Regular Council - 16 May 2023

1: Welcome to the Squamish Nation Traditional Territory
3.i: Proclamation Request: Squamish Days Loggers Sports Association
7.A: Staff Recommendation:
7.A.i: Special Business Meeting: May 2, 2023
7.A.ii: Regular Business Meeting: May 2, 2023
7.A.iii: Special Business Meeting: May 9, 2023
7.A.iv: Committee of the Whole: May 9, 2023
7.B: CORRESPONDENCE - Receive for Information
7.B.i: 0421 E. Dearden, Re Simple Language Update to Boost Climate Awareness & Drive Immediate Action
7.B.ii: 0424 Endo International Bankruptcy, Re For Community Information
7.B.iii: 0424 R. Fox, Re DFO response to IAAC Request, Re Woodfibre LNG’s Request to Amend Conditions 3.8 and 6.4 of the Revised Decision Statement (2018) issued under Section 54 of CEAA 2012
7.B.iv: 0502 M. Mackell, Re New Executive Director at Squamish Helping Hands Society
7.B.v: 0504 M. Leclair, Re FEI Letter-EGP Workforce Accommodation Summer 2023 0508 G. Guilfoyle, Re Religions in Squamish Series
7.B.vii: 0509 M. Palethorpe President Squamish Windsports Society, Re Invitation to the Squamish Windsports Opening Ceremony
7: CORRESPONDENCE - Referred to Staff
7: Staff Recommendation:
7.C: STAFF UPDATES - For Information
7.C.i: 2023 Housing Needs Report
8.i: Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole: May 9, 2023
9.A.i: District of Squamish Intermunicipal Transportation Network Services Business Licence Agreement No. 2972, 2023
9.A.ii: District of Squamish Inter-municipal TNS Business Licence Bylaw No. 2973, 2023
10.A.i: Federation of Canadian Municipalities Partnerships for Municipal Innovation - Women in Local Leadership Zambia Mission Memo
Welcome, Proclamation: Proclamation Request: Squamish Days Loggers Sports Association
0:00:00 (0:08:08)

In the council meeting, Jacqueline McNichol, the volunteer president for the Squamish Days Logger Sports Association, presented a request for the District of Squamish Council to issue a proclamation recognizing the Squamish Days Logger Sports Festival as an event of Municipal significance. The festival, which is celebrating its 66th annual event from August 3rd to August 6th, is the longest-running event in Squamish and the Sea to Sky Corridor. Throughout the weekend, the event draws thousands of people to local businesses, promotes tourism, and fosters a sense of community.

McNichol highlighted the community involvement in the event, with many people from the District of Squamish volunteering each year. The festival partners with six local non-profit organizations, including the Squamish Curling Club, the Rotary Club of Squamish, the Squamish Royal Canadian Legion, Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, the Squamish Elks, and the Squamish Valley Equestrian Association. All profits from the event are split among these non-profit groups, and there are no paid positions on the festival's board.

During the question and answer session, McNichol shared updates about the Rotary Beef Barbecue, a popular culinary highlight of the festival. Based on feedback from the previous year, the event will return to a lottery system for distributing beef, eliminating the need for advance ticket purchases. Council members expressed their support for the festival and appreciation for the work of the volunteers, with one member noting that the Squamish Days Logger Sports Festival is the only event from the 1958 British Columbia Centennial grant program that still survives today.

Armand Hurford
0:00:02 (0:01:14)

thank you and welcome to the regular business meeting for the District of Squamish today's Tuesday May 16 2023 and as always we're gathered to do our work today on the traditional unseated territory of the Squamish Nation please be advised that this council meeting is being live streamed recorded and will be available to the public to view on the district's College website following the meeting if you have any concerns please notify the corporate officer present at the meeting could I have someone move adoption of the agenda please move by councilor French second by counselor Stoner all in favor motion carries and our first order of business is a delegation and I'm going to start us off by declaring conflict on this particular item as matters that relate to the Squamish days logger Sports show I have a reception of bias as I'm the master ceremonies volunteer Master Ceremonies for the for the event so I will step out of the room and I will defer to acting mirror we'll be back

Andrew Hamilton
0:01:16 (0:00:22)

thank you very much so delegation item number three delegations and proclamations we have a proclamation request for Squamish days logger Sports Association and we have a delegation Jacqueline McNichol yeah the president of the Squamish loggers day Sports Association you've got five minutes to address the council and we look forward to hearing

0:01:39 (0:02:46)

Camino okay thank you very much for having me as just noted my name is Jack McNichol I'm the volunteer president for the squamous Chase logger Sports Association and I must say it's nice that I can hear you because last time there were some problems and I couldn't so this is a lot better thank you I am here on behalf of the squamous change logger Sports Association to request that the district is Squamish Council Israel issue a proclamation to recognize the Squamish stage logger sports festival as an event of Municipal significance of Squamish as it celebrates 66th annual event this BCD long weekend from August 3rd to August 6th our event is the longest running event in Squamish and in the Sea to Sky Corridor and throughout the weekend it draws thousands of people to local businesses to our event it creates tourism and it creates a true sense of community you know they say it takes a village but in this case it takes the community of Squamish to pull the event off and that is very apparent by everyone involved I can look around at the people here is the Master of Ceremonies I wrote on the float with John last year we have many people from the District of Squamish Who come out to volunteer every year and that's just a small portion of it we have businesses who support us today someone just dropped off a check for six thousand dollars as a sponsor and I didn't even know they received my email so I thought that was pretty cool but that's the kind of stuff that happens and you know we partner with six local proration groups to make the festival happen it's the house on Curling Club the Rotary Club of Squamish the Squamish Royal Canadian Legion Royal Canadian Marine search and rescue the Squamish Elks and the Squamish Valley equestrian Association I think I missed the curling club there I'm sorry but all our profits are split 100 to local non-profits there are no paid positions on our board everything would do is 100 volunteer based now I'm getting really nervous so yeah I just it's an awesome event I mean I know that it means the world to me it takes a ton of my time but um thanks to my employer which is myself at the time I'm able to find that balance and you know I even last year when we needed more volunteers a lot of people came down and they said the same thing like my boss let me go early to help Squamish days so I don't think we see that a lot and it's something that we need to keep in this community so let's keep it alive for another 66 years thank you

Andrew Hamilton
0:04:26 (0:00:06)

thanks very much Council John Council the French

John French
0:04:32 (0:00:28)

I thanks counselor Hamilton I have a question I think it's a really important question that I'm hoping we can have answered there's a lot I Love About the Weekend but The Culinary highlight for me is the rotary beef barbecue and I think there's some important news that needs to be shared with the community about changes to the rotary beef barbecue Could you

0:05:01 (0:00:02)

are you talking about ticket sales maybe

John French
0:05:04 (0:00:03)

the online yes cannot buy beef on

0:05:07 (0:00:40)

a bike this is hot off the press given the feedback from last year you know we're kind of going back to the lottery system so you line up and if there's beef you will get beef yeah you know it works really well selling the tickets in advance it's good for planning but we know that we're gonna sell out the beef so yeah we've gone back to the old days for the 66th where there's lineups you won't have to get a ticket we did change a few things just for improvements there and you know less work for our volunteers but if the rotary is watching right now or yeah that's new thank you John

