Thread by @sebastiansajda

Good morning #SurreyBC! 🌞Big council day today. Check out the agenda here: surrey.ca/sites/default/…

Other than - of course - the big SPS untransition report, I am particularly interested in CR R211. This is followup from last council rejecting @MetroVancouver's Metro 2050 regional growth strategy.

There have been quite a few articles and many Tweets on the untransition report, most remaining fairly shallow on details or analysis (somewhat understandably). I will be interested to see what pushback council might have on any of the specfics in the report.

In other news, I had a dream last night that Elford and Nagra walked out during the untransition report and resigned. Not sure if I should be celebrating a nice dream or worried how much I am thinking about council. 🤔😶‍🌫️

Atrium at a decent size for a normal meeting, although givem the importance of the draft report to Farnworth I would expect more. Still 10 minutes or so for folks to show.

Media present as expected. Not sure what outfit.

Elford and Annis chatting it up before council. Talking RCMP report? Or is Annis give Elford Crime Stoppers tips to secure his bikes?

Council about to get started. Brenda calling the meeting to order. A few changes to the agenda before adoption. Locke bringing the RCMP report as the first item. I like this style of organizing meetings; put the big items at front so people can watch. A NoM was removed.

R224 being considered now. Retaining the RCMP in Surrey. Brian Edwards just say with staff; I suspect questions might be directed at him by council. Reports that SPU brass is in the building.

Division called (each item considered seperately). 1 passes. This is just to recieve the report. Now considering 2 which is the actual report contained in the appendix. Call for discussion. Elford is the only one whose mic lit up.

"I support the Surrey Police Service." - Elford. Saying this is the third CR considered on this topic. Says he doesn't trust the numbers; he is reading from a prepared statement. Laments lack of SPS report "for balance." Says he is dissapoitned with mayor introducing bad info.

Elford now citing the 10% increase in cost estimate for the SPS. Asking why numbers have changed. Concerned about possible costs of litigation and union dissolution. Says Locke should have known "there would be a price" for switching to SPS. Claims RCMP can't maintain staff.

Elford says we need the "community policing model" of SPS. Appealing to Farnworth to make the right decision. Also says only thing he is asking is to make the decision quickly? I think you are asking more than that.

Nagra lamenting that "Surrey Connect has already made up their minds on this." (What a joke, he was part of a solid 5-4 voting block for years). Reaction from the crowd, some jeers; Locke asks for decorum.

Annis once again mentioning she wanted a referendum; wants "the facts."

Annis saying Surrey Connect campaigned on over $500M savings. Also cites 10% SPS number. Now lamenting the fact her amendment to get an independent accountatnt to oversee the report (which is an insult to staff; implies city staff is biased). Yay! Locke making that same point.

Locke now warning council to not call the work of city staff political; asking for councillors to respect city staff. Stutt now. Responding to Elford/Nagra (Nagford? Elfgra?). Stutt says nothing they say is based on any facts. Nothing has shown they will do better than the RCMP.

"The SPS always says what they will do, RCMP has shown what they can do." and then cites the declining crime numbers. Says that Elford's comments that gov wants RCMP out of contract policing: not true. Now addressing Nagra and pointing out the situation for last 4 years.

Now he is pointing out the city is paying both sides of this debate. The longer this goes on the more money is spent. Says answers are here in the report. Now he says SPS has had the opportunity to present their side, but have failed to do so. Also defending the work of staff.

Very abbreviated applause. Kooner now. Going to ask staff questions to address issues Elford and Nagra brought up. Pointing out the CR only included operational costs and not capital and other expenses (IT is expensive).

Now saying that transition costs where caluclated based on 734 officers as the benchmark for both agencies. Asking now if we used 805 (which SPS says they need); what is the cost differntial if we use that number. Says 2.2 or a bit more million a year difference w/ those numbers.

Kooner now pointing out comments by Granum on Mike Smyth show. Asking about the IT infrastructure costs; says 11.6M has been spent. Says they are expecting to spend 25 million on IT. Asks if this number is included in the CR. GM of finance says no.

Kooner now asking about the training facility SPS wants. Says VPD spent $26M on such a facility. She does some inflation math I missed. Now asking if that has been included? No. Asking now if the money spent so far has been accounted.

The answer is no. GM of Finance now saying that the transition costs are only forward looking, so that number wasn't included. Now Kooner is asking what happens if SPS transition takes longer than 9 months allocated? Says if it took 18 months, could cost $65M.

Locke now asking if we can get onto another speaker. Kooner totally killed that line of questioning. This is also why I didn't bother responding to SPS supporters around costs. Much better for @PardeepKKooner to use her accounting background to lay it out like that.

@PardeepKKooner Hepner now asking what else could be bought with the money being spent on SPS. 4 Arenas? 2 Rec Centres? Hepner now saying RCMP has served us well for 70 years. Also pointing out @mikefarnworthbc has rejected a referendum.

Nagra asking how much cost would be to dismantle SPS (parenthetically says he doesn't think it will happen). GM of Finance (Cam) says $235M, which is in a table in the report. Cam warns there are many assumptions in the report, they aren't biased but we can't know for sure.

Cam says no way to know status of 39 assumptions in report until "there is only one police force standing." An amusing turn of phrase. Stutt now. Asking Cam if it is cost effective to keep RCMP. Cam: "Wouldn't use the word effective, would say it is less costly without doubt"

Cam goes on to say that the difference in cost between the two forces will grow as the force needed to patrol the city grows. Doesn't want to use the word 'effective' because that brings in the policing effectiveness piece.

Stutt now asking about phase 2. Says as SPS ramps up the RCMP would have to ramp down. Asking if there is a mechanism in phase 2 to account for transfer of capital or police personnel between the two forces. Staff now saying no, there is no current agreement on either of those.

Asking what the process going forward would be? Staff says the trilateral committee would have to sign off on it (city, province, and feds). Says that would happen in 9 months or so. Stutt asking why we haven't secured that agreement yet? Phase 1 not done yet, so phase 2 stalled

Stutt now asking if phase 1 is the easier of the two phases. Staff saying phase 2 has complications (capital transfer and personnel transfer). Locke asking if there are further questions. "Thank you for that robust dialogue."

Locke now. Says the work we are doing now should have been done 4 years ago. There should have been a feasibility study then. Maybe even a referendum.

Locke now reading a letter from RCMP mayor's council. They are worried about what transition in Surrey means for them.

(if the biggest RCMP force in the prov - no country - is disbanded, there are tonnes of knock on effects to the other munis that contract RCMP). Mayor's council wants to be a stakeholder in process.

Locke now saying RCMP are gold standard for policing in our urban centre.

Locke now thanking staff, GM of Finance, and Price Waterhouse-Cooper. Locke is now calling the question. Very weak comments from the 4. Seems like Bose ended up voting for it by not voting against it?

So I was right! It ended up 6-3.

Wait. Brian Edwards gave a bow upon leaving chambers. Are we supposed to be doing that!??!?!

Public hearings now. 2 pieces of correspondance. 1 against and 1 with concerns.

Richard Landale first speaker. Thanking city clerk for hearing assitance device.

But he says that trees have already been removed from that property; something like 100? Says this happened during bird nesting season (a serious no-no). Now asking about traffic. Why doesn't city allow access to traffic hub data; still hasn't been restored.

Richard now saying that the traffic hub being down and out of date is bad not only for him, but for other citizens and even the councillors. Next speaker