Islands Trust Council special meeting, January 13, 2026

[0:00:00] Voice 8: planning committee special meeting today January the 13th and thank you all for agreeing to this

[0:00:09] Voice 8: and thank you Stefan for preparing the material and I thought it was a good idea just to have a

[0:00:15] Voice 8: catch-up because it was a long time since we had a meeting and there were a variety of meetings in

[0:00:20] Voice 8: between so things got shifted around and I thought it's better that we just get clarity and we're all

[0:00:25] Voice 8: on the same page on a level playing field whatever all those other phrases and we are

[0:00:34] Voice 8: you know we are we represent the islands trust and the islands trust is in the territory of many

[0:00:42] Voice 8: first nation peoples and we're fortunate to live in that region

[0:00:46] Voice 8: um so without further ado i think we will carry on with the meeting so the agenda is pretty short

[0:00:57] Voice 8: um although there's a deal of substance to it but is anybody does anybody want to propose a

[0:01:06] Voice 8: late item a new item or to reorder the agenda in any way okay i've heard no um objections

[0:01:16] Voice 8: carrying on. So let's consider the agenda as it was presented to be approved. And we're now in

[0:01:25] Voice 8: the public comment period, but I don't believe there's anybody. So anybody online who might want

[0:01:31] Voice 8: to comment? Nope. Okay. And now we move on to the business pro, the business work program items.

[0:01:48] Voice 8: systems. Stefan, would you like to jump in with introducing and discussing the material you've

[0:01:58] Voice 8: presented? I'm just going to go on mute and go and ask somebody to be quieter behind me. So carry on

[0:02:05] Voice 8: Stefan for a moment, okay?

[0:02:07] Voice 5: Thank you, Chair. My pleasure. Happy New Year, everybody. Thanks for

[0:02:11] Voice 5: attending the special business meeting.

[0:02:14] Voice 5: The primary purpose of this meeting,

[0:02:16] Voice 5: as was noted in the resolution without meeting,

[0:02:19] Voice 5: was to finalize if this committee has any recommendations

[0:02:24] Voice 5: on the reports that went to

[0:02:27] Voice 5: and are going to return to financial planning committee

[0:02:31] Voice 5: and then impact the final trust council budget

[0:02:35] Voice 5: for next fiscal.

[0:02:36] Voice 5: So you have in this briefing,

[0:02:39] Voice 5: thing, the attachment of the LTC business cases, comment on Trust Council's reduction of the RPC

[0:02:46] Voice 5: business case for freshwater, as well as you have the feasibility assessment. And within all those

[0:02:54] Voice 5: things, I included, I just took them directly from Trust Council agenda package, just so I knew for

[0:03:00] Voice 5: certainty that you had seen that same information. I don't want to start, sometimes there's minor

[0:03:06] Voice 5: edits in there and I didn't want to confuse anybody. So really, I made it a briefing and

[0:03:12] Voice 5: not a request for decision because financial planning committee has commented on all the

[0:03:18] Voice 5: business cases. Trust Council has made some early decisions on a draft. And at this point of the

[0:03:26] Voice 5: budget process, staff didn't really have any further recommendations because the feasibility

[0:03:32] Voice 5: report that planning services did said we didn't have enough resources to meet demand trust council

[0:03:38] Voice 5: heard that as did financial planning committee and so one project did not advance past financial

[0:03:44] Voice 5: planning committee that was galliano's ldc major project they also directed that no new projects

[0:03:51] Voice 5: be undertaken in the new fiscal as a result of the operations review amongst other things in the

[0:03:57] Voice 5: operations review um so i think that direction was pretty clear from trust council so i wasn't

[0:04:03] Voice 5: sure how much more influence we could make at this committee or how i didn't have any

[0:04:07] Voice 5: recommendations beyond that for for this committee like that being said of course i did provide some

[0:04:13] Voice 5: draft language if the rpc would like to comment on the business cases attached to this briefing

[0:04:19] Voice 5: and or would like to comment on the fact that trust council changed the funding for your

[0:04:26] Voice 5: freshwater business case from, they removed $10,000 for the implementation plan, which was

[0:04:32] Voice 5: quite well discussed for the $10,000 that they removed. But it does fundamentally change what

[0:04:43] Voice 5: that program is going to be looking at. I hope you don't mind me if I just admit that I was a

[0:04:49] Voice 5: little frustrated at that point because I really was hoping to meet what this group wanted to do,

[0:04:54] Voice 5: and that was to review and recommend implementation and now that's kind of taken away but we can we

[0:05:00] Voice 5: can find other ways to do that of course so I'm going to leave it there I think that's a summary

[0:05:06] Voice 5: of the briefing and I think you were all at Trust Council you know what happened there

[0:05:09] Voice 5: so I'm happy to answer any questions or guide the discussion but this is really your opportunity

[0:05:15] Voice 5: to review the business cases and the feasibility assessment and if there's any comments you would

[0:05:20] Voice 5: like the financial planning committee or trust council to make, you can pass a resolution as such.

[0:05:28] Voice 8: So I open the floor, would anybody like to talk about any of this? Okay, I have a couple of,

[0:05:43] Voice 8: oh so go ahead Toby.

[0:05:47] Voice 11: Don't jump in everybody at once. I have a question for the director

[0:05:52] Voice 11: after about Laskiti's OCP review.

[0:05:58] Voice 11: I'm trying to remember if we actually approved a charter for it.

[0:06:03] Voice 11: Well, of course we did, because the project was anticipated to start 25-26.

[0:06:10] Voice 11: And we're supposed to be at this stage of community engagement

[0:06:15] Voice 11: on specific topics the winter and the spring.

[0:06:18] Voice 11: but of course because of many delays and as you know in the business case there hasn't been

[0:06:26] Voice 11: resources available and there wasn't going I understood there wasn't going to be until Maine's

[0:06:32] Voice 11: housing project was finished so do we have an update when Laskiti's OCP review is supposed

[0:06:39] Voice 11: supposed to start? And is it likely to maybe start April 1st, the next fiscal? And so do we need to

[0:06:50] Voice 11: reconsider the budget request for next fiscal if we haven't spent any money from the current budget

[0:06:57] Voice 11: of 15,500?

[0:07:00] Voice 8: Can I just say, Toby, you're quieter and louder, so you're closer and further from

[0:07:06] Voice 8: your microphone i don't know if that's true does anybody else notice that or is it just me yeah so

[0:07:12] Voice 8: we got most of what you said but some of it was a little more quiet than others but okay over to you

[0:07:18] Voice 8: stephan okay

[0:07:19] Voice 5: thank you chair um so the liskiti project um you're right was delayed we forecasted

[0:07:25] Voice 5: last year that would be delayed to probably sometime in this fall and of course as you

[0:07:29] Voice 5: noted uh trustee elliott that that in turn got delayed further with um you know uh especially

[0:07:35] Voice 5: especially with the strike that we endured there.

[0:07:38] Voice 5: So where we're at, I'm not,

[0:07:40] Voice 5: I don't think I can actually honestly comment on that,

[0:07:43] Voice 5: but I do know that we have both Robert and Rene,

[0:07:47] Voice 5: or Rene was going to listen, pardon me,

[0:07:49] Voice 5: RPM, Kojima and Jamret.

[0:07:52] Voice 5: And I open, I maybe turn to Robert

[0:07:55] Voice 5: if he's clear on the resources, where Maine's at.

[0:07:59] Voice 5: He's got his finger on the pulse of timelines pretty good.

[0:08:03] Voice 6: Thank you, Chair, if I may.

[0:08:09] Voice 8: Yes.

[0:08:10] Voice 8: Yes, go ahead.

[0:08:11] Voice 8: Sorry, go ahead.

[0:08:11] Voice 8: Thank you.

[0:08:12] Voice 6: So I can speak most knowledgeably about Maine.

[0:08:16] Voice 6: So the Maine project public hearing is scheduled for late this month.

[0:08:24] Voice 6: They'll be up to the LTC, whether they make changes,

[0:08:28] Voice 6: want further work done post-public hearing.

[0:08:32] Voice 6: Sorry, Robert?

[0:08:33] Voice 6: Yes.

[0:08:35] Voice 8: Correct me if I'm wrong,

[0:08:36] Voice 8: but I think we're talking about the Leskeetee project particularly.

[0:08:41] Voice 6: Yes, so I was just doing the updating on Maine because the Leskeetee project is

[0:08:48] Voice 6: somewhat dependent on resources being freed up by the completion of the Maine project.

[0:08:53] Voice 6: So briefly

[0:08:54] Voice 6: Maine's going for public hearing. It's a bit early to say if there's further work from

[0:08:58] Voice 6: the ltc coming after the public

[0:09:00] Voice 6: hearing or not uh for liskiti uh not uh i don't have the intimate

[0:09:07] Voice 6: knowledge of that project but i know that there we have had some discussion about trying to resource

[0:09:13] Voice 6: it before the end of the fiscal year and um the outcome of that discussion was basically even if

[0:09:20] Voice 6: we provide you could provide some resources to do some initial work on that project be unlikely

[0:09:26] Voice 6: likely to involve any expenditure of the funds in this current fiscal year great

[0:09:36] Voice 11: that's what i

[0:09:37] Voice 11: thought and maybe um

[0:09:38] Voice 11: we could see confirmation from rpm general on the anticipated start time

[0:09:44] Voice 11: can you hear me okay

[0:09:45] Voice 11: but i think that would

[0:09:47] Voice 11: be a consideration that um our pc might request that

[0:09:51] Voice 11: that

[0:09:52] Voice 12: there

[0:09:53] Voice 11: not be a 2026-27 budget request

[0:09:59] Voice 11: if we can pull over the money from 2025-26.

[0:10:04] Voice 11: So that would essentially save $14,000 in next year's budget,

[0:10:09] Voice 11: if I'm not mistaken.

[0:10:11] Voice 8: Okay, so timing-wise, would that be okay

[0:10:15] Voice 8: before the next RPC meeting, that we do it at that meeting,

[0:10:20] Voice 8: which is on the 6th of February,

[0:10:21] Voice 8: which would give maybe Stefan and Robert time to just check in and make sure that that's going to work.

[0:10:30] Voice 8: Would that work for you, Stefan, or would you rather have some kind of motion now?

[0:10:37] Voice 5: To the chair, if I can respond.

[0:10:40] Voice 5: What I understand is you're asking for any potential Laskete LTC business case amendments reflecting that there will be no expenditure this fiscal.

[0:10:49] Voice 5: and therefore what I heard Trustee Elliott say that

[0:10:52] Voice 5: presumed that that means a lesser fiscal request for next year

[0:10:58] Voice 5: and I haven't done that assessment

[0:11:00] Voice 5: and perhaps that's where I would need time

[0:11:03] Voice 5: or and I'd work with RPM Jameret to figure that out in detail.

[0:11:07] Voice 5: But you can assure that we'll be looking,

[0:11:10] Voice 5: we're just got our notification to do our forecasting

[0:11:16] Voice 5: and we'll be doing that imminently

[0:11:18] Voice 5: And then we'll be responding to the LISC-ED LTC to ensure that they're aware of any recommended changes to this.

[0:11:24] Voice 5: But, yeah, I'll turn to our RPM chairman.

[0:11:31] Voice 7: Go ahead.

[0:11:33] Voice 9: Thank you to the chair.

[0:11:36] Voice 9: I echo with what Director Cermak said about needing some time to look at what the budget would be for next year.

[0:11:45] Voice 9: And the update that RPM Kojima provided is accurate.