John French
0:05:48 (0:00:07)

yeah that's great news for people who rely on flip phones thanks

Andrew Hamilton
0:05:55 (0:00:02)

counselor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:05:57 (0:00:54)

66 years that takes us back to 1958 and British Columbia was celebrating a centennial the Centennial of the founding of the province and the government of the day wanted to promote tourism and put together a grant program and Squamish applied so did Kelowna New Westminster and Iowa and everyone else and a book was produced listing all of the festivals that got a money that year and this is the only one that still survives and that really says something about our community and about the people that have been behind this Festival all these years your Partnerships that help you run it and help you bring together these volunteers and the sponsorships it's a recipe a formula for Success that other events locally and other community festivals I'm sure can and have borrowed from congratulations and best wishes

Andrew Hamilton
0:06:52 (0:00:15)

with that I will search for a motion to a counselor Pettingill moves the staff recommendation counts their Stoner seconds the staff recommendation would you like to speak to it or

Chris Pettingill
0:07:08 (0:00:17)

just like to thank you and all the volunteers for all the time that's put into this amazing Festival which is a Cornerstone of our community and happy to recognize this as an event of Municipal significance which it definitely is and yeah looking forward to it

Lauren Greenlaw
0:07:26 (0:00:01)

thank you very much

Andrew Hamilton
0:07:27 (0:00:00)

cash the green law

Lauren Greenlaw
0:07:28 (0:00:20)

I'm happy to support this motion I try to go to logger days every year I will be out of town this year and I'm very bummed about that but it is such an amazing event like the athleticism is incredible and it's so much fun so thank you so much for all the work you do we really appreciate it thank you

Andrew Hamilton
0:07:48 (0:00:24)

all right with that I'll call the question all those in favor any opposed thank you very much motion carries unanimously

Consent Agenda, Consideration of Committee Recommendations
0:08:08 (0:50:13)

In the council meeting, several topics were discussed, including the Garibaldi Estates neighborhood plan, the Squamish wildlife habitat connectivity project update, marine and estuary coordination planning update, and the North Crumpit neighborhood plan update.

The Garibaldi Estates neighborhood plan was presented with recommendations from the committee as a whole. Council members voted on the recommendations, with some opposition from Councilor Anderson. The Squamish wildlife habitat connectivity project update was presented and approved unanimously by the council members. The marine and estuary coordination planning update was discussed, with Councilor Anderson proposing an alternate motion to the one passed on May 9th. The motion included reallocating funds for estuary coordination, deferring certain topics, and calling a meeting of the Squamish Estuary Management Committee. The motion was amended and passed with some opposition from Councilor Pettingill.

The North Crumpit neighborhood plan update was discussed, with council members expressing concerns about splitting the planning process for the eastern and western portions of the property. Councilor Stoner proposed a motion to not support a phased approach to planning for the Western rise, while Councilor Pettingill suggested a cohesive planning approach for the eastern and western rises together. The council decided to refer the decision on a cohesive plan for the eastern and western rise to a committee of the whole for further discussion.

Armand Hurford
0:08:13 (0:00:44)

okay thank you next on the agenda we have consideration of unscheduled public attendance if there's anyone that has a matter that can't wait till our next regular meeting this is your opportunity seeing none we'll move on we have no public hearings tonight and now we're on to we have no timed items next up will be the consent agenda and if anyone would like to pull anything I'm going to start us off I'd like to pull the correspondence five um the letter from Mr LeClaire from Fortis BC and is anyone else go ahead councilor Bingham number

Chris Pettingill
0:08:57 (0:00:05)

I 7bi the simple language update to boost climate awareness

Armand Hurford
0:09:03 (0:00:03)

okay thank you yeah go ahead counselor Stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:09:07 (0:00:03)

I'd like to pull letter 7b4 please

Armand Hurford
0:09:10 (0:01:27)

four so we have one four and five at this point any anybody else no okay so could I have someone just double check yep could have someone move the consent agenda counselor French and second by counselor pettingell all in favor motion carries thank you and then we had the just an update for information and that's are we getting a presentation on this or is this just for information on the housing needs report this final draft well that was consent that was into sorry consent agendas after that thank you consideration of thank you I just had a name Nick a note next to it on mine that confused me consideration of council committee recommendations so this we have can recommendations for coming to the whole meeting last week so um under number one we have recommendations from the committee the whole related to the Garibaldi Estates neighborhood plan moved by councilor French seconded by counselor Stoner all in favor motion any opposed counselor Anderson oh

Lauren Greenlaw
0:10:37 (0:00:08)

sorry I'm unclear on what we're voting on are we going to split it out like we did last time are we saying everything from Community Hall will be accepted

Armand Hurford
0:10:45 (0:00:32)

so we're doing each time each topic separately and if there's separate motions we can we can consider that but um the Mover which was counselor French moved the recommendations of the committee the whole regarding the Garibaldi Estates was that one that piece so procedurally we got through the vote there I just want to make sure that went well I think councilor Anderson opposed and sorry counselor can you clarify your vote on that or would you like us to

Lauren Greenlaw
0:11:18 (0:00:06)

well I'm just regarding the splitting of the West and Eastern portion

Armand Hurford
0:11:25 (0:00:03)

oh sorry we're on the this is Garibaldi Estates I think you're

Lauren Greenlaw
0:11:28 (0:00:00)

all these states

Armand Hurford
0:11:29 (0:00:09)

yeah so yeah we'll do one at a time and then we will get to then we do Village of alien down list and I feel like you have some questions around one of the other topics there

Lauren Greenlaw
0:11:38 (0:00:01)

I might

Armand Hurford
0:11:40 (0:00:17)

okay what's up so on this vote I want to clarify our vote because I kind of had a wavering hand in the middle there I just wanted to make sure the should we do the vote again I just wasn't sure because I had councilor Anderson opposed

0:11:57 (0:00:01)

yeah I'll be a post yep

Armand Hurford
0:11:59 (0:00:54)

okay so there you go thank you so councilor Anderson Greenland oppose thank you moving on The Village on Bailey's Bailey streets again some Rec some recommendations here thank you counselor French second by counselor French moves counselor Hamilton seconds all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you then we had the Squamish wildlife habitat connectivity project update with a few and that's there I'll move that one if there's a secondary counselor Stoner all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you next we have marine and Estuary coordination planning update and recommendations and Council Anderson did you have some yes go ahead yes

Eric Andersen
0:12:54 (0:02:46)

mayor Hereford I would like to propose an alternate motion to that was adopted May 9th and I have distributed copies but I'll just briefly the motion is in four parts the motion that was passed last time included to begin with that the district is Columbus reallocate 2023 carry forward special project funds in the amount to twenty thousand dollars held for Estuary coordination to work with Squamish Nation to co-facilitate community stakeholder meetings respecting Marine access the south end of the spit Road and new spit Island I the next Clause of the motion passed last week I wish to amend and that is that the following two Estuary management plan and Estuary management committee topics from the me9 committee the whole meeting be deferred those two topics were got the District of Squamish established working groups to advise on Marine industry related planning on an as needed project basis coupled with Associated dedicated resourcing in lieu of proceeding with the creation of a standing Marine coordinating body at this time and the second one that I suggest be deferred is that the District of squamous jointly review and establish a clear framework and memorandum of understanding with Squamish nation in the province of BC addressing ongoing management considerations and Public Access in the school Williams Squamish Wildlife Management Area under continued inter-government engagement the mainline motion concluded with the recommendation that the following four documents be made available that be brought back to council and I'm suggesting that they be made available as resources as for orientation of council they were the Estuary management plan yesterday management committee terms of reference the ocp semp integration review and the review of the Estuary management committee terms of reference I wish to add an item a fifth item and that is the Wildlife Management Area management plan of 2007 for council's orientation for General orientation finally I wish to add a clause and that is that the District of Squamish staff Call a meeting of Squamish history management committee and at that meeting stepped down from the position of chair if there's a secondary I'll briefly highlight my rationale for this amended motion

