the project cost 16.3 million but then later in the slides and in the report we talk about a total cost of 21 million when we fold in contingencies and so what are we what's the project cost 21 million or 16 million what do we need to budget for and what can we expect to be

SPEAKER_02
1:05:42 (0:00:35)

paying through the chair it's a good question and that's I apologize that's my verbiage of what I've written in the report a total project cost is $21 million the initial Grant size is $16.3 million and that's what we focused on as stated we know there's additional work going on within brenon Park we know there's contingencies required we know that as we move through this cost indicative process that we want to allow the enough contingency so we go through the pain here up front rather than going through this pain during construction so the total project cost from ourside which includes the kitchen sink and the forks and everything is $21

Andrew Hamilton
1:06:18 (0:00:26)

million and this total project cost of 21 million for me I'm I think about what what's happening with our budget right our budgeted amount is doubling right we've gone from a budgeted amount of about 4 and a half million to a budgeted amount of about 9 million is that a correct is my understanding correct there through the

SPEAKER_02
1:06:44 (0:00:06)

chair

Andrew Hamilton
1:06:50 (0:00:44)

correct and the my last me big understanding question is what is the process moving forward our resolu our staff recommendation here talk speaks to endorsing moving to next cost phase to cost a understanding right is this does this also trigger an approval of the project starting or is there a point in which we council is asked should this project

SPEAKER_02
1:07:34 (0:00:25)

commence through the chair yes we're in process at the moment to get to class A and at class A so to speak as well we sign the contracts and we know we have market pricing and then we lock in the trades and from there we can move forward and at that point if the market comes back or if we see any other unforeseen and there's price increases is then yeah it's a final go or noo before construction

Andrew Hamilton
1:08:00 (0:00:19)

starts and who is the final noo is it Council or is it staff after we've budgeted after we say if we endorse the 21 the budget is there a final question to Council of project go or noo or once it's budgeted it can go

SPEAKER_02
1:08:19 (0:00:19)

I threw the chair once staff are confirmed with class A and Council has agreed in the class A then it's a go from the staff side we won't I don't anticipate coming back to council to say hey we're going to start like once the budget's approved and we all agreed and we're confident we can hit that budget then it start anytime after that

Andrew Hamilton
1:08:39 (0:00:10)

okay I'm just to make sure I'm absolutely clear it's when we approve the class a budget is when we have committed to the project going ahead and shovels going in the ground is that correct through

SPEAKER_02
1:08:49 (0:00:00)

the chair

Eric Andersen
1:08:50 (0:00:01)

correct ccor

Chris Pettingill
1:08:52 (0:00:28)

ping yeah thanks so I was a bit unclear about the risk to from asbest and Le especially asbest it sort of in the earlier parts of the report it made it seem like there's Fair bit of concern about asbest but when I read the actual sampling it seemed like oh we didn't find it in most of the places so I'm just wondering where we are now in our assessment of risk in terms of cost escalation but also closures dur to clean up from asbestos and

SPEAKER_02
1:09:21 (0:00:42)

Lead through the chair I mean this is an old building anything pre-1990 from the construction so we assume it has best Us in it you know it's standard to assume that you know because they're in prevalent in so many buildings there is a very standard process of removing it you know this building being open to the public whilst this happens there's additional requirements for there which is separating the areas and making sure the public is completely safe and that's the number one item that we're focusing on we're still working on the programming on what can get shut when and that sort of works in with programming space it works in with construction and all that sort of stuff so we actually don't have a final that's next stages as we work through that but we're all well aware of the Asos and there's all standard processes to make sure that the community safe as I come and use the recreation

Chris Pettingill
1:10:04 (0:00:45)

facility okay so it sounds like we do then okay I I'll leave it there the I'm just the piece on the flood level flood construction levels and so on is a little bit unclear like it sounds we have policy around flood Construction level and so on and so forth I get the sense that we didn't do a detailed site survey and so it's not clear to me we have some concern that parts of it might be below flood construction levels but within our sort of allowances because it's an existing structure so on and so forth but I'm not clear on how certain we are that we might be above or below or might be okay can you speak to

SPEAKER_02
1:10:49 (0:00:40)

that through the chair Brenan Park and I'll give you a comparison so compared to Public Works Public Works is 3 M below the flood Construction level Grom Park's actually quite high it's a bit of an island there so we're looking at around 300 millim or a foot that we need to come and increase up in a couple of the areas around the entrances and that's just a generic kind of comparison there so as far as flood Construction level goes it's actually relatively okay there are additional flood items here because there is a re there is a river next to it so one of the if the river overflows or bursts there is an additional risk from that but from the actual flood Construction level It's relatively simple as far as building in scor Mish is concerned to

Chris Pettingill
1:11:30 (0:00:40)

mitigate okay and so because there's mentions of like you know 10% of the floor space now might be as I understood below some sort of our policy guidelines but as long a