[0:11:51] Voice 9: So, in terms of not being able to, the capacity to start up the work this fiscal year, so it is possible to move that amount into next year. How much, we'll have to look at, we would need some time to look at.

[0:12:11] Voice 8: Sure. Okay, well, let's make sure that it's explicitly on the agenda for the next meeting, if that's okay, Stefan. Yep. That we just circle back to this.

[0:12:22] Voice 8: Thanks. So, Laura, you had your hand up? Sorry, Toby, that's okay? Anything to add? Okay. Laura, go ahead.

[0:12:33] Voice 8: head well

[0:12:34] Voice 2: my question relates to the money that was cut by trust council in regards to the

[0:12:41] Voice 2: freshwater um implementation and stuff and you had just mentioned it could be found to be done

[0:12:47] Voice 2: other ways but i think this committee should understand the implications of that of that cut

[0:12:54] Voice 2: and whether or not uh we you know you know this committee would agree still with that

[0:13:00] Voice 2: recommendation from trust council so

[0:13:07] Voice 8: are you asking for better

[0:13:10] Voice 2: understand the implications

[0:13:11] Voice 2: of the cut that was made to okay the work of the freshwater planning and implementation

[0:13:18] Voice 2: yeah

[0:13:19] Voice 8: uh stephan sure

[0:13:21] Voice 5: thanks cherry yeah so i had drafted the only work i'd done since that

[0:13:25] Voice 5: resolution honestly was to i amended the business case to reflect the resolution and so i sort of

[0:13:31] Voice 5: of worked my way backwards by removing things um so that the implementation wasn't reflected in

[0:13:37] Voice 5: there uh i must say uh uh director mobs is like why'd you do that so kind of she uh uh was sort

[0:13:46] Voice 5: of calling out why that the ask is still the same uh don't do that so actually that's why i didn't

[0:13:51] Voice 5: include it here um but i'd be happy to report back at the regular business meeting um and i can show

[0:13:58] Voice 5: you the amendments i've made to the business case and then i can speak to it more thoroughly at the

[0:14:02] Voice 5: next meeting and actually on reflection perhaps you're right i should have done that for this

[0:14:06] Voice 5: meeting but i think the timing over christmas just kind of hamstrung me a bit there okay that's fine

[0:14:12] Voice 8: so at the next meeting then you'll present the old and the new business cases how you see the

[0:14:18] Voice 8: change and speak to that and i did have a couple of questions i'll just put myself on the list if

[0:14:26] Voice 8: there's nobody else who wants to speak right now and I need to try and get myself to the

[0:14:32] Voice 8: right page because I've messed up my sheets of paper um here we go so I had a I had a couple

[0:14:42] Voice 8: of questions um I was wondering specifically about the um the um first of all just a comment

[0:14:55] Voice 8: So the bylaw portal will go live in April.

[0:14:59] Voice 8: Could we make a note that we get a preview of that portal before it goes live, please?

[0:15:04] Voice 8: Just a sort of a short demo of some kind.

[0:15:08] Voice 8: Is that acceptable?

[0:15:11] Voice 5: Through the chair?

[0:15:12] Voice 8: Yeah, go ahead.

[0:15:13] Voice 5: It might be challenging for me to present the portal before it goes live because it's a very structured presentation.

[0:15:23] Voice 5: I can give you ideas of it and sort of glimpses of it, but I could not give you a demonstration of it because the timing of how we do it and the training of it, it's like one step follows the next, and it's a pretty tight timeline in how we go proceeding through the project.

[0:15:40] Voice 5: Are

[0:15:40] Voice 8: you going to have a webinar or something to launch it?

[0:15:45] Voice 5: No, but you will be seeing at the next meeting.

[0:15:48] Voice 5: Actually, maybe that's the best way for me to show it to you.

[0:15:50] Voice 5: At the next meeting, I do have an implementation plan drafted in regards to bylaw enforcement, and it includes both the portal and the policies.

[0:15:59] Voice 5: So that'd be a really good chance for you to say, insert educational session here or something along those lines.

[0:16:08] Voice 5: I'd be

[0:16:09] Voice 5: delighted to show it to you, and I know that they're working on it as we speak.

[0:16:12] Voice 5: I know even Manager Dingman was offering comments about some of the parameters of it this morning to the City View team.

[0:16:20] Voice 5: Okay,

[0:16:21] Voice 8: that would be great. So at the next meeting, we'll see the implementation plan.

[0:16:26] Voice 8: Correct. And it

[0:16:27] Voice 5: is reasonably detailed, whereby you can see specific deliverables and what may or may not be included. And then we can discuss timing and stuff like that.

[0:16:36] Voice 8: Okay. And the freshwater sustainability strategy. I really like the proof of water time of subdivision standard that has been proposed. And I think maybe one or two LTCs have adopted it.

[0:16:56] Voice 8: I'd really like to see that and understand how it differs from the provincial or the MOTI standard requirements, because I did see an early version and it struck me that it didn't.

[0:17:14] Voice 8: Or, you know, I'd really like to understand how it improves on what comes through MOTI and how that requirement works if you're looking for subdivision and you have or have not adopted the trust standard for proof of water.

[0:17:32] Voice 8: Yeah.

[0:17:34] Voice 5: If I may respond, Chair?

[0:17:35] Voice 8: Yeah.

[0:17:36] Voice 8: Yeah.

[0:17:36] Voice 5: So we've made it a point at all the regular business meetings that Freshwater Atlas is or the Freshwater Atlas, sorry, Freshwater Sustainability as one of your top priorities be reported on.

[0:17:47] Voice 5: So happy to answer those questions. I think the best we can do for next meeting based on the timing is have our senior freshwater specialist, William Shulba, show up and offer some verbal responses to your questions.

[0:18:03] Voice 5: Sure. And if there's further reporting you'd like them to come back with, I think we can do that. I think that's a really great question for elected officials to understand. And then by extension, the community, what's the difference between our requirements as Times Subdivision versus Modi?

[0:18:17] Voice 8: That'd be great. And include a copy of the current version. And that would be great, because I think it's a bit of a mystery. You either understand it and you're using it, or it's a kind of mystery. So it would be really helpful. Thank you.

[0:18:33] Voice 12: I

[0:18:33] Voice 8: also would like at the next meeting from the freshwater specialist, some specifics to the coordinating with regional and provincial governments.

[0:18:44] Voice 8: I understand, you know, advocacy and coordination is a role for a specialist, but I'd like to understand, you know, are there specific initiatives ongoing?

[0:18:54] Voice 8: Because I know that the province has specific, you know, initiatives to change some of the regulations to improve.

[0:19:02] Voice 8: So it would be really helpful to understand with whom the freshwater specialist is speaking and how often and, you know, exactly how that's playing out in a bit more detail.

[0:19:16] Voice 8: Thank you.

[0:19:18] Voice 5: If I may, Cher?

[0:19:19] Voice 8: Yeah.

[0:19:20] Voice 5: So certainly we'll have, again, like I said, Senior Freshwater Specialist William Schulbaugh available and he'll give a summary of what he's working on.

[0:19:31] Voice 5: I will share, I just got communications with him today, him and our biologist have been engaging with the province, was it this week or last week, he updated me today, about regulatory changes being proposed, even though we can't really talk about them because they're all draft and we sign do not disclose information, but we can say we've been meeting with them.

[0:19:59] Voice 5: but some of the information about who with and what it is we may not be able to disclose in

[0:20:03] Voice 5: detail so just i want to prepare you

[0:20:05] Voice 5: for that reality that's

[0:20:06] Voice 8: fine just the the broad brush

[0:20:09] Voice 8: you know the principles that would be terrific and um the other the last one was i was really

[0:20:17] Voice 8: um interested and i suppose pleased that when i went through the business cases for the major

[0:20:22] Voice 8: of projects all but um leskeety are on their final or one to go final although i'm not sure

[0:20:32] Voice 8: about salt spring island i i wouldn't go so far as to um forecast where they are any of their

[0:20:39] Voice 8: projects but um it was just interesting when i looked at you know with year four out of five

[0:20:45] Voice 8: final year final phase so i thought that was really good you know sometimes we think we're

[0:20:52] Voice 8: not making progress and i thought gee these projects have all somehow or other are close

[0:20:57] Voice 8: to the finish line so yeah that was good uh thank you and that's all i have to say for the moment

[0:21:05] Voice 8: and i see toby has a hand up go ahead toby thank

[0:21:10] Voice 11: you chair i guess just to jump off of your comments

[0:21:15] Voice 11: One OCP review I was going to ask about is Gambier.

[0:21:20] Voice 11: I think that one has actually stretched its timeline quite a bit.

[0:21:25] Voice 11: And I note that last year there was zero dollars spent on it.

[0:21:30] Voice 11: I don't know if it's because we didn't budget for it or just no work was done.

[0:21:35] Voice 11: And that one seems to be slightly stalling out, perhaps.

[0:21:40] Voice 11: and Hornby had some cautionary notes in there as well about targets and timelines so I wondered

[0:21:48] Voice 11: if we could get an update on those two and then I wanted to return to the conversation about the

[0:21:53] Voice 11: freshwater sustainability strategy budget request and removal of the implementation plan and its

[0:22:00] Voice 11: associated implications so yeah the likelihood of success for Gambier and Hornby and why they

[0:22:07] Voice 11: They're actually, if I read between the lines, they seem to be taking longer than originally scoped.

[0:22:18] Voice 5: If I may, Cher?

[0:22:20] Voice 11: Go ahead.

[0:22:21] Voice 5: I can see RPM Jammer coming online, so she knows it's coming her way.

[0:22:26] Voice 5: I'll just offer the statement that, yes, internally, we're very cognizant that both those LTCs have struggled to stay within scope and within a timeline.

[0:22:38] Voice 5: It happens.

[0:22:39] Voice 5: But this particular moment where we are and how to proceed has been a topic of much discussion internally, what resources to recommend to apply.

[0:22:50] Voice 5: And I will say that myself, I've recommended so far through my feasibility report to Trust Council that those projects maintain their status as a major project to try to complete.

[0:23:03] Voice 5: But it's also one of the reasons you've been given the next agenda item, the minor project criteria list, such that maybe it's time for a little bit more scrutiny.

[0:23:17] Voice 5: At what point do we as staff recommend to elected bodies that the scope has gone too far or wavered too much or that we put too many resources and we haven't come back?

[0:23:30] Voice 5: So you're going to see that sort of thinking, Trustee Elliott, in the minor project criteria, some of those, some relevant discussion points is what I'm trying to get at.

[0:23:41] Voice 5: But in the meantime, returning to Gambier and Hornby, I offer, I ask RPM Jammer maybe to comment.

[0:23:47] Voice 5: She's closest to those projects.

[0:23:52] Voice 9: You're the chair.

[0:23:53] Voice 9: So I can give sort of a brief update on the Gambier one.

[0:23:58] Voice 9: I have information on Gambier's OCP project with a little bit more detail that I could share.

[0:24:04] Voice 9: Hornby, I'll have to follow up.

[0:24:07] Voice 9: So in 2024, there was some draft DPA language, development permit area language that was being drafted and prepared.

[0:24:17] Voice 9: So that didn't generate budget for that kind of work.

[0:24:22] Voice 9: So there was some work that was happening there that didn't expend that budget.

[0:24:25] Voice 9: So that's the information that the local trust committee is going to be looking at coming up with their upcoming agendas and also looking at language for other draft conservation area, for example, language and looking at recommendations provided by Squamish Nation that they had engaged with in the previous years of the project.