Armand Hurford
0:15:40 (0:00:05)

and seconded by councilor counselor Finch go ahead Council Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:15:46 (0:01:26)

yeah with the some friendly advice from mayor Herford I had we strove to put forward a more practical approach to the action item and that is that a meeting be called of this estra management committee and at that meeting that the this that the district stepped down from the position of chair the items I'd brought forward were for orientation and I think at this time that's just to reinforce that was the my intention is that these constitute the mandates of not only the plan but of the management committee and provide would provide counsel with an update from 2007 2016 and 2018 the major milestones in that in that plan um otherwise the staff did not intend to devote District resources to a standing Marine coordinating body at this time anyway and the meeting a meeting at the Estuary management committee which may happen in some months time can address where the Estuary management plan stakeholders including the district go with respect to a governance body

Armand Hurford
0:17:13 (0:00:01)

Guster stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:17:15 (0:00:34)

thank you through the chair I'm just wondering if I can see Clarity from counselor Anderson on his motion in the copy that I have in front of me the red lettering says omit to a future Committee of the whole meeting for consideration on the second that clause and so I'm just confused as to whether you actually want those two topics the that the district Squamish established working groups and that the District of squamous jointly review and establish a clear framework and memorandum of understanding the Squamish nation in the province what the intention is for those is that we're supporting those this evening or that they're coming back for discussion

Eric Andersen
0:17:49 (0:00:20)

thank you that the the the intention my intention is to defer them indefinitely not to set an agenda to propose that they'd be brought back for a committee the whole meeting but to defer them simply and indefinitely

Armand Hurford
0:18:10 (0:00:12)

so Miss Arthur I haven't dealt with something I don't recall dealing with the deferral language previously could you provide some guidance here

0:18:22 (0:00:11)

so it's not typical that we would defer it indefinitely you just would not move it they would not be included in any motion they would just die on the table

Armand Hurford
0:18:33 (0:00:22)

and could if this is a procedurally if we were to refer these back to staff for consideration potentially after this MC meeting that would be procedurally that would be the how you want to do it

0:18:55 (0:00:15)

typically you would refer it back to staff for a reason though so refer it be referred back to staff to for further consideration following a CMC meeting something along those lines it would be something like that

Armand Hurford
0:19:11 (0:00:03)

okay yes go ahead counselor penangel

Chris Pettingill
0:19:14 (0:01:14)

yeah I guess um two thoughts one I would have trouble supporting this is written because it seems if we step down as the chair it seems like our goal might be to disband semc not just step down as a chair and so I think if that is our goal that would be our direction to staff I guess I'm a bit concerned that we would just step down as chair but then who becomes chair and people haven't been showing up and so I guess I'm more comfortable with the original staff recommendation because that suggested a process going forward we have the ocp with the plan and a process to sort of manage it but the idea of just stepping down from the chair just seems to leave things floating in the wind indefinitely I wonder if it makes sense to just you know sever the motion move forward on the first bullet and I guess I would appreciate maybe if my colleague came back with a motion with a bit more Direction how to move forward on the committee proposed Direction because this just seems like no Direction which I'm not entirely comfortable with

Armand Hurford
0:20:28 (0:00:02)

cancer storm

Jenna Stoner
0:20:31 (0:01:08)

thank you through the chair just reflecting on my Council colleague's comments there I think it actually and I made this comment back in the committee Hall it's not I don't think it's our job around this table to determine what happens when it's MC and I don't think it's our staff's role to determine what happens in Scentsy I think semc needs to decide that for itself I personally am comfortable supporting that portion of this motion because I don't think we have the staff capacity or resources at this time to act as chair and I think that body needs to decide how they want to move forward if we choose to step down as chair but I would like to propose an amendment I could try so I would like to amend the second Clause so that it reads that the following two Squamish Estuary management plan and Squamish Estuary management committee topics from the May 9th 2023 committee the whole meeting be deferred to a future Committee of the whole following the semc meeting referred to in the subsequent Clause of this motion and I will send that to you in writing Melissa

Armand Hurford
0:21:39 (0:00:10)

are you seconding the motion Council Anderson are you seconding the motion yeah okay do you have any yeah go

Jenna Stoner
0:21:50 (0:00:20)

ahead yeah I will just speak to my Amendment briefly I do think that those two items should come back for discussion around this consultation table depending on what happens at that SMC meeting so with some further Direction once we choose to step down from chair then to bring back those two components for further discussion

Armand Hurford
0:22:10 (0:00:04)

thank you this is on the amendment go ahead councilor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:22:14 (0:00:30)

thank you I'm pleased to support to support counselor stoner's Amendment I will also note that the Estrella management Community is not a district committee and this Estuary management plan is not a district plan it's an item of perhaps some confusion and but just so we're all clear about this that the district does not decide to disband cempsey it is not a district committee thank you

Armand Hurford
0:22:44 (0:02:13)

thank you any other comments on this amendment seeing none I'll call a question on the amendment all in favor opposed motion carries counselor petting yellow poses okay back to our main our main motion as amended I will venture the comment I appreciate the amendment and thank you counselor Stoner for that and I think that's good my preference would have been to refer back to staff for the same timeline and wording so I think we've effectively done the same thing for the for at this point so my I will be supporting this I do think my concern is just that there are needs now and I think that our first bullet around funding and working towards some solutions for Access particularly with win sports is hopefully will bridge the gap but I'm not interested in much in delay of any sort really in addressing the issues in the Estuary so I eagerly await the meeting and seeing how that how that goes so we can figure out a path forward on all things Estuary together so with that I'll call the question all in favor opposed Custer pettingell poses motion carries thank you counselor Anderson for the for the adjustments there I think it got us to a good place and next we have the north Crumpet neighborhood Plan update and sub and subsequent motions I would be willing to entertain this as one this one piece or in separate pieces I don't I just wanted to look to miss others can we do this in one in one piece if Council decides that the big if but I feel like it's going to get pulled apart here anyway so

0:24:58 (0:00:03)

if there's consensus you can do it all as one

Armand Hurford
0:25:01 (0:00:10)

okay we can do it all as one if we so desire to accept the recommendation but if someone would like to move something alternatively to that

Lauren Greenlaw
0:25:12 (0:00:24)

yeah I would like to pull the phased approach to planning for the Western rise and discuss that separately if that's possible

Armand Hurford
0:25:37 (0:00:25)

okay I think that wasn't its own it's its own bullet point but on its own motion would we pull that whole motion so I'm just look I just want to make sure we get this right would you pull the whole motion or the bullet point inside of one of the Motions just to bullet point okay so just the just that one that one bullet point we'll pull is there anyone else yeah counselor French

John French
0:26:03 (0:00:08)

yeah I'd like to pull out the one that refers to the 200 meters

Armand Hurford
0:26:11 (0:00:10)

yeah that one's gonna be separate so let's say yeah we'll discuss that one when we get there so

Chris Pettingill
0:26:22 (0:00:11)

yeah from my perspective bullets one and three are the same thing I think so I think it would be pulling both or neither

Armand Hurford
0:26:34 (0:00:02)

one and three sorry they're not numbered here

Chris Pettingill
0:26:37 (0:00:00)

you mean

Armand Hurford
0:26:37 (0:00:01)

so just in the first in the first

Chris Pettingill
0:26:38 (0:00:12)

motion yeah supportive face planning to Western rise and then designate areas of the western Rises of future planning area I think those things are tied together

Armand Hurford
0:26:51 (0:00:09)

right I think there's a I mean this whole thing's interconnected but if do you wanna are you proposing that we pull one of those to this discuss

Chris Pettingill
0:27:01 (0:00:08)

yeah I mean I would have moved the north Crumpet bullet including bullets two and four

Armand Hurford
0:27:10 (0:01:07)

okay well let's I'm just trying to keep this as procedurally tight as we as we can so right now the only piece that I've heard pulled is support the is the for the phased approach or maybe if there's a secondary for that we can talk about that piece in isolation if anyone else feels they need to pull additional pieces into that for context then let's do that so are you seconding okay so counselor Greenlaw pulled the support for phase approach bullet point out and it was seconded by counselor Hamilton would you like to say that's the next piece that's the next piece that's okay that's all right we can do this we'll get there so just is there a second or for severing this piece about the West the West the Western rise as proposed by councilor Greenland are you seconding are you seconding that are you proposing a different motion counselor depending

Chris Pettingill
0:28:17 (0:00:04)

on so I thought we

Armand Hurford
0:28:21 (0:00:04)

no there was a miscommunication over here that was not a seconding of that motion

Chris Pettingill
0:28:25 (0:00:01)

oh okay so I'm seconding

Armand Hurford
0:28:27 (0:00:01)

it so you're seconding that we

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


Armand Hurford
0:28:29 (0:00:08)

seconding okay all right counselor so I'm just going to confer with staff make sure we have the right piece here

0:28:37 (0:00:03)

okay I just had the one bullet point pulled out for

0:28:41 (0:00:00)

it that's just that's

0:28:42 (0:00:04)

as far as we've gotten so we're just moving the three outstanding bullets

Armand Hurford
0:28:46 (0:00:58)

so I would like to um discuss this bullet point before we move those other ones because I believe they're all inter related so what so I think I don't know how we do I'm having a hard time processing my getting my mind around this one because I think we need to move them I think we just need to move the bullet points individually so and sometimes you have to move something to vote against it if that's how you feel that might be the path forward for these I don't know what other action to take again besides that but we did have a we did go through a process of moving in second ink though so I want to understand procedurally where we are with that we severed the motion was to sever it but I think we just go through bullet point by bullet point if so if we could just have I'm sorry I'm looking for support here on this process because it wasn't quite

0:29:44 (0:00:17)

regarding the first motion with the bullets only one bullet was pulled out so the motion would be to make that make the motion without that one bullet and then vote on that bullet separately

Armand Hurford
0:30:02 (0:00:04)

Okay so we've pulled we've pulled that counselor pentagonal

Chris Pettingill
0:30:06 (0:00:12)

so I think this is where I would like to move the first that but only bullets two and four

Lauren Greenlaw
0:30:19 (0:00:03)

oh yes I'll second that

Armand Hurford
0:30:22 (0:00:16)

Okay so we've got two different things going here so can we just rescind the first the first part where we severed it because that set us on this path because you're moving the whole you're moving two and four now we've got orphaned one and three

Lauren Greenlaw
0:30:39 (0:00:09)

but if one is pulled and one is does not pass then the third bullet the future planning area is a moot point

Armand Hurford
0:30:49 (0:00:39)

yeah we're okay so we're moving two and four we'll deal with that piece first and then we'll go to the parts that were excluded okay counselor or anyone any comments on these pieces that we're moving which are bullet point two and four in the first step seeing none I'll call the question all in favor motion carries thank you now to the severed peace yeah we've got one and three we still need to do to address and

Lauren Greenlaw
0:31:28 (0:00:33)

yeah so upon further reflection I don't think it's in the best interest of the community to have the eastern and western portions of the property considered separately in the planning process which is what we're talking about here I understand that it will be a phased approach to development but for the planning process I believe if we separate them this could lead to a decreased level of community contributions a less functional neighborhood plan and potentially a decrease in protection of trails and environmental areas thanks

Armand Hurford
0:32:02 (0:00:09)

okay so we need a motion that would capture go ahead counselor penangal

Chris Pettingill
0:32:11 (0:00:11)

I think in we could just have no one move it right and move on if someone wants to see those then they would move to see them

Armand Hurford
0:32:23 (0:00:08)

okay fair enough that's one of the paths forward here counselor Stoner are you

Jenna Stoner
0:32:32 (0:00:25)

well I appreciate that is one way forward I don't think it provides Clarity around this Council table or to the proponent or to staff as to what it is that we're actually trying to direct so in light of trying to move something forward I would suggest the following motion that Council not support a phased approach to the planning for the Western rise and I will leave it at that would be my motion

Armand Hurford
0:32:58 (0:00:06)

is there a secondary seconding that counselor penangal okay would you like to speak to your motion

Jenna Stoner
0:33:04 (0:00:06)

I'm going to speak against my own motion

Armand Hurford
0:33:11 (0:00:01)

go for it

Jenna Stoner
0:33:12 (0:00:55)

it's not the best procedure sorry for confusing it's a double negative based on my comments of last week and I have reflected a lot on the conversation that we had I still think that a phased approach to planning where the Western rise is incorporated with the respective landowner interests more broadly is important for a broader neighborhood plan for consideration the bigger issue for me is actually the severing and the designation of the western rise is a future planning area and not integrating it with the Eastern rise so well I appreciate where you're coming from counselor Greenlawn I'm trying to move this forward the piece that I'm actually most challenged by is the designation of the area of the western rise as a future planning area I think it makes good sense when we're doing neighborhood planning to incorporate as many of the peripheral and contextual components to that particular parcel of land and so that first bullet point I actually think is a reasonable ask

Armand Hurford
0:34:08 (0:00:02)


Chris Pettingill
0:34:10 (0:00:51)

and this is um maybe I'm just dense but for me one and three are saying the same thing as in the original resolutions I'm not I guess I'm not understanding the difference between saying it should be one planning area we should plan the whole thing together that cuts out one and three as options to me I'm not sure how we do one and plan the whole thing cohesively that's why I think one and three both have to go from my perspective and so I'm just wondering if my colleague can explain you know why phased planning approach for the Western rise is different than considering it as a feature planning area because a phase seems to just we're pushing planning into the future into different phases and so I'm not sure

Armand Hurford
0:35:02 (0:00:01)


Lauren Greenlaw
0:35:03 (0:00:25)

what if the motion were more along the lines of put it like moving the entire planning Port process forward without splitting the property that's not good wording but because that's what I'm going for that the plotting for the planning process remains as is right now I.E the expectation is that the entire property is planned at the same time