[0:24:54] Voice 9: So, sort of looking through and working through the final steps of this particular project for Gambier, it's with the LTC or the next meetings coming up with the Local Trust Committee, we'll be looking at those draft language to move them into, hopefully we'll be moving them into bylaw readings.

[0:25:16] Voice 9: meetings so

[0:25:18] Voice 8: um may i ask a question uh are you saying that the work to date has kind of spawned

[0:25:28] Voice 8: other work which needs to be um you know reviewed scoped and that that might become

[0:25:36] Voice 8: a minor project is that what i'm understanding you to say no

[0:25:41] Voice 9: um the work i just described has

[0:25:43] Voice 9: has occurred under the major project and is proposed under this business case

[0:25:50] Voice 9: to continue as a major project.

[0:25:54] Voice 8: Even though there's sort of scope creep effectively or expansion?

[0:25:59] Voice 9: I wouldn't say there's scope creep.

[0:26:03] Voice 9: I think the regional planning team and planners working on the projects

[0:26:09] Voice 9: are mindful and alive to that conversation with the local trust committee.

[0:26:13] Voice 9: So if there is an ask that comes that could be seen as out of scope,

[0:26:20] Voice 9: that the planner communicates that and gets direction from the local trust committee

[0:26:26] Voice 9: to either add that within the scope or the LTC decides to not pursue it.

[0:26:31] Voice 9: So there hasn't been too much of that happening with the last fiscal year for Gambier's OCP.

[0:26:42] Voice 9: It's been, I think, more of the local trust committee needing time to make those decisions.

[0:26:48] Voice 9: Although I will say one change to scope was including public engagement.

[0:26:54] Voice 9: So, Chair, you're correct in that part.

[0:26:57] Voice 9: There was a change in scope to that aspect of the project.

[0:27:02] Voice 8: Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody want to add to that? Nope. Okay. So we have reached the stage. So, so, Stefan, you recommended that we could say nothing at all, or we could. Oh, go ahead, Toby.

[0:27:23] Voice 8: Thank you,

[0:27:26] Voice 11: Chair. I had a non-OCP related question. I wanted to return to the implications of not having an implementation plan. And does this committee want to reflect on the impacts to the sustainability, freshwater sustainability strategy?

[0:27:47] Voice 11: Our job is to try to get the work done that council is directed, and freshwater sustainability has been a long-running strategic initiative.

[0:27:58] Voice 11: If the implementation plan is critical to the work, this committee might want to say or ask Trust Council to reconsider that, the removal of the $10,000.

[0:28:13] Voice 11: dollars because if it's tied together with the success of a strategic initiative and council

[0:28:20] Voice 11: sort of made a rash choice trying to save money we're all you know saving trying to save money

[0:28:27] Voice 11: where we can um but if it would hamper the success of a very large and um important initiative that's

[0:28:38] Voice 11: had a lot of funding directed to it i don't think ten thousand dollars is really do we want to

[0:28:43] Voice 11: consider whether that's worth it and perhaps ask the director to provide a risk assessment or what

[0:28:50] Voice 11: do we risk losing if that implementation plan is not funded what

[0:28:54] Voice 8: i'm thinking is that we i may be

[0:28:57] Voice 8: wrong in this but i think we covered that in that stefan said he would respond at the next meeting

[0:29:02] Voice 8: and we still will have time to make a recommendation at that stage i believe am i correct stefan

[0:29:12] Voice 5: you are with the minor exception that of course the fpc is going to meet i believe the timing

[0:29:20] Voice 5: between the reason we're having a special business meeting now is to influence the next fpc meeting

[0:29:24] Voice 5: i don't have that meeting date in front of me i figured out pretty quick

[0:29:27] Voice 12: and so

[0:29:28] Voice 5: that this meeting

[0:29:30] Voice 5: was designed so such that you can influence yeah so they meet on the january 21st so this meeting

[0:29:38] Voice 5: was inserted before that in the hope that if you had any clear direction now obviously i don't have

[0:29:43] Voice 5: enough time to put together a risk assessment on the loss of an implementation plan and you can

[0:29:48] Voice 5: still go to the march trust council and especially yourself chair you could represent

[0:29:54] Voice 5: the thoughts and the resolution from the rpc at that time so there's still time of course

[0:30:00] Voice 5: next meeting but ideally you would have a resolution today to talk to the FPC when they

[0:30:07] Voice 5: meet on the 21st I guess that's next week and so if you know you want to spend some time discussing

[0:30:14] Voice 5: that we could probably discuss generally without a report from staff I think it's pretty clear when

[0:30:21] Voice 5: you had the business case and I believe it's included what the implementation plan was meant

[0:30:27] Voice 5: to achieve and especially the various resolutions from this committee to create an implementation

[0:30:31] Voice 5: plan. And that's the part that I didn't dig into too much is how much time and effort this

[0:30:36] Voice 5: committee really spent trying to craft or to request staff to create an implementation plan.

[0:30:43] Voice 5: It was very much the driver of the review. So we can have that discussion now. You can make a

[0:30:51] Voice 5: a brief resolution to RPC if this committee agrees at this moment or by the end of this discussion

[0:30:59] Voice 5: that the

[0:31:00] Voice 5: regional planning committee wants the FPC to put $10,000 back into the budget for an

[0:31:04] Voice 5: implementation plan. But that being said, I will report back as I've already indicated about how

[0:31:10] Voice 5: the amendments would, the old and the new sort of business case and what the impacts are. So

[0:31:15] Voice 5: I'll do that regardless. But if you pass a resolution today, that might get to FPC a little

[0:31:20] Voice 5: little bit sooner will

[0:31:21] Voice 8: you be uh able to speak to that at the fpc on the 21st or not and the next

[0:31:28] Voice 8: thing

[0:31:28] Voice 12: i was going

[0:31:28] Voice 8: to say is i think everybody here am i correct in saying we're all on the fpc

[0:31:35] Voice 8: um maybe not trustee campbell um but uh so i okay i open the floor what what would anybody like to

[0:31:45] Voice 8: to say, I'm all ears.

[0:31:47] Voice 8: Go ahead.

[0:31:48] Voice 8: Go ahead, trustee.

[0:31:52] Voice 8: Go ahead, Toby.

[0:31:54] Voice 8: Thank you.

[0:31:55] Voice 11: Well, the business case is not in this package.

[0:31:58] Voice 11: So perhaps we could take a bit of time to dig that out

[0:32:02] Voice 11: unless I'm missing it.

[0:32:03] Voice 11: All I see is OCP business cases.

[0:32:07] Voice 11: My sincere apologies.

[0:32:09] Voice 11: No, it's okay.

[0:32:10] Voice 11: And I just like to be able to take some notes

[0:32:13] Voice 11: and what would an implementation plan look like?

[0:32:19] Voice 11: If we have that in a report somewhere, I could read it, but just in your own perspective, to jog our memories, because it has been a while, what would an implementation plan contribute towards the sustainability strategy?

[0:32:33] Voice 11: And I would like to make a motion that RPC request inclusion or reconsideration of budget for an implementation plan by RPC. Thanks.

[0:32:46] Voice 11: Okay.

[0:32:48] Voice 5: Well, I can respond briefly to what an implementation plan would be. So, the Freshwater Sustainability Strategy is a complex document with four components and various actions within, and it's meant to be coordinated with other agencies and cross-departmental within the Islands Trust itself.

[0:33:07] Voice 5: self. So that's the strategy as it's written. And it had various actions within it that have

[0:33:15] Voice 5: been slowly being actioned in various ways, largely through doing LTC related projects,

[0:33:23] Voice 5: as opposed to doing a trust-wide action. And that's just how we've been able to advance the

[0:33:28] Voice 5: work. And it's resulted in lots of different deliverables and some great work, but never a

[0:33:33] Voice 5: a trust-wide approach so the implementation plan would you know review the successes so far and

[0:33:43] Voice 5: and you know what what have we done what have we not done in regards to the strategy

[0:33:47] Voice 5: and then it would hopefully take a realistic look at how do we implement the rest of the strategy

[0:33:54] Voice 5: and so how they recommend that what they recommend i don't know i do know that the current strategy

[0:34:00] Voice 5: says, you know, having, for example, a dedicated committee to do freshwater sustainability work.

[0:34:07] Voice 5: I know, I'm sorry to see Trustee Elliott's expression.

[0:34:13] Voice 5: And it talks about dedicated staff with input from professionals. And I can draw on several

[0:34:21] Voice 5: examples, whether it's in the regional district in Nanaimo or the Fraser Basin Council type thing.

[0:34:26] Voice 5: But I don't honestly know what they would recommend for an implementation plan. All I

[0:34:30] Voice 5: I know is that it would be taken to trust council and it would be up to them to decide how many

[0:34:36] Voice 5: resources we can dedicate it to it over what period of time. And I think if they're just

[0:34:42] Voice 5: reviewing the plan, it's one thing, but then it's kind of gets to the point of a, well, so what,

[0:34:46] Voice 5: what are we going to do about that? And that's the part that I would miss if it was evaluating

[0:34:51] Voice 5: a strategy, I'd really miss the so what part, like, what are we going to do about that? So

[0:34:57] Voice 5: So, yeah, it seems kind of odd to remove.

[0:35:01] Voice 8: Okay.

[0:35:02] Voice 8: Laura, go ahead.

[0:35:05] Voice 2: Yeah, this is where the operational review meets freshwater strategy.

[0:35:11] Voice 2: The freshwater strategy never had an implementation plan.

[0:35:14] Voice 2: And we have an operational review that now said all these major projects need to have implementation plans.

[0:35:19] Voice 2: plans so you know I think we need to spend more time having those conversations because that's

[0:35:26] Voice 2: one of the problems and challenges the freshwater strategy has had for a long time how I understand

[0:35:31] Voice 2: the decision this committee was moving forward with was to do that that the plan is now you

[0:35:36] Voice 2: know it's aging and that doing a review to make sure you know before you create the implementation

[0:35:42] Voice 2: plan that the actions are still applicable and correct for today's time, but we're still back to

[0:35:50] Voice 2: we can't proceed forward with work if we don't have an implementation plan.

[0:36:04] Voice 8: Sam, go ahead.

[0:36:07] Voice 4: Yeah, I'm a little curious, I suppose, as to why a review is necessarily

[0:36:16] Voice 4: necessarily baked into the implementation plan not a separate component or I mean I would have

[0:36:22] Voice 4: like is that not work that you know is being done internally within I mean I suppose by you

[0:36:31] Voice 4: director Cermak but more generally within the the planning department um I would have thought that

[0:36:39] Voice 4: that sort of being on top of evaluating the value

[0:36:47] Voice 4: and the successes and failures and pitfalls

[0:36:49] Voice 4: and whatever else would be a standard part

[0:36:51] Voice 4: of our own operational review of any project

[0:36:55] Voice 4: that we're doing,

[0:36:56] Voice 4: not necessarily part of implementing that project.

[0:37:00] Voice 4: And I sort of, I think I would echo a little bit

[0:37:03] Voice 4: what I perceive Laura saying there

[0:37:07] Voice 4: is that um it's a bit tricky to um or i i think it's a bit tricky to go ahead with with wanting

[0:37:16] Voice 4: to put money towards an implementation plan without having a review already in place to

[0:37:20] Voice 4: review whether we want to implement the plan um which as she said is is aging so i just yeah

[0:37:26] Voice 4: maybe that's maybe there's some clarity there that i can get and that'll help me sort of under

[0:37:30] Voice 4: where things are going sure

[0:37:33] Voice 5: uh through the chair if you don't mind if i respond

[0:37:36] Voice 5: the um

[0:37:37] Voice 5: I mean, great points. I totally understand what you're saying, Trustee Borthwick. You know, why would we want to implement something we're not even sure about the successes or, you know, we went on an evaluation first. I hear you. I think the response was, you know, in high level, it's been a Trust Council priority to have the strategy.