Jenna Stoner
0:35:29 (0:00:02)

I will withdraw my motion

Armand Hurford
0:35:31 (0:00:16)

motion within the secondary was that kelser penegal yeah motion withdrawn yeah okay so we're back to the starting point with this one folks councilor

Chris Pettingill
0:35:48 (0:00:15)

so I will try then that Council support a cohesive planning approach for the eastern western Rises together

Armand Hurford
0:36:04 (0:00:08)

is there a second Earth seconded by counselor Greenlawn would you like to speak to this version yes

Chris Pettingill
0:36:12 (0:00:34)

I think this I think in my mind anyways makes clear what I have in mind is that we plan the whole thing together totally understand that in terms of development and you know some of the specifics certain areas are going to move forward much faster than others and you know there's realities on the ground so this isn't saying it all has to be built in a certain order at a certain way at a certain time but it's that we come up with that cohesive plan that 40-year cohesive plan as one large plan and then we move forward from there

Armand Hurford
0:36:46 (0:00:05)

okay thank you councilor Hamilton and stoner

Andrew Hamilton
0:36:52 (0:00:40)

I'm going to speak against the motion and it's not because I don't believe that the whole area could be planned better altogether but I believe when we have very large Parcels of land it's the landowner should have the ability should have the right to come to us to develop a portion of the land if they see fit if that's what they would like to move forward with I think a developer should have a landowner should have the right to come forward with the portion of land that they would like to have to see planned and developed

Armand Hurford
0:37:32 (0:00:02)

thank you counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
0:37:35 (0:01:27)

thank you through the chair I will be supporting this motion and thank you to my Council colleague for clarifying what it was that I was trying to put on the table I do think that it is important from a neighborhood planning process and the intent here is that an applicant can definitely bring forward the rezoning of their of a rezoni application should as per the ocp language the resulting application should only be considered in combination with the development of a sub-area plan consistent with the policies in the ocp and so this is a very large parcel of land it's a unique parcel because it's a it's a unique neighborhood planning process because it's a single proponent who is leading it but I think it still is really important that we have a fulsome understanding of what the long-term vision is for that neighborhood and how it interacts with the parcels around it and I think that there is some give and take here that needs to be achieved in terms of really understanding what then are the expectations that we're putting it on this neighborhood planning process what is the level of detail that we're asking for and what is actually reasonable to be asking for and I think that is maybe where the gut check needs to happen as opposed to just severing it entirely I think it's we need to have a broader conversation around what level of detail we're expecting from the sub-area plan that can help inform a phase development or rezoning application so that's why I have supported by keeping it as a whole but perhaps having a conversation around the depth of what we're expecting from the sub-area plan

Armand Hurford
0:39:02 (0:00:04)

thank you did I see your hand

Eric Andersen
0:39:07 (0:00:42)

thank you mayor Hereford I feel that the proponents the North carpet proponents rationale for their request is understandable the significant monies have been spent on the planning process by the applicant thus far and there's significant uncertainties relating to Elevation standards and the transportation master plan evaluation upcoming presumably of the connector significant issues in the way of clarity for development rights on the western rise so I think it is simply just reasonable and understandable the approach that's being proposed by the development applicant

Armand Hurford
0:39:50 (0:00:13)

thank you I'm going to go to staff could you read the motion again I've heard some comments here I just want to make sure that this motion is actually capturing the intent of the comments that are hearing and so it's clear in my mind

0:40:04 (0:00:10)

the council support a cohesive planning approach for the eastern and western Rises together

Armand Hurford
0:40:15 (0:00:45)

having some challenges around cohesive because a future planning area would a future plan may speak to the other plant like I don't know that that's as specific as we as I'm hearing the voices around the table think that it is so I yeah I don't think I think at this at this point with that wording I appreciate the intent but I don't think that quite that quite gets us there I think it's the best version I've heard here tonight as far as trying to accomplish that but I don't know that that's that it doesn't get across that threshold for me and so I won't be supporting but yeah go ahead counselor

Chris Pettingill
0:41:00 (0:00:39)

so just so I'm clear I mean all I was trying to get to is and what I think I've heard in the comments is discomfort with splitting this into separate plans and one we plan now and one is off in the future I think the intent is a single plan that's what I've heard from some of the comments happy to reword it I'm I guess what I'm looking for my colleagues in understanding is the concern that there's a wish there is still a wish to separate these into separate plans or there is an agreement with a single plan it's just how it's been phrased is not acceptable

Armand Hurford
0:41:39 (0:01:22)

yeah thank you I appreciate the comments from counselor Stoner around maybe a different level of detail required in us in a certain area for a few to they acknowledge that it's a gonna be a phase likely to be a phase development when it actually gets to that to that portion and I think in a large parcel that's totally acceptable and I don't think this was the intent coming in from the proponent but as lessons were or as information was sort of un discovered throughout the process it's led to this need to need to adjust in some way and I think that pushing forward might not be entirely like in the same level of detail in an area that has these constraints that we've now come to light is challenging so I like that Nuance I'm just not sure quite how to capture that in a in an amendment to your the current motion and that's what's giving me pause on this the but we need to get somewhere here I see some scribbling counselor Do you have a suggestion here or someone around the table help me go ahead counselor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:43:02 (0:00:07)

a point of order I think we have a motion on the table do we need to resend it um amend it or send

Armand Hurford
0:43:09 (0:00:14)

it are we still there added we're at we're at a decision we're at a decision Point for that I can call I'll call the I'll call the question unless someone unless there's an amendment cancer storm

Jenna Stoner
0:43:24 (0:00:38)

I don't have a particular Amendment but I am considering referring this back to Committee of the whole for further discussion I think that there's there was a lot of confusion at the committee of the whole discussion and I think there still is this evening and so I feel uncomfortable voting on it at this point so I wonder if I'm seeing a few nods around the table I'm just cognizant that if I refer it back to committee the whole staff needs some direction on What They're bringing back so I don't have emotion at the moment so that's where I'm at that's why I'm scribbling but I I'm yeah I'm challenged with where we're currently at

Armand Hurford
0:44:02 (0:00:04)

okay thank you

Chris Pettingill
0:44:06 (0:00:25)

so maybe a suggestion is to refer a decision on a cohesive plan for the eastern western rise to a committee of the whole so that proposes my motion as the outcome but it gives us a committee of the whole as a chance to discuss and decide if we actually want to go that direction and add some Nuance or whatever

Armand Hurford
0:44:32 (0:00:41)

we want to do okay and that was your emotion who was who seconded that sorry because is that a is that affirm would you consider from friendly Amendment or can it can we do that or what do we have to do it's a propose an amendment would you are you amending your own motion there sure as our seconder for that Amendment councilor green law seconds thank you with that on so this is on the amendment we'll call the question

Jenna Stoner
0:45:14 (0:00:02)

which is to refer it to committee the whole

Armand Hurford
0:45:16 (0:00:35)

the amendment is making the recommendation but also referring it to committee the whole to flush out what that the intent of that is and what that actually looks like so the conversation there would be about the about this about the severing and what or about the cohesiveness and I did hear some conversation around the nuances applied to the level of detail perhaps might be different in the in the western rise but that but it should be included as one and a discussion around that so we can have an informed discussion

Andrew Hamilton
0:45:51 (0:00:05)

go counselor ahead and just before calling the question can I hear the whole motion

Armand Hurford
0:45:56 (0:00:12)

absolutely one second it's fun

0:46:08 (0:00:19)

so this will be the main motion is mended that Council refer the following motion to a committee of the whole that Council support of cohesive planning approach for the eastern and western Rises together so that was what you'll be voting on

Armand Hurford
0:46:28 (0:00:55)

okay is that satisfy your question okay so on the we're still amending that to get there so on the amendment all in favor motion carries okay now on the main motion as amended any comments sing none I'll call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you and that took care of bullet point three as well that was part of that so in my assessment I just want to make sure like I think those things are bundled up together so next is the motion Council confirmed the previous council's direction to limit development nodes that the 200 meter moved by counselor Stoner and seconded by councilor Greenlaw discussion on this one counselor

Eric Andersen
0:47:23 (0:00:58)

Anderson um mayor Hereford I will not be supporting this recommendation I the 200 meter level is our an arbitrary figure it used to be 300 in the district of Squamish it was changed with the last two CP and that ocp was very much oriented to favoring Downtown Development it is not the practice in other municipalities and some of the technical information behind that has been provided to council already it affects Transportation infrastructure planning backup access emergency access for Valley Cliff future Transit planning it may also sterilize other lands in the vicinity including lands owned by the Squamish Nation effectively there's other infrastructure costs such as diking and other major trade-offs we make in our growth management and our land use planning policies that we also need to consider so with those considerations I will not be supporting this recommendation

Armand Hurford
0:48:22 (0:00:04)

thank you councilor Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:48:26 (0:00:54)

thanks very much I also will not be supporting the recommendation I do agree with the spirit of the 200 meter elevation limit we shouldn't be sprawling all too far up the mountain I agree that we shouldn't be spending additional money on infrastructure but I believe that an arbitrary line if 200 meters can cut us into a strange scenario where there may be a Development Area that's a 210 meters that is very suitable and very critical for connecting and if we stick to an arbitrary line we don't have that flexibility and I think it's important to take each scenario in its wholesome view to say is it sensible to develop this little bit more thanks

Armand Hurford
0:49:21 (0:00:03)

thank you counselor French followed by stoner

John French
0:49:24 (0:00:21)

thanks mayor I'm speaking against the motion and there's just no data there's no supporting science and I can't find any financial information that suggests 200 meters is too expensive to build above I prefer to work with data science and costing info so I won't be supporting this motion

Armand Hurford
0:49:46 (0:00:04)

thank you counselor Stoner and then Greenlaw Pennington

Jenna Stoner
0:49:50 (0:00:22)

I won't rehash all of my comments from last week they still stand I just want to clarify that other communities do use a similar principle-based approach to managing their growth West Vancouver whitlam are examples that have been provided by the proponent yes they use different heights but it is a pro an approach that is used commonly in principle a principle-based approach to how we manage our growth over time

Armand Hurford
0:50:13 (0:00:03)

thank you counselor councilor Greenland

Lauren Greenlaw
0:50:16 (0:00:31)

yes I will be supporting this Motion in addition to the control of sprawl up the mountains I think it is also an important point that it does impact your ability to have active transportation and low carbon Footprints living up there I was actually talking to a friend who lives above 200 meters one of the few houses in Squamish and she was talking about how she gave up on e-biking up that hill because it was so much work so it is actually a fairly important threshold I think

Armand Hurford
0:50:48 (0:00:02)

thank you counselor pentagon

Chris Pettingill
0:50:50 (0:00:04)

it's been covered I will be supporting the motion won't rehash things thanks thank

Armand Hurford
0:50:54 (0:02:43)

you speaking in favor of the motion as well I think we have a change of this a change of this um this policy is best addressed through consideration at ocp level and I welcome that conversation at that time but I'll be supporting in I'll be supporting so with that I'll call the question all in favor opposed if any counselor French Hamilton Anderson oppose motion carries thank you next we're going to the council support designated areas of commercial use is appropriate and identified and so on that bullet point moved by councilor Stoner second by counselor pettingell any discussion here seeing none all in favor any opposed motion carries unanimously thank you this next one's a bit so Council support ensuring consistency between the amount of commercial area and maximum potential residency capacity the neighborhood through fixture plan future plan amendments and as presented in the north Crumpet neighborhood Plan update proposed phased plan report moved by Council Stoner second by Council French all in favor motion carries thank you any sorry any opposed on that one no okay thank you next we have that Council Direct North Crumpet project staff team to address potential Community expectations regarding protection not bullet point I won't read out the whole one moved by counselor stoner I'll second that and I'll speak to it briefly these some of these are intertwined with the motion that we pass that we sort of change direction on earlier but I think are still appropriate to include this won't be action until after we have our subsequent discussion rounded at Community level is my intent here even though it appears slightly disjointed so with that I'll call a question all in favor opposed if any fair enough counselor Hamilton opposes next is that Council reject request for any resolution that limits opportunities to ensure preservation of trails trust fund riparian Esa areas on the western rise should those lands not achieve any development rights as part of the current neighborhood planning process moved by counselor Stoner second by counselor Greenlaw discussion yeah go ahead counselor Anderson

Eric Andersen
0:53:38 (0:00:31)

thank you I feel that at this point in the or any development planning and application process this would be an unprecedented attenuation of private property rights to making this recommendation it is not the process that was pursued for example in the Garibaldi Springs case where we also addressed environmentally sensitive lands this is a regulatory taking and it's not one that I can support thank you

Armand Hurford
0:54:09 (0:00:48)

thank you I think this I think this motion here is also tied up in the whole concept of severing and I find it challenging the way that we've broken we've broken this up and that's why this is this is this has been included I do think that so I think we'll have to take away the decisions from tonight in the change of Direction and put together a coherent sort of a more coherent process that will address the issues that some of these topics are slightly or providing some friction on so we'll figure out where those overlaps are and address them at that point and so with that I'll call the question on this piece and this is for the comment

Andrew Hamilton
0:54:58 (0:00:30)

so it's not clear to me how we can make them decision on what we do with the Western rise when we're deferring a decision a conversation about whether or not it can be split between Eastern and Western to a future Community the whole it's not clear to me how we're not impeding our discussion by making this motion impeding our future discussion by making this motion

Armand Hurford
0:55:28 (0:00:20)

this motion I think really reflects keeping this the Western rise whether it's in or out at the same the same given the same consideration is essentially what we're saying what we're saying here from my assessment I'm open to more yeah go ahead against print and go

Chris Pettingill
0:55:49 (0:00:42)

yeah I was I mean I I've I considered putting forward a different wording of this because I found the wording of this one a bit confusing but I thought you know in my mind this is effectively saying that sort of regardless of what happens with the Western rise and different planning and so on it's important to protect the trails and environmentally sensitive areas so that's the key piece from this and I think I think it's fine to reinforce that it is important to me but I do think you know coming out of our community the whole discussion we may want to tweak in and reconfirm a few things and so maybe there's some time to clarify that but for me the general principle of protecting trails and riparian Esa areas and so on the western rise regardless of what happens is important and so that's why I would support this resolution