[0:37:58] Voice 5: of G. But rightly, as Chair Patrick said, that we never have had a full implementation plan.

[0:38:05] Voice 5: So we've been kind of cherry picking from there to try to advance it as best as we can.

[0:38:10] Voice 5: And keep in mind, there have been many business cases that have traveled to Trust Council that

[0:38:15] Voice 5: haven't been successful. And for one reason or another, I don't want to judge any past. So

[0:38:21] Voice 5: we've kind of tried and failed several times to advance it from a staff perspective. So that

[0:38:27] Voice 5: That leaves us kind of scrambling to do the best we can with what we have, which is, you know, normal operational type thing.

[0:38:34] Voice 5: And then this committee really said, hey, we want a third person review.

[0:38:39] Voice 5: We want an external sort of audit of what we've done and what we've done.

[0:38:42] Voice 5: And from my perspective as a director, I really welcome that.

[0:38:46] Voice 5: I really welcome that third person professional review, because honestly, sometimes I can be so into it.

[0:38:53] Voice 5: um and by the time you really get into it and understand it um you kind of there's a bit of

[0:38:58] Voice 5: an ownership to advancing the project and you um you you desperately kind of want to do something

[0:39:04] Voice 5: so i think that external review and for us uh asking a contractor a professional person to review

[0:39:11] Voice 5: a strategy is one thing um and like i said i called it i mean i'm being flippant in my wording

[0:39:18] Voice 5: perhaps saying the so what but asking them then to sort of say well you reviewed it what have we

[0:39:25] Voice 5: done what have we not what should we do next how do we implement it is just the very next logical

[0:39:30] Voice 5: step and you kind of get much you get more bang for buck i think of doing that all at once it's

[0:39:36] Voice 5: just a very much a normal sort of scoping document so to sort of complete my thought there trustee

[0:39:42] Voice 5: Borthwick. I am delighted the trust council has said, don't do anything without properly

[0:39:49] Voice 5: considering the implementation of that and the review of that. And I've seen internally with

[0:39:55] Voice 5: all the LTC projects, not just Freshwater, that same approach, taking our time to have

[0:40:00] Voice 5: baked in metrics or something to evaluate things better and to debrief afterwards and to evaluate

[0:40:05] Voice 5: afterwards. I think we've spent a long time rushing to get things done and doing new things

[0:40:11] Voice 5: as opposed to reviewing things that we've done and being clear about where we are and where we're

[0:40:15] Voice 5: going so it's kind of an organizational cultural shift being led by um trust council and uh this

[0:40:21] Voice 5: whole term has been steering that ship that way so um i'm not sure i answered your question but

[0:40:28] Voice 5: that's where i stand yeah

[0:40:30] Voice 4: if i may share go ahead

[0:40:32] Voice 4: yeah yeah yeah no and that's i mean that that's

[0:40:34] Voice 4: i'm glad i'd like i i like all of what you just said and enough but i think and i think i guess

[0:40:40] Voice 4: and and uh speaking as someone who is i think uh professionally uses uh being facetious to try and

[0:40:49] Voice 4: make points uh i wonder if perhaps um uh taking slightly like a slightly different tack and just

[0:41:03] Voice 4: in terms of how we're scoping this particular budget request and say, this is not, it may

[0:41:09] Voice 4: be say, and I agree, like, you know, if you're going to ask a consultant to do that work,

[0:41:13] Voice 4: yes, it's absolutely worth it to get them to comment on what they think implementation

[0:41:17] Voice 4: should be.

[0:41:19] Voice 4: But I wonder if the stage that we're at, given the direction that we got from trust

[0:41:25] Voice 4: counsel and that we've, you know, the discussions we've had here too, if it makes more sense

[0:41:30] Voice 4: to you know have a and i you know i i think having a review of this project is really good and i

[0:41:36] Voice 4: totally appreciate that you can be too close to see the forest for the trees but um uh yeah if

[0:41:44] Voice 4: pretend possibly scoping this as a as a review instead of to to sort of get our bearings instead

[0:41:50] Voice 4: of launching fully into an implementation plan and like laying out exactly what the the before

[0:41:58] Voice 4: before we start laying track, let's do some surveying, I guess, is sort of the way I'm

[0:42:02] Voice 4: going with that. And I don't know if that's just a question of terminology in terms of

[0:42:07] Voice 4: implementation plan, but I think there's a subtly different scope in making the plan

[0:42:14] Voice 4: for how we're going to go ahead, which has a tacit approval of the work that's been done

[0:42:19] Voice 4: and reviewing that work so that we can you know with with open eyes start to lay track um that's

[0:42:28] Voice 4: i guess that's my where i'm sort of splitting hairs and i don't know if that's how what the

[0:42:32] Voice 4: rest of the committee feels um but i i think there's a distinction there and i think that's

[0:42:37] Voice 4: worth um i to me that seems in line with with the feedback that we've had from trust council

[0:42:42] Voice 4: and the discussions we've had here but i'm interested to hear what the rest of the committee

[0:42:45] Voice 4: feels and thinks about this too yeah

[0:42:48] Voice 8: thanks uh i'd like to put myself well actually go ahead

[0:42:52] Voice 8: trustee campbell aaron and uh i'll put myself on the list for after that go ahead

[0:42:56] Voice 3: i just i think

[0:42:58] Voice 3: um this this each each year of our term the freshwater sustainability study seems to come

[0:43:07] Voice 3: forward and um in a lot of the conversations that we have had in meeting and then out at trust

[0:43:18] Voice 3: council and and being able to talk about some of this stuff is that it has always kind of lacked

[0:43:24] Voice 3: a certain amount of clarity as to what is actually being asked for and where it's hoping to go and

[0:43:32] Voice 3: And each time it sort of has gotten returned in the hopes that it would come back with a bit more of a clear understanding of where it's hoping to go.

[0:43:45] Voice 3: And I honestly feel like we have never gotten there.

[0:43:50] Voice 3: there and I was pretty vocal at trust council about about just being pretty much to the point

[0:43:57] Voice 3: of going around the mountain enough times that it just becomes a no after a while because you

[0:44:04] Voice 3: don't feel like you're actually getting there and so that's I wouldn't vote to send it back

[0:44:09] Voice 3: right now until we know we've actually got something that we're taking back there yeah

[0:44:18] Voice 8: Yeah, thanks, Aaron.

[0:44:20] Voice 8: Okay, I feel a bit the same.

[0:44:24] Voice 8: I feel like, you know, I went quickly back there now.

[0:44:28] Voice 8: If you look at the original strategy, there was a whole section on implementation.

[0:44:36] Voice 8: And you are right that, you know, some guidance and advice provided.

[0:44:42] Voice 8: And some of it was a little bit boil the ocean, but okay.

[0:44:46] Voice 8: and we have done some things but as you said we've cherry-picked through the things

[0:44:52] Voice 8: and we are in a situation where it's not necessarily only about the money it's also

[0:44:58] Voice 8: about the resources because anything that we propose has a huge requirement especially like

[0:45:06] Voice 8: creating an implementation plan i don't believe it can easily be done by external resources

[0:45:11] Voice 8: resources and secondly it needs the input from a review like what has been done did it work

[0:45:19] Voice 8: where are we so step one let's have a review and see where we are map that out and then step two

[0:45:29] Voice 8: would be to me create the implementation plan and i don't think we can create an implementation plan

[0:45:38] Voice 8: And until the review is really done and the dust has settled on it.

[0:45:43] Voice 8: So I wouldn't be in favour of going back on that decision.

[0:45:50] Voice 8: Thanks. Go ahead, Toby.

[0:45:54] Voice 11: So, hearing general non-support for that idea, I'm wondering, Dr. Cermak,

[0:46:00] Voice 11: do you have any notion that perhaps whoever conducts the review would be also making recommendations?

[0:46:10] Voice 11: And they could scope out a direction, even if there's not an implementation plan.

[0:46:18] Voice 5: Thanks for the question.

[0:46:19] Voice 5: So it's, you know, when we're scoping out what the cost of these types of projects are in these business cases,

[0:46:26] Voice 5: we take, of course, some general assumptions about what we think the hourly rate is of the various professionals doing the work.

[0:46:32] Voice 5: And then we take, of course, an estimate of how long we think the work will take.

[0:46:36] Voice 5: You know, cost per hour times hours gets our estimate.

[0:46:40] Voice 5: estimate and one of the concerns we had is that this you know if we're looking for the best

[0:46:48] Voice 5: people to do this review it's going to be expensive and so we were hoping that by doing

[0:46:54] Voice 5: the review they're going to naturally start to craft next steps so I think inevitably a review

[0:47:00] Voice 5: will have some next steps I think an implementation plan is the next is one step above that my concern

[0:47:07] Voice 5: concern is that it's not a lot of money. And so you're going to get sort of more bang for buck

[0:47:12] Voice 5: if you include the implementation plan, a little bit more interest from a higher quality review.

[0:47:18] Voice 5: Last thing you want really is a low quality review of a high level or really important

[0:47:23] Voice 5: strategies. So that's kind of where I'm at right now. So when I see you lose just $10,000,

[0:47:30] Voice 5: that's not necessarily a lot of money to an expensive per hour professional. However,

[0:47:36] Voice 5: However, it could be the difference between getting the right person and just getting an okay person, if you know what I mean.

[0:47:44] Voice 5: And that's one of my concerns.

[0:47:46] Voice 5: And I know we've talked internally about that.

[0:47:49] Voice 5: Who are we going to attract for a lesser amount and what are they going to be able to produce for that?

[0:47:54] Voice 5: I don't want to get you guys, you know, I don't want to co-op student, but I'm talking too much.

[0:47:59] Voice 5: I'll turn it over to you.

[0:48:02] Voice 8: So, Laura, go ahead.

[0:48:04] Voice 8: And then David.

[0:48:07] Voice 2: No, that was my point. I mean, I absolutely support that we have to do the review first.

[0:48:12] Voice 2: There's no question. And the implementation plan follows. But when not having the money

[0:48:17] Voice 2: in the same budget cycle, that means it could be up to a year apart. And you might find that you

[0:48:23] Voice 2: just you don't even use or utilize the material that you got from the first review as well as

[0:48:27] Voice 2: you should. So I think it's more of an efficiency. And I think that's what we need to understand from

[0:48:31] Voice 2: staff at this next meeting is, did we shoot ourselves in the foot by removing this $10,000?

[0:48:37] Voice 2: Is this going to increase the budget in the following year and cost more to get the

[0:48:41] Voice 2: implementation plan done? So I think that's the information we need as a committee so that

[0:48:45] Voice 2: we understand the impact of removing this $10,000. Did we actually cost a future more?

[0:48:55] Voice 5: And I'm just going to jump in there. That's more or less what I was trying to say,

[0:48:58] Voice 5: But I didn't say it as articulate as Chair Patrick.

[0:49:02] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:49:02] Voice 5: The efficiencies is really what I was trying to get at.

[0:49:05] Voice 8: Okay.

[0:49:05] Voice 8: David, go ahead, and then I have something to say,

[0:49:08] Voice 8: and then maybe we'll draw to a close,

[0:49:10] Voice 8: and Toby can put forward her motion perhaps.