Armand Hurford
0:56:31 (0:00:28)

thank you I also I tender green I think that following this meeting there will need to be I'm unclear the sort of order of operations and where the points I'm willing to bet that we'll need to provide more guidance and we've been able to get through in the last meeting and our attempt at doing that here at the next committee the whole meeting where it come where it comes back comes back to us because we're Hamilton

Andrew Hamilton
0:56:59 (0:00:37)

yeah I'm just I'll say I'm going to speak against this motion I absolutely agree it's critical to Preserve Trails terrestrial riparian areas absolutely essential but the way this is worded we're rejecting any request for any resolution that limits any opportunities to Preserve Trails and I think that there's and all these things it's I don't see how it's not read as a blanket no negotiation can't develop

Armand Hurford
0:57:37 (0:01:11)

I I'm going to propose an amendment where we include this in our committee of the whole in the upcoming Committee of the whole meeting where we address the severance I think that might be an appropriate course of action so there's is there a secondary Pastor petting go do you have specific enough language for that this decision get referred to that meeting as well and so on the Amendments all in favor of the amendment thank you and then now back to the main motion as amended all in favor motion carries thank you thank you for working through that Council it'll cross some things off the list and we'll address that again coming up and next we're on the first three readings District Squamish intermunicipal Transportation Network Services business license agreement we've got staff waiting patiently for us thank you for your patience and I will turn it over to you

, Bylaws: First Three Readings, Staff Reports, Open Question Period
0:58:21 (0:37:53)

In the council meeting, Jesse Fletcher, a planner with Community Planning, presented two bylaws that would repeal and replace existing bylaws related to the inter-municipal transportation network services business license agreement and business license bylaw. These bylaws authorize the intermunicipal business license scheme (IMBL) for transportation network services, also known as ride-hailing. The updated bylaws include three additional member municipalities that have recently signed onto the business license scheme. The district is part of region one, which includes 32 municipalities from Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley, and Squamish-Lillooet areas. A group of 25 of those municipalities entered into an interdenominational business license agreement in early March 2020.

The IMBL is a mechanism by which mobile business licenses are issued for an activity, in this case, ride-hailing, throughout a region. If this mechanism does not exist, non-resident business licenses are generally required in each municipality within which a mobile business operates. Under the IMBL, a single business license is offered, which would enable a business to operate in all participating municipalities. The City of Vancouver administers the IMBL licenses and collects revenue, which is then distributed to municipalities based on the number of pickups and drop-offs that occur within their boundaries.

To allow the new entrance of the District of Hope, District of Kent, and City of Mission to the IMBL scheme, each participating municipality must approve and enact a new IMBL agreement and bylaw prior to May 31st, 2023. If approved, the expanded license comes into effect on June 1st, 2023, bringing the number of participating municipalities from 25 to 28 of the 32 eligible region one municipalities. Staff recommend that the district give first three readings to both bylaws, file numbers 2972 and 2973.

0:58:49 (0:03:00)

thank you and good evening mayor and Council my name is Jesse Fletcher planner with Community planning I'm here tonight to give a brief presentation on the inter-municipal transportation Network Services business license agreement bylaw and business license by law so today we are presenting council with two bylaws which would repeal and replace two existing bylaws these bylaws authorize the intermunicipal business license scheme the imbl for transportation Network Services which are also known as ride hailing these bylaws are being replaced with updated bylaws that include three additional member municipalities who have recently signed onto the business license scheme these bylaws are required to be updated for the district to remain a member of the agreement upon approval of ride hailing in BC in 2019 the BC passenger Transportation board established five regions within which ride hailing companies are authorized to operate municipalities would be given the opportunity to license these operations through business licensing as well as regulate activities through bylaws such as the traffic bylaw the district is part of region one which includes 32 municipalities from Metro Vancouver the Fraser Valley and squamous silhouette areas a group of 25 of those municipalities entered into an interdenunicipal business license agreement in early March 2020 the imbl is a mechanism by which mobile business licenses are issued for an activity in this case ride hailing throughout a region if this mechanism does not exist non-resident business licenses are generally required in each municipality within which a mobile business operates under the imbl a single business license is offered which would enable a business to operate in all participating municipalities the city of Vancouver administers the imbl licenses and collects Revenue after covering its cost revenue is then distributed to municipalities based on the number of pickups and drop-offs that occur within its boundaries detailed trip data is collected by The Province and shared with municipalities to allow the new entrance the District of Hope District of Kent and city of mission to the imbl scheme each participating mess up municipality must approve and enact a new imbl agreement and bylaw prior to May 31st 2023 if approved the expanded license comes into effect on June 1st 2023 this would bring the number of participating municipalities from 25 to 28 of the 32 eligible region one municipalities the other change to the bylaw would be to remove language around the initial licensure as the program is now in its third year staff recommend that the district give first three readings to both bylaws file a number 2972 and 2973. thank you

Armand Hurford
1:01:49 (0:00:04)

thank you Council any questions on this one Council

Chris Pettingill
1:01:54 (0:00:08)

penngill I'm just wondering if we have seen any activity or revenue or anything in terms of ride hailing in Squamish

1:02:02 (0:00:17)

thank you through the mayor yes we in 2022 we've had 45 pickups and 1100 drop-offs within the district and we received 64.92 thank you

Armand Hurford
1:02:19 (0:00:12)

thank you any further questions on this one seeing none we're looking we've got two recommendations before us move are you moving both of those together you have to move them separately

Jenna Stoner
1:02:32 (0:00:02)

I think I have to move them separately

Armand Hurford
1:02:34 (0:00:59)

yeah we'll do separately so you do the first one move by counselor Stoner seconded by counselor Greenlaw any comments seeing none I'll call a question all in favor any opposed motion carries unanimously thank you now we're looking for the second piece moved by councilor Hamilton second by councilor French any comments seeing none we'll call a question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you okay moving on next we have a staff report from corporate services Federation of Canadian municipalities fcm partnership for municipal innovation the slotomer

1:03:34 (0:03:23)

thank you good evening Aaron Council my name is Megan Latimer I'm the general manager of Public Safety this evening I'm here to present to you a brief update on the district's partnership project with the Federation of Canadian municipalities or fcm in Zambia and to seek Council support for an upcoming mission to Zambia so just to provide a little bit of background the district is currently a partner in the fcm project called The partnership for municipal Innovation woman in local leadership or its acronym PMI will this project takes place over six years I began in 2021 and runs till 2027. and is coordinated by fcm and fully funded by global Affairs Canada the project is an international partnership between fcm select Canadian municipalities and five international local government associations in Ghana Zambia Benin Cambodia and Sri Lanka the district is partnered with the local government Association in Zambia and the overarching goals of the project are to increase women's capacity to get involved in leading local governance and also increasing local government's capacity to deliver inclusive gender responsive services the next phase of this project involves a strategic planning meeting in Ottawa on June 14th for municipal staff partners to plan for future phases of the project the district's research and projects coordinator will is planned to travel to Ottawa to represent the district at this meeting following this an overseas trip to Zambia at the end of June will take place to deliver a multi-day workshop on gender responsive Service delivery and stakeholder engagement this Workshop will be conducted in partnership with the District of Squamish the city of Edmonton fcm staff and representatives from the local government Association of Zambia two staff delegates from the District of Squamish have been invited to participate in these workshops in Zambia which is planned to be Miss glenday and myself and one elected official from each Canadian municipality has also been invited to attend the workshops in Zambia's Representatives staff have previously discussed with the mayor and fcm and have recommended that for this first mission councilor Stoner participate in order to share her experiences over the last five years as a woman in local politics as the project runs for another four years we expect there to be additional opportunities for other council members to be involved in future missions the trip to Zambia is fully funded by global Affairs Canada and is administered and coordinator by fcm's project team upon return staff plan to prepare a detailed update to Council on the progress and outcomes of the PMI wheel project in Zambia as well as the previously supported project in Jordan so staff's recommendations this evening are the council consider the District of Squamish confirming the participation of one council member to accompany staff to the upcoming Workshop in Zambia and that staff report back to council following the trip and provide a detailed update on the progress and outcomes of the PMI will project as well as the previously supported Jordan project thank you I'll turn it back to council for any questions

Armand Hurford
1:06:58 (0:01:40)

thank you council do you have any questions on from isladimir what we have seeing none I'll I'd like to I'm going to move a modified version of Staff recommendation just adding that digital Squamish confirmed the participation of one council member and that council member is counselor Stoner to company staff to upcoming Workshop to Zambia and that staff report back to council following the trip and provide a detailed update on the progress and outcomes of the PMI will project second by Council councilor French and I'll just speak to it briefly I think this is a just a great opportunity and a new and a new project that runs roughly in line with our with our term is it's a four-year project and I look forward to the future opportunities to engage with engage with the project and I do think that counselor Stoner is uniquely situated to participate in this given her um we had no travel opportunities last term and we're now four and a half years in into this as an into your journey as elected official and mine I think it's I think it's totally appropriate that you represent us I know you'll do a great job counselor will do a great job representing Squamish on the international stage and um I'm looking forward to the future opportunities that might present for all of us any other comments counselor stoner

Jenna Stoner
1:08:39 (0:00:53)

thank you for the kind words and really excited about this opportunity that was actually started in our last term with the leadership from CEO glende and mayor Elliott um to correct you it's actually a six year project and so we were actually able to do some introductory work with Zambia at the end of last term and just present a welcoming video to the to the additional or to the community that we've been partnered with and so looking forward to the opportunity but just flying Council colleagues know that there will be other opportunities as well I was actually looking back to my memories and it was back in June of 2019 so almost four years ago that we actually welcomed a delegation of folks from Cambodia and from Jordan and the previous previously related project so there'll be lots of opportunity to get other folks up to speed and involved in this project as it continues to evolve

Armand Hurford
1:09:32 (0:00:01)

thank you counselor Anderson

Eric Andersen
1:09:34 (0:00:41)

just speaking in favor of the motion I believe that the element of having a counselor participating raises the profile of our involvement it also May Foster the continuity of support for an initiative like this I'll also add that Zambia has a special relationship to Canada in that we have an enormous presence in the economy of that country and mining companies based in Vancouver and Toronto in particular have an enormous presence in Zambia so I think it's entirely appropriate I'm really glad to see our country participating in an initiative like this to build social infrastructure and capacity building in Zambia thank you

Armand Hurford
1:10:16 (0:00:40)

thank you seeing no other comments I call the question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you moving on to through our agenda we're on to we had no late agenda items correspondence action requested we have correspondence referred from the consent agenda we'll go in order that they appeared there sorry I just made paper notes on that well here we are so we had item one was pulled I believe B1 I believe it was counselor pettingo I'd like to speak to that

Chris Pettingill
1:10:57 (0:01:45)

yeah thanks and it basically it's a letter asking us to consider directing staff to I guess more accurately reflect the gas that's used in many of our homes and businesses as fossil gas or fract gas rather than natural gas which is a I would say an industry marketing term and it does lead to a lot of public misunderstanding about the risks and harms of this fuel source and so from that perspective it's compelling but I also you know I think there's a little more to the story we are seeing now Fortis pushing sort of reusing or misusing the terms renewable natural gas and RNG and RNG includes hydrogen from fossil gas and it's not really you know a lot of really slippery words and so I'm a bit hesitant though to get down to a rabbit hole Council dictating all of our staff's language I know our staff are pretty on top of these things and so I guess what I felt at this point a little more comfortable is just to I guess thank our staff for being aware of these things and paying attention and encourage them to keep paying attention and make sure that encourage them to make sure they're using very accurate language that helps the public understand their energy choices and again I think we're doing a pretty good job of that so I don't want to get into dictating language choice at this point but I think it is something for us all to keep top of mind and be really aware of the language that corporations especially fossil corporations are using these days so I guess I will leave it there if there's no other comments I would move to receive

1:12:43 (0:00:00)


Armand Hurford
1:12:43 (0:00:25)

thank you were you you're seconding that I'll speak to it briefly I think I think it was really languages is so is so important and I thought it was really a good a good read so thank you for highlighting it here and I'll call a question all in favor motion carries thank you next we had item four I believe was it counselor Stoner you pulled that

Jenna Stoner
1:13:09 (0:01:04)

yeah this is a letter from previous executive director Maureen McKell from Squamish Helping Hands who has retired after 13 years of service in that role has been a real exceptional leader for our community has was the Visionary behind Under One Roof which is an amazing asset for those especially for everybody in our community but especially those who are more in need but is really welcoming to anybody and everybody who wants to go in and spend some time with our community so I want to thank Maureen for her service and also welcome Lori Pine who is well known throughout the corridor we brought her down from Whistler so excited to have her here and just to give folks an update that Maureen McKell will still be sitting on the board for the Squamish Community Housing Society for the time being for the liaison as a from Helping Hands that might transition over time but just so folks are aware of that update for the Squamish Community Housing Society and I will move receipt after that discussion

Armand Hurford
1:14:13 (0:00:04)

thank you are you seconding that yeah and would you like to speak to it

Chris Pettingill
1:14:18 (0:00:39)

yeah just I want to thank Maureen so much for her service and also just reflecting on this um you know Maureen has definitely been a driver but there's other communities that would fight Helping Hands or some of these sorts of facilities in Squamish and I think our staff and prior councils have been pretty strong leaders in making sure some of these places can go forward and so I think I feel it's part of my obligation hopefully we all feel it's sort of Our obligation to carry forward some of the work that Maureen is spearheaded and keep these sorts of projects going with strong support thank you thank

Armand Hurford
1:14:58 (0:03:07)

you I'll take this opportunity to thank Maureen although we all know that she's not done yet as casters Stoner already mentioned she's staying on the Housing Society for the time being and she has been a absolute force of nature for shaping our community and I think it's unlikely that she's to walk away from that particular role even though this title isn't something that she that she has going forward so thank her and yeah so thank you to Marine for her service in that in that role and I'm happy to support so without a call question all in favor motion carries unanimously thank you next we have item five so this is the Fortis letter and I pulled this one and I read reading the letter i some questions came to my mind and I wanted to seek your support in replying and ask any questions but also to seek out if there were other clarifications that you wanted so I'm gonna I'll start Us by just going through the I think it's four questions that I and please don't get stuck on the too overly stuck on the wording just the general concepts we're gonna have I'll work with I'll work to refine this when it actually turns into a letter but the outstanding questions I have from the letter is the letter