[0:49:13] Voice 8: Go ahead, David.

[0:49:14] Voice 1: Thank you, Chair.

[0:49:17] Voice 1: I'm sitting here and realizing that we did a lot of good work

[0:49:21] Voice 1: reducing our budget,

[0:49:23] Voice 1: considering the addition to our constituents was quite high.

[0:49:28] Voice 1: and now we're pondering whether we want to put money back in, and I'm really uncomfortable about

[0:49:33] Voice 1: that. And then the conversation is drifting towards hiring a professional at a tremendous

[0:49:40] Voice 1: amount of money to develop a review and then a strategy. At the same time, we have on staff

[0:49:47] Voice 1: a professional, a specialist in freshwater. I don't really understand why we wouldn't have

[0:49:52] Voice 1: have simply asked William to take the time and develop a strategy. And with his expertise and

[0:50:00] Voice 1: his knowledge of the island and his knowledge of the subject, I would have thought that was

[0:50:04] Voice 1: part of the scope of being a professional in an area of that study. Now, the trust has

[0:50:11] Voice 1: traditionally taken advantage of professionals and consultants. And we've got a lot of great

[0:50:19] Voice 1: great work done, but it gets more and more expensive. And we have an awful lot of constituents

[0:50:23] Voice 1: asking us to do a better job with what we've got. And I think we need to start listening to

[0:50:29] Voice 1: that particular philosophy of doing, perhaps not as much, but what we're doing, we should be doing

[0:50:36] Voice 1: it at the top level with the people that we have taken a good length of time hiring, the best

[0:50:41] Voice 1: people that we can, sitting in those positions of authority and they're specialists. So I know

[0:50:47] Voice 1: this is not the direction that this conversation is going but i needed to share my thoughts on this

[0:50:52] Voice 1: thank you thank

[0:50:54] Voice 8: you david sam back to you yeah

[0:50:59] Voice 4: well and i think i mean i i think my

[0:51:03] Voice 4: instinct sort of is trying to pull on similar sort of threads as as trustee graham in that like

[0:51:09] Voice 4: i and i guess this is the part that maybe wasn't wasn't fully articulated um in in asking like

[0:51:17] Voice 4: Like, well, surely we are reviewing, and I understand, Director Cermak, that, again, that sense of being too close to something to review it.

[0:51:27] Voice 4: But, I mean, I think that falls pretty, still pretty squarely.

[0:51:33] Voice 4: Even if you think that might not be the most objective review, I still think it's important that you are sort of reviewing the work.

[0:51:40] Voice 4: And I'm sure you are.

[0:51:41] Voice 4: I mean, I'm not saying that you're not by any stretch of the imagination.

[0:51:44] Voice 4: imagination but but i think like getting a review um you know performed internally is you know

[0:51:50] Voice 4: certainly to start the most cost-effective way to do this and and yeah i mean i would agree with

[0:51:56] Voice 4: trustee graham that i think like talking about like it's valuable to get those outside inputs

[0:52:00] Voice 4: and i and i you know i'm i hear um trustee campbell and in that there's you know we this

[0:52:07] Voice 4: This is something that I still feel like we're not, even as a committee, fully cognizant of what the deliverables and delivereds are in some cases from the freshwater sustainability strategy.

[0:52:23] Voice 4: And I, which is not to say that I don't, like, this is something clearly that we know has value and could have value and should have value and we want it to.

[0:52:32] Voice 4: um reviewing that before we start putting money into into how we're going to implement it especially

[0:52:38] Voice 4: in the light of where we are this year and and yeah the discussions that were had at trust council

[0:52:42] Voice 4: in terms of of budget um i i think it's important for us to do our own homework on this a little bit

[0:52:51] Voice 4: and and to to make sure that you know we've we're doing a doing as objective or like we're never

[0:52:57] Voice 4: going to be entirely objective nobody is but i still think it behooves us to to undertake that

[0:53:03] Voice 4: sort of review internally um and and yeah i mean absolutely let's you know let's ask william like

[0:53:10] Voice 4: well what do you what do you think the implementation plan should be that's a good

[0:53:13] Voice 4: place to start he's that's his job um that's what we pay him to do um and i know i'm sure he's already

[0:53:20] Voice 4: got you know a lot of ideas around that that work um but but yeah i think in terms of review and i

[0:53:27] Voice 4: think their review is needed um you know that's that's a significant part and it's something that

[0:53:31] Voice 4: we could be and should be undertaking um yeah

[0:53:35] Voice 5: can i just respond before i hear from trustee

[0:53:39] Voice 5: campbell jared thank you sorry i just want to be clear that the reason we put the business case

[0:53:43] Voice 5: forward was because the rpc resolutions to have a third person review so just just for clarity

[0:53:51] Voice 5: that's we could do the work internally for sure but we were following the direction of rpc and

[0:53:56] Voice 5: and and uh the trust council so thanks yeah

[0:54:00] Voice 8: i appreciate that i suppose um the financial

[0:54:03] Voice 8: economic landscape has kind of shifted perhaps and caused us to rethink uh go ahead aaron

[0:54:11] Voice 8: well

[0:54:12] Voice 3: i think that that i know for myself in voting to get an outside review was after feeling like

[0:54:22] Voice 3: Like there's been a few asks for sort of a transparent layout of what it would be not being able to get the answers as to what an implementation plan would be or what the direction, the vision for it to go.

[0:54:44] Voice 3: And so then it becomes, well, if you can't get those questions answered internally, then you go externally. And that is, at least for myself, is where I have felt that most of the conversations about this have gone was that we couldn't get the clarity.

[0:55:04] Voice 3: And if we can't get the clarity internally, then, yes, we do need to get an external review done or we need to look at the validity of the sort of program as a whole.

[0:55:22] Voice 8: Yeah. So my feeling, I kind of echo what I feel reluctant to recommit the money, having removed it.

[0:55:34] Voice 8: I feel that William could certainly comment on the original scope versus what has been achieved and where the big gaps are.

[0:55:49] Voice 8: I look at the original scope and I think it was probably overly ambitious.

[0:55:54] Voice 8: It was a scale larger than would be appropriate for the Islands Trust, but that's just a personal opinion.

[0:56:01] Voice 8: I feel like the external landscape in terms of the province and the regional districts and their commitment to freshwater sustainability has shifted and changed over the time as well.

[0:56:15] Voice 8: So I would not support replacing that, given that we are in a severe financial constraint at the moment.

[0:56:28] Voice 8: and that's where i i am but okay we haven't had anything to to vote on and let's call it to a

[0:56:36] Voice 8: close now and toby do you want to go ahead with something thank

[0:56:43] Voice 11: you chair um uh i don't think

[0:56:46] Voice 11: there's support for at this table just in counting the numbers um but i think this committee should

[0:56:56] Voice 11: should be clear that it understands that we are I think it's shooting ourselves in the foot

[0:57:03] Voice 11: like why ask for a review if you're not going to do something with it and propose a plan

[0:57:11] Voice 11: and I also wish to state that the job description of a senior freshwater specialist may not include

[0:57:18] Voice 11: the skills of project management and strategy that are different that is outside sort of that

[0:57:24] Voice 11: that role and so just asking staff to do more if it's not their professional field

[0:57:32] Voice 11: um is unrealistic so it's unfortunate I think ten thousand dollars would have made the difference but

[0:57:41] Voice 11: uh you can see this isn't going anywhere okay

[0:57:44] Voice 8: and we are all at Liberty to speak at any of the coming

[0:57:49] Voice 8: meetings again on this and Stefan will be providing more information at the next RPC meeting.

[0:57:57] Voice 8: Okay, thank you all very much and let's move on to the next item on the agenda which was

[0:58:04] Voice 8: the minor projects criteria and I have some things to say myself but I'll open the floor.

[0:58:13] Voice 8: First of all, Stefan, do you want to do a brief introduction although you did provide a comprehensive

[0:58:19] Voice 8: comprehensive briefing and then I'll open the floor to the discussion thank

[0:58:25] Voice 5: you chair uh this

[0:58:27] Voice 5: work was the brainchild your last report you can receive at this committee from this gentleman I

[0:58:32] Voice 5: present to you RPM Kojima soon to be retired thanks

[0:58:37] Voice 6: Stefan um okay brief summary um so the purpose of

[0:58:43] Voice 6: the briefing is to provide RPC with the criteria that was developed by the local planning team

[0:58:50] Voice 6: for evaluation of minor projects. The current policy provides limited guidance to evaluate

[0:58:58] Voice 6: or prioritize minor projects. Basically the local trust committee identifies a minor project,

[0:59:04] Voice 6: doesn't need a business case, and funding of up to five thousand dollars is allocated by the

[0:59:11] Voice 6: director the local planning team has identified that the lack of criteria or guidelines for

[0:59:19] Voice 6: prioritizing and approving minor projects is an issue and has been and the local planning team

[0:59:26] Voice 6: provided some input on criteria or guidelines that could be used for considering approval of minor

[0:59:32] Voice 6: projects and some of the key guidelines included in the attached draft are that there be inadequate

[0:59:40] Voice 6: adequate budget and staff resources before a project's approved. Ongoing minor projects

[0:59:47] Voice 6: be completed. So for one LTC, an ongoing minor project be completed before a new one is initiated

[0:59:54] Voice 6: or approved. Projects should be focused on planning work. Other initiatives such

[1:00:00] Voice 6: as advocacy, communications, relationship building should be supported by the appropriate

[1:00:06] Voice 6: or relevant staff rather than by planners.

[1:00:11] Voice 6: Minor projects should be expected to result in a bylaw amendment that advances or addresses

[1:00:16] Voice 6: a trust-wide priority or issue, implements an OCP policy, introduces model policies or

[1:00:24] Voice 6: regulations or addresses a specific land use land users and land use issue uh minor projects should

[1:00:33] Voice 6: not revisit issues that have recently been addressed already by that that ltc or in that

[1:00:40] Voice 6: local trust area uh that being said there should be some discretion to use minor projects to

[1:00:46] Voice 6: undertake technical amendments or to complete major projects where a major project is not fully

[1:00:52] Voice 6: complete by the end of the fiscal year that it could be transitioned into a minor project to

[1:00:58] Voice 6: complete that work finally projects that are not progressing should not just be automatically

[1:01:05] Voice 6: funded or refunded every year but should complete cease or maybe transition to being a major project

[1:01:14] Voice 6: of the scopes if there's been scope expansion uh draft documents providing the guidelines and

[1:01:21] Voice 6: criteria has been attached. I feel that implementing these criteria would shift LTC

[1:01:31] Voice 6: minor projects more towards trust-wide priorities. It would focus more on amending bylaws to address

[1:01:38] Voice 6: land use issues, would no longer put planners in a situation where they're doing non-planning

[1:01:44] Voice 6: type work or borderline planning work that's maybe outside their expertise.

[1:01:51] Voice 6: Increase accountability to complete projects within timelines, and it would also move away from local trust committees having complete discretion to initiate minor projects. That's kind of the trade-off.

[1:02:04] Voice 6: The recommendation is to support the director implementing use of these proposed criteria.

[1:02:11] Voice 6: In terms of rolling it out, the guidelines would be introduced to LTCs during the orientation period after the next election.

[1:02:21] Voice 6: And if RPC disagrees with this, you can just receive this RFD for information.

[1:02:27] Voice 6: Thanks.

[1:02:30] Voice 8: Thanks, Robert.

[1:02:31] Voice 8: Okay.

[1:02:32] Voice 8: Anybody want to speak about this?

[1:02:37] Voice 8: Okay, Laura, go ahead.

[1:02:39] Voice 2: I beat Toby at losing my hand.

[1:02:43] Voice 2: My question on criteria is what's still kind of missing is the one project of one local trust committee concept.

[1:02:51] Voice 2: And I'm questioning whether or not that's appropriate.

[1:02:53] Voice 2: appropriate the element of being able to say something is more important than something else

[1:02:58] Voice 2: i mean as local trust committees we're each looking at our islands and and of course every

[1:03:03] Voice 2: issue on our island is most important because it's our local trust committee but how does the

[1:03:08] Voice 2: overall well wait a minute maybe this project's more important than this project or it needs to

[1:03:12] Voice 2: happen first before that project because there's an urgency or need that's greater um and i and

[1:03:18] Voice 2: And that just doesn't seem to come up into the equation

[1:03:22] Voice 2: and should it be a criteria.

[1:03:28] Voice 6: Chair, if I may just put some context to that.

[1:03:31] Voice 6: So these criteria are developed

[1:03:35] Voice 6: based on the existing Trust Council policy,

[1:03:39] Voice 6: which says one minor project per LTC.

[1:03:42] Voice 6: So for Chair Patrick's point,

[1:03:45] Voice 6: valid point that would go beyond

[1:03:48] Voice 6: working within that existing Trust Council policy,

[1:03:51] Voice 6: but would entail some sort of change or modification to the overall Trust Council policy.

[1:03:59] Voice 8: Thanks. Go ahead, Toby.

[1:04:05] Voice 11: Yeah, thank you for this. There is a huge need for clarity around how

[1:04:12] Voice 11: minor projects are determined, and I think this is the ideal time

[1:04:16] Voice 11: for that conversation before the next or a new term comes in. So I really want to thank you for

[1:04:23] Voice 11: this um robert it's very much needed having witnessed i won't go into south pender's

[1:04:32] Voice 11: contortions over their third lub amendment but uh you know you know the story uh so my question

[1:04:40] Voice 11: is the congruency with administrative bylaws so you've got 4.2 project can be expected to result

[1:04:50] Voice 11: about amendments to an OCP LEB or administrative bylaws,

[1:04:54] Voice 11: but above, I think it sort of suggested

[1:05:00] Voice 11: that administrative bylaw amendments

[1:05:02] Voice 11: would be not in the scope.

[1:05:05] Voice 11: So maybe you could speak to that.

[1:05:06] Voice 6: Yeah, I could, so 4.2 could be clarified a bit.

[1:05:10] Voice 6: What I was thinking there is an LEB

[1:05:13] Voice 6: or an OCP amendment project could result in an update

[1:05:17] Voice 6: to an administrative companion update

[1:05:20] Voice 6: date or to an administrative bylaw in particular i'm thinking about dai bylaws development approval

[1:05:26] Voice 6: information bylaws which are technically administrative bylaws so yeah i think we

[1:05:31] Voice 6: could flesh that out and make that clear yeah

[1:05:34] Voice 11: i think that would be good because it seems to

[1:05:37] Voice 11: contradict this um and then another question if i might about 4.10 relationship building

[1:05:47] Voice 11: the initiatives, communications, applications for grant mapping projects, products. I mean,

[1:05:52] Voice 11: the lines are quite fuzzy, especially when we're talking relationship building with a First Nation

[1:06:00] Voice 11: that has to do with, say, mapping shoreline values or cultural values,

[1:06:07] Voice 11: is in an OCP review, which of course would be a major project. So I'm just wondering where the

[1:06:15] Voice 11: resource yeah drawing this line is i can see the logic um but do we even have a way of drawing

[1:06:28] Voice 11: other staff resources for relationship building initiatives that support an lcc that are not a

[1:06:34] Voice 11: minor project yeah

[1:06:37] Voice 6: i think through the chair i think that that's that's part of the intent of

[1:06:44] Voice 6: this is to um you know with the operational plan this you know communications proposed to be adding

[1:06:52] Voice 6: a manager proposed to be adding another position for first nations engagement is that those uh

[1:07:00] Voice 6: experts and the people whose role that is uh take the lead on those sorts of initiatives

[1:07:07] Voice 6: rather than the way we've been working well for decades really as the planner who's assigned

[1:07:14] Voice 6: to that ltc you know is asked to do everything basically um and you know i think of lots of

[1:07:23] Voice 6: things that i've done for ltcs in the past you know that i'm not is not really um something that

[1:07:30] Voice 6: i'm trained or have experience in doing you know lots of communication stuff for example and so on

[1:07:36] Voice 6: where made sense maybe 20 years ago when we didn't have the resources um but as we sort of build that

[1:07:43] Voice 6: capacity um where we have those um personnel who are um that is their area of expertise that those

[1:07:52] Voice 6: people be drawn on rather than the planner okay

[1:08:00] Voice 8: i have put myself on the list and um i have a

[1:08:05] Voice 8: fundamental problem with all of this and the premise of the minor projects not having a

[1:08:12] Voice 8: business case and the fact that it we seem to have you know we're meeting ourselves coming back

[1:08:20] Voice 8: in that we're now at the stage of describing all the things that cannot be a minor project

[1:08:27] Voice 8: and you know anything to do with bylaw anything to do with administration bylaws and anything to

[1:08:35] Voice 8: to do with engagement and I feel like an LTC should be able to describe a need and if it fits

[1:08:46] Voice 8: basically within a constraint which should be maybe a timeline and or resource then it can go

[1:08:55] Voice 8: ahead and so I feel like we should reverse back out of this you know if I go down through it the

[1:09:01] Voice 8: The content that is allowed is the same content as is allowed in a major project.

[1:09:07] Voice 8: So really what we're asking is that it should be, you know, short and should require not too many resources.

[1:09:18] Voice 8: And other than that, it doesn't differ from a major project.

[1:09:22] Voice 8: And so I feel like we need to go back a bit.

[1:09:26] Voice 8: And I can imagine a table in which you say, you know, here are all the things that could be in the resources that could be required in a project.

[1:09:35] Voice 8: I can't see the difference other than that you've excluded two or three things.

[1:09:40] Voice 8: And that's only on the basis of planners not being the right resource.

[1:09:44] Voice 8: But arguably, if a local trust committee describes a need, then the planner assigned would, as they do with the major project, describe the resource need in a small business case.

[1:10:02] Voice 8: And then, you know, it could be reviewed as fit for purpose or not, or that it fits within this constraint.

[1:10:10] Voice 8: constraint so i i'm coming from the fact that i feel like this is you're trying to fix a problem

[1:10:17] Voice 8: which is more fundamental which is that the minor projects should have a business case and should

[1:10:24] Voice 8: have resources estimated in the same way as a major project okay and some and as you said sometimes

[1:10:32] Voice 8: they nest uh they're a consequence of a major project so um it fits that there should be a

[1:10:40] Voice 8: description saying this is a follow-on from or it's standalone because somebody had a great

[1:10:46] Voice 8: idea whatever and the other thing i wonder about and it doesn't happen is um when uh

[1:10:56] Voice 8: yes we should have a dashboard of those minor projects and how they're progressing

[1:11:01] Voice 8: and it should be perhaps presented to regional planning and not not for maybe technical decisions

[1:11:08] Voice 8: but just as a kind of a view into how other resources, how resources are being used.

[1:11:14] Voice 8: And then the other thing is that maybe there are opportunities to have different, have LTCs do joint projects.

[1:11:25] Voice 8: And I don't think we do that enough.

[1:11:27] Voice 8: So, you know, so China fiddles around with, you know, proof of water and, you know,

[1:11:33] Voice 8: maybe Gambia is doing something similar, but slightly different.

[1:11:36] Voice 8: and maybe we could actually have minor projects that get bundled together and are done for

[1:11:43] Voice 8: multiple islands at the same time okay thanks that's me sam go ahead yeah

[1:11:53] Voice 4: i mean you you said

[1:11:55] Voice 4: a lot of the things that i i had been thinking there uh chair boland um you know uh yeah i was

[1:12:02] Voice 4: having a conversation this morning about collaboration between islands and on projects

[1:12:06] Voice 4: And I think there's some, probably some cost savings. But again, I mean, I think I agree that this is, I think we're trying to solve a more fundamental problem.

[1:12:20] Voice 4: And I'm not sure that problems with, which I totally acknowledge happen, you know, problems with obfuscation in direction and leadership from trustees, you know, making operational problems with the implementation of minor projects should be solved by taking that jurisdiction and that control.

[1:12:48] Voice 4: control, you know, from them, you know, even in to a degree, instead of trying to encourage

[1:13:00] Voice 4: better behavior from trustees. So, you know, better metrics for, you know, reviewing progress

[1:13:09] Voice 4: on projects. And I think, you know, business cases, meaning that, you know, you're going in

[1:13:17] Voice 4: with a better sense of what things look like.

[1:13:21] Voice 4: Denman, our minor project came

[1:13:23] Voice 4: where we had a minor project

[1:13:24] Voice 4: that was calved off from our major project.

[1:13:29] Voice 4: You know, those are things that happen.

[1:13:31] Voice 4: But I think doing a better job of setting objectives

[1:13:34] Voice 4: and then monitoring success

[1:13:37] Voice 4: is a broader, you know, operational thing at the trust.

[1:13:42] Voice 4: Anyways, this is something that I think

[1:13:44] Voice 4: we possibly struggle with in a number of areas.

[1:13:46] Voice 4: And I'm not sure that putting the approval, not quite the right word, I'm not sure that putting evaluation of directions that are decided by local trust committees in the hands of staff.

[1:14:08] Voice 4: And not that I, you know, I think I get the frustration and I also desire an increase in efficiency and success in those minor projects.

[1:14:18] Voice 4: And I get that it's messy, but I think we need to encourage better behavior from trustees, not mandate it or take it out of their hands.

[1:14:27] Voice 4: So, yeah, there's a bunch of different things here, and I appreciate the problem it's trying to solve for, but I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the answer.

[1:14:41] Voice 7: uh thank you are we uh anybody else want to jump in here uh

[1:14:51] Voice 8: toby go ahead sorry yeah

[1:14:52] Voice 11: um

[1:14:54] Voice 11: having been the chair of an ltc who revisited the exact same changes to a previous

[1:15:03] Voice 11: bylaw amendment that was revisiting a previous bylaw amendment and seeing

[1:15:09] Voice 11: honestly it has been a waste of time and i hesitate to say that because the community

[1:15:18] Voice 11: has had really good conversations um i think we've repaired the process and the trust

[1:15:25] Voice 11: but by revisiting the exact same material it actually caused we just retreaded the same ground

[1:15:36] Voice 11: over and over and over again and so I take your point Sam that trustees need to be more disciplined

[1:15:43] Voice 11: but in an instance where there's no guidelines and no criteria it really was up to an incoming

[1:15:53] Voice 11: two new trustees who wanted to redo a process and it ended up it has cost resources and that's what

[1:16:02] Voice 11: we're trying to do we're trying to find ways that where it makes sense you put some guard rails

[1:16:13] Voice 11: so that things are not just done at a whim and of course there is discretion of course there

[1:16:18] Voice 11: can always be conversations but there needs to be a guideline around the allocation of minor

[1:16:24] Voice 11: projects I think this is a really good start it's it doesn't have to be

[1:16:33] Voice 11: political when there is

[1:16:36] Voice 11: a big OCP review it follows along that you'd have you

[1:16:40] Voice 11: amend the land use bylaw that becomes a minor project in most cases I think this

[1:16:47] Voice 11: gets us out of the realm of it moves us from to a more disciplined place of

[1:16:58] Voice 11: of doing the work that is necessary rather than maybe what's politically

[1:17:05] Voice 11: um motivated let's just say and i think criteria is necessary so i entirely support this

[1:17:16] Voice 11: um and in fact i asked the committee to support this this is part of our job

[1:17:22] Voice 11: in setting guidelines and standards for how planning services are delivered

[1:17:26] Voice 11: yeah

[1:17:30] Voice 8: i'm i don't think i'm saying i've said at least sorry i did put my hand up i've said there

[1:17:36] Voice 8: shouldn't be any guidelines but i'm just thinking most of the guidelines are the same as you would

[1:17:43] Voice 8: put to a major project you know it should be a strategic plan priority it should be you know

[1:17:50] Voice 8: implementation of ocp policies i just i read through it and it's just kind of mushy because

[1:17:55] Voice 8: because it just seems like it's motherhood and apple pie,

[1:18:01] Voice 8: that it's the stuff that any project should encompass.

[1:18:07] Voice 8: And, you know, even a major project,

[1:18:10] Voice 8: ideally it would encircle back and reverse material

[1:18:16] Voice 8: that was done in a previous major project.

[1:18:19] Voice 8: So I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines.

[1:18:22] Voice 8: And I also take Sam's point that we should be more disciplined,

[1:18:25] Voice 8: But part of that discipline, I think, could be driven by having a business case presented and maintaining some sort of dashboard progress on those projects in the same way.

[1:18:39] Voice 8: And, for instance, Ceterna has a very light schedule of LTC meetings.

[1:18:45] Voice 8: And, you know, we have, you know, things have progressed rather slowly because of that.

[1:18:51] Voice 8: that you know and so you know that timeline schedule of meetings can also have an impact on

[1:18:58] Voice 8: how long a project of any kind minor or major takes and I just don't like the idea of saying

[1:19:08] Voice 8: that you know all the things that cannot be part of a minor project because I think if you ask

[1:19:13] Voice 8: trustees on day one when they're new oh well you have to come up with a minor project and by the

[1:19:20] Voice 8: way can't be any of the following topics. It just makes it even more complicated. They should be

[1:19:26] Voice 8: able to just say, here's what I'd like to do. And then somebody else filters it out and figures out

[1:19:31] Voice 8: how to do it. And not saying, you know, it has to fit within this filter. The filter is the filter

[1:19:39] Voice 8: of a planner who's only going to do planning things, which is fair enough. But that's not

[1:19:45] Voice 8: how a minor project might be described. So I would favour business cases for minor projects. I'd

[1:19:55] Voice 8: favour all the minor projects being visible to everybody so that we can be more disciplined.

[1:20:02] Voice 8: And I'd favour a simpler version of what can be covered and not covered. Okay, thank you.

[1:20:11] Voice 8: And go ahead, Trustee Campbell. Are you there, Aaron? Or you had your hand up by mistake, maybe?

[1:20:25] Voice 3: No, sorry, I just forgot to turn my microphone on. I think, having been in the LTC that I have been in

[1:20:37] Voice 3: over the last three years and moving into it, into four, or already in four, I would welcome

[1:20:46] Voice 3: something along the lines of some guidelines to what a minor project can be I feel I think a

[1:20:57] Voice 3: little bit the opposite in that there does need to be some guidelines to what a minor project is

[1:21:02] Voice 3: I feel like coming in in sort of meeting one and starting to look at things sometimes

[1:21:12] Voice 3: Sometimes advantages can be taken of the new people that are there and don't really understand what a project even is or what kind of funds you're spending on that.

[1:21:28] Voice 3: And so I think that this maybe just begins a framework that might even need to be a little more rigid by the time it finishes out.

[1:21:40] Voice 3: um and it also sounds like that's what people are saying is that they're they're not so much

[1:21:45] Voice 3: against uh there being some guidelines but that maybe there needs to be more more guidelines and

[1:21:51] Voice 3: requirements to what uh those minor project um monies get spent on um so i think i i would

[1:22:01] Voice 3: would be supportive of this, and even changing it, you know, to be a little bit more restrictive.

[1:22:17] Voice 8: Okay, Stephan, over to you. Thanks, Aaron.

[1:22:22] Voice 5: Thank you. Just a couple of comments. I do report in my quarterly report to trust councils

[1:22:28] Voice 5: a very high level. It's not quite the dashboard, Chair Boland, that you're talking about,

[1:22:33] Voice 5: But the progress of all the major and all the minor projects, I know that they say ongoing, pending, or if they're in an engagement stage, we try to capture the stage they're at.

[1:22:45] Voice 5: But without a dashboard, because quite often you don't know where these things are going, right?

[1:22:50] Voice 5: You can't predict the end.

[1:22:54] Voice 5: So there's just that comment.

[1:22:55] Voice 5: I've always been looking for a dashboard to be able to better demonstrate where we are in the time.

[1:23:01] Voice 5: And I know with the operational review that that is part of the work that's put before all the directors is to be able to demonstrate that better.

[1:23:08] Voice 5: So that I think that work is coming. I think we're going to pilot that all next fiscal.

[1:23:12] Voice 5: So, you know, you should start to see that. And I look forward to presenting that.

[1:23:16] Voice 5: So I know that's in my quarterly reports. So hopefully that will become clearer.

[1:23:21] Voice 5: And just again, from the point of view of this report, it is guidelines to myself as the director.

[1:23:27] Voice 5: factor. If you look behind the curtain, how it's currently done, we maintain a spreadsheet of all

[1:23:35] Voice 5: the current project, minor projects going on. We have a tally of the asks and the requests

[1:23:40] Voice 5: of the elected officials. And then we put that into a spreadsheet to see how much money we have

[1:23:45] Voice 5: left over. And once we've reached that budget, which is currently $36,500, I start saying no,

[1:23:51] Voice 5: or amend it or something like that.

[1:23:55] Voice 5: And then we start comparing actuals

[1:23:57] Voice 5: versus projected and stuff like that.

[1:23:59] Voice 5: So this would provide just me

[1:24:02] Voice 5: with a little bit more of a screening tool

[1:24:04] Voice 5: of what according to eventually trust counsel

[1:24:09] Voice 5: would find a more, I guess, transparent process

[1:24:13] Voice 5: versus first in, first out

[1:24:15] Voice 5: and everybody can just do whatever they want type thing.

[1:24:19] Voice 5: So of course, we're never going to steer you wrong

[1:24:21] Voice 5: as planners we're going to always tell you work within the legislation but um just thought it's

[1:24:26] Voice 5: actually just all in all there's just more work for me and if you say no that's okay too so

[1:24:31] Voice 5: anyway just

[1:24:32] Voice 8: to comment on on what you said stephan i've never understood the constraint

[1:24:38] Voice 8: to be financial because um you know to me that money is usually about um you know some kind of

[1:24:45] Voice 8: briefing or an extra community meeting or something i always think of the and if i read

[1:24:51] Voice 8: the guidelines it's about resource constraints and the planners first of all have multiple other

[1:24:58] Voice 8: things and they don't want to do work that isn't strictly speaking planning which is fair enough

[1:25:04] Voice 8: but uh you know there are other specialties available but um you know i never understood

[1:25:11] Voice 8: it to be a financial constraint to be honest over to you robert though yeah

[1:25:16] Voice 6: thanks chair i was just

[1:25:18] Voice 6: going to add uh chair boland and also perhaps what uh trustee borthwick direction you were

[1:25:23] Voice 6: sort of going um might be leading to a review of the trust council policies um 6.2.1 and 5.9

[1:25:33] Voice 6: 5.9.1 um and that could be work that rpc might want to take on um you know it's been a term

[1:25:40] Voice 6: basically now at this point so it might be worth worth a review um as an alternative to taking this

[1:25:49] Voice 6: approach or take this approach and then um start a review of the policies in there um

[1:25:55] Voice 6: and how they've been implemented thank

[1:26:01] Voice 8: you um okay go ahead toby well

[1:26:07] Voice 11: if there's no further

[1:26:07] Voice 11: discussion i'd be happy to make the recommended motion um sure i haven't heard any major changes

[1:26:14] Voice 11: to the criteria. I think, Robert, you indicated

[1:26:19] Voice 11: maybe a little more clarity on that.

[1:26:25] Voice 10: 4.2.

[1:26:30] Voice 11: I do feel a bit of urgency

[1:26:34] Voice 11: around this.

[1:26:39] Voice 11: With Trustee Campbell there, guidelines are good.

[1:26:46] Voice 11: I've sort of been seeing

[1:26:47] Voice 11: the trust grow up and this is part of our getting organized and um making decisions based on

[1:26:57] Voice 11: evidence and data and available resources uh i just wanted to back to the point i think trustee

[1:27:04] Voice 11: bull and i think somebody made a point about what planners can tell us you know what they can do or

[1:27:10] Voice 11: not and that's not really true the ltc is the decision making body and it directs staff and

[1:27:18] Voice 11: presumably with the director allocating resources as needed so I think we really

[1:27:28] Voice 11: need to let the professionals work within their their scope and so thank

[1:27:34] Voice 11: you Robert. Robert reminding us

[1:27:37] Voice 11: that we may have more resources available for

[1:27:40] Voice 11: those things that are not within our scope because I don't think it's really

[1:27:44] Voice 11: is there to say you want to do this if i can't say no you can't anyways

[1:27:50] Voice 8: yeah sorry for interrupting

[1:27:53] Voice 8: go ahead you're on mute sorry

[1:28:05] Voice 11: um so maybe we'll just are you ready for a motion and we could see

[1:28:10] Voice 11: if this is supported or not um

[1:28:13] Voice 8: i i'll just have one final thing i i don't think that they i don't

[1:28:19] Voice 8: expect the planners to do non-planning work but for instance if you have a request that isn't

[1:28:25] Voice 8: strictly speaking planning how does that get raised you know how is it addressed because

[1:28:33] Voice 8: your planner is your route to communicate you know and to the trust as a whole so if you think okay

[1:28:42] Voice 8: OK, I want to do A and it needs a media specialist and it needs, you know, whatever else, either as part of a planning request or maybe standalone.

[1:28:56] Voice 8: How do we communicate that? What is the route to do that?

[1:29:00] Voice 8: that. But having said that, I personally would rather read and digest this, receive it for

[1:29:08] Voice 8: information and come back to the next meeting with some suggestions or a proposal. But I haven't seen

[1:29:16] Voice 8: what you're proposing, Toby, to be fair.

[1:29:21] Voice 11: Well, Chair, I mean, I was going to make the

[1:29:26] Voice 11: the recommended motion which would sort of put into action the you know we're sort of putting

[1:29:36] Voice 11: this back to the director of how to allocate resources but if you think you need more time

[1:29:44] Voice 11: if you do a motion to bring it back for future meeting for consideration I

[1:29:53] Voice 8: would like to just

[1:29:55] Voice 8: read it a bit more and go back and read those two the guidelines

[1:30:00] Voice 8: and have a bit more of a think about it

[1:30:02] Voice 8: because I understand that planners know their business

[1:30:06] Voice 8: and this has been pulled together by planners.

[1:30:10] Voice 8: Robert won't have retired

[1:30:11] Voice 8: before we come back to the next meeting, will he?

[1:30:14] Voice 8: I

[1:30:15] Voice 11: think that's a very real danger.

[1:30:18] Voice 8: When are you going, Robert?

[1:30:20] Voice 8: My

[1:30:20] Voice 6: last day is January 30th.

[1:30:23] Voice 6: Your next meeting, I will be somewhere in Mexico.

[1:30:27] Voice 8: Well, you can just dial in.

[1:30:31] Voice 8: that's no excuse and

[1:30:34] Voice 11: i still love it if his last gift to us actually was approved in this meeting

[1:30:39] Voice 11: i think it will be approved in principle

[1:30:42] Voice 11: okay

[1:30:43] Voice 12: well

[1:30:45] Voice 8: i i'm sorry you won't be at the next meeting robert and i wish you all the best it's

[1:30:52] Voice 8: been a great pleasure to work with you and you've added to every meeting i've ever been at you've

[1:30:58] Voice 8: added wisdom and some sort of corporate knowledge like we've been around this hill before etc etc

[1:31:06] Voice 8: with and and you've always been polite about that which i'm sure on occasion was a challenge

[1:31:12] Voice 8: so i i really appreciate your input over the time i've had to work with you robert and i wish you

[1:31:18] Voice 8: all the best thanks

[1:31:19] Voice 6: and i may be joining your saturn meeting so you might see me oh

[1:31:23] Voice 8: okay well

[1:31:24] Voice 8: Well, anyway, so I would I would like to leave this and have us all read the existing guidelines, have a little think about how, you know, the discussion has gone today.

[1:31:37] Voice 8: And I think everybody thinks it needs something, but maybe some people think it needs more and other people think it needs less.

[1:31:45] Voice 8: So let's try and find a balance and come to the next meeting and come to a conclusion about this.

[1:31:52] Voice 8: Anybody object to that?

[1:31:56] Voice 8: Toby are you okay with that?

[1:31:59] Voice 11: Yeah I'm only hesitating just thinking about is there anything

[1:32:08] Voice 11: else we need like is there any more clarity is there any more work

[1:32:14] Voice 11: done on this and then

[1:32:15] Voice 11: bring it back for for another look at the next I think we need a motion to bring it back unless

[1:32:20] Voice 11: staff would just automatically do that.

[1:32:23] Voice 8: I wondered about a I wondered about a table

[1:32:27] Voice 8: because there are guidelines I assume for major projects and is there a table

[1:32:32] Voice 8: that goes to do to do to do minor project major project and what the

[1:32:37] Voice 8: differences are and well

[1:32:40] Voice 11: if you look at the bottom of page 47 there that lays

[1:32:46] Voice 11: out the next steps it would allow staff to develop supporting documentation such

[1:32:52] Voice 11: as checklists for potentially projects and to make revisions it's criteria so

[1:32:56] Voice 11: So I'm reading this as a first step.

[1:32:59] Voice 11: It puts it in

[1:33:00] Voice 11: the hands of the director.

[1:33:01] Voice 11: Yes, we want you to create some, you know,

[1:33:06] Voice 11: here's the framework for allocating resources,

[1:33:09] Voice 11: but that can be refined.

[1:33:11] Voice 11: Am I understanding correctly?

[1:33:14] Voice 11: Directors are not?

[1:33:16] Voice 8: Yeah, your voice is coming and going, Toby.

[1:33:19] Voice 8: It makes it a bit tricky to really follow.

[1:33:22] Voice 8: I can read the transcript, but you're kind of fading in and out.

[1:33:26] Voice 8: I'll just pass it to Sam.

[1:33:27] Voice 8: Go ahead, Sam.

[1:33:28] Voice 8: maybe you can round us off in some way i

[1:33:31] Voice 4: mean i i haven't had any issues hearing trustee elliot so

[1:33:34] Voice 4: i don't know if it i don't if other people are having the same issue then maybe it's something

[1:33:38] Voice 4: else but it may not be on her end um but anyways um well i was curious just um uh

[1:33:48] Voice 4: robert had mentioned um that it may be possible to also get to a similar sort of place of

[1:33:56] Voice 4: evaluating these processes through reviewing trust counsel policies, 6.2.1, and I think

[1:34:04] Voice 4: 5.9.1, if that was the right number. I'm not sure Robert can correct me.

[1:34:09] Voice 4: That's correct. Yeah.

[1:34:10] Voice 4: Yeah. And I just wonder if maybe it could be possible if we're bringing this back to

[1:34:14] Voice 4: sort of get some sort of summary on what it might look like to come out from that direction.

[1:34:19] Voice 4: um just you know and again i know and just yeah i mean i know we talked about this before but just

[1:34:25] Voice 4: to sort of trustee elliot's point i'm absolutely in favor of having some criteria and guidelines

[1:34:29] Voice 4: and i i think that supports what trustee campbell is saying too about like coming in blind as a new

[1:34:35] Voice 4: trustee and not having a sense of what where the guardrails are or where they ought to be

[1:34:40] Voice 4: um i think it would be extremely valuable and helpful and i absolutely want to make sure that

[1:34:45] Voice 4: We're not we're not retreading old ground for the sake of retreading old ground.

[1:34:49] Voice 4: I also just don't want to. Part of this is also for me not wanting to put that extra work that Director Cermak was talking about on his table.

[1:34:57] Voice 4: If we could develop some good some, you know, it shouldn't have to be Director Cermak's job all the time to tell us no.

[1:35:06] Voice 4: We should we should have we should

[1:35:08] Voice 4: also be able to be grownups about it as well.

[1:35:09] Voice 4: up um i i i i i see your face just yeah and i and i hear you but you

[1:35:16] Voice 10: need to make guidelines

[1:35:18] Voice 10: somebody's got to give the guidelines or there's policy who's got to come yeah

[1:35:22] Voice 4: no i that's not

[1:35:23] Voice 4: what i'm saying i agree that we should have guidelines and whatever else what i'm saying

[1:35:28] Voice 4: is that the onus to um work within those i still think is that the the ltc's need to

[1:35:37] Voice 4: take ownership of that process, take ownership of leadership. That's all I'm trying to say. And I

[1:35:42] Voice 4: think guidelines is a great way to do that. I would be interested in seeing what the other

[1:35:47] Voice 4: options are in terms of approaching this from reviewing policies that already exist. Thanks.

[1:35:54] Voice 8: Yeah. Robert, you have the final word.

[1:35:58] Voice 6: Thank you, Chair. I was just going to suggest we could put the relevant sections,

[1:36:02] Voice 6: attach the relevant sections of those trust council policies 6.2.1 and 5.9.1 which have

[1:36:09] Voice 6: created this process to date and you can look at how they how those policies address major

[1:36:16] Voice 6: projects and how they really don't address minor projects at all i

[1:36:21] Voice 8: think that would be really

[1:36:22] Voice 8: helpful i am in favor of guidelines and criteria but i don't when i read this i feel i'm kind of

[1:36:31] Voice 8: washing around and I need more guide I need guardrails to get me to understanding these and

[1:36:38] Voice 8: how they fit with what exists so I'd appreciate a bit more time to review and that so thank you

[1:36:45] Voice 8: for that Robert and I hope you're packing your sun cream as we speak okay um right thanks very

[1:36:56] Voice 8: very much i feel um uh thank you for you know this meeting and the discussion and i feel we've had

[1:37:02] Voice 8: some really good discussions uh because we've had a little um you know less on the agenda so we're

[1:37:09] Voice 8: not driven to you know tick tick tick let's get going and i think we should unless anybody has

[1:37:16] Voice 8: anything else to raise raise your hand now i think we could adjourn this meeting is everything okay

[1:37:24] Voice 8: Okay with you, Stefan?

[1:37:25] Voice 8: Stefan, you want to say something?

[1:37:26] Voice 8: Go ahead.

[1:37:27] Voice 5: Thanks.

[1:37:27] Voice 5: Thank you, Chair.

[1:37:28] Voice 5: Just the opportunity.

[1:37:29] Voice 5: So February 6th will be a packed meeting from staff's perspective.

[1:37:36] Voice 5: You have a lot of things to discuss.

[1:37:38] Voice 5: I'm not sure if this will make it back on.

[1:37:40] Voice 5: It could be if it's only discussing 4.2 versus 4.9 and your guidelines there.

[1:37:46] Voice 5: But then there's the process of implementing this if we're going to amend Trust Council policy and stuff like that.

[1:37:51] Voice 5: So there's some things to work out.

[1:37:53] Voice 5: I just want to give you the heads up. We are planning a presentation from the biologist, an update on her work and towards wrapping up her term with us. There's a fair bit of work in there. We'll try to keep it short and concise, but she's done a lot. Making that short and concise, we're working that out now, as well as the implementation plan for the update to the bylaw enforcement policy project and update on the portal, as well as the implementation plan of that.

[1:38:22] Voice 5: that. So you might have a lot to say about that. Freshwater specialists will respond to all the

[1:38:27] Voice 5: requests you had. So those three items alone could be meaty for you, so to speak, as well as you've

[1:38:34] Voice 5: asked me to come back, report about some of these business cases. So I recommend that you come well

[1:38:39] Voice 5: nourished, bring some food, do jumping jacks if you have to. We'll get through it. I'll do whatever

[1:38:44] Voice 5: I can to make it easy and fun for you. But yeah, just

[1:38:48] Voice 8: thought I'd give

[1:38:48] Voice 5: you the heads up. It's going

[1:38:49] Voice 5: going to be quite packed and busy and as we get that full engine warmed up again i feel that

[1:38:55] Voice 8: robert may be changing his flight even as we speak so he can be here he's

[1:39:00] Voice 5: already gone oh no

[1:39:01] Voice 5: never mind oh you're

[1:39:02] Voice 12: making it

[1:39:03] Voice 5: absolutely irresistible and if i may chair one more thing

[1:39:08] Voice 5: we do have a rpm jammeret online uh we've been slowly transitioning of course knowing robert's

[1:39:14] Voice 5: going away for a bit. Various aspects of his work. Of course, we can't replace Robert. It'll take

[1:39:21] Voice 5: another 20 years to create another Robert. So we don't have that kind of time. We are in the

[1:39:28] Voice 5: interview process. It's going very well. In the meantime, we have the regional planning team

[1:39:32] Voice 5: aspect of Robert's work that he has been leading. RPM Jammer is picking up that,

[1:39:37] Voice 5: which means you'll be seeing her a lot more at these meetings, being able to respond to various

[1:39:42] Voice 5: various, um, um, projects, um, and timelines and those kinds of things with one other comment is

[1:39:49] Voice 5: that we're in the hiring process of a few Island planners, uh, as well as having an Ireland Island

[1:39:55] Voice 5: planner returning to us from leave. Um, so we should be seeing some resources, a few more

[1:40:01] Voice 5: resources. So you might see some faces you haven't seen for a while and that kind of thing, all to

[1:40:05] Voice 5: say change is afoot and, um, uh, we're going to miss Robert, but I think we're going to do well

[1:40:11] Voice 5: in this absence we've been planning as much as we can and so i i just would like to at this meeting

[1:40:16] Voice 5: say how much i've relied on robert since i've been a director and even since then since as a planner

[1:40:21] Voice 5: um just irreplaceable and uh thank you very much robert you've been um yeah a

[1:40:27] Voice 5: godsend for me thanks

[1:40:28] Voice 5: thanks stephanie

[1:40:28] Voice 8: thanks robert thanks okay without further ado uh i adjourn the meeting

[1:40:36] Voice 8: okay thanks everybody thank

[1:40:39] Voice 10: you robert bye thanks robert

[1:40:44] Voice 4: safe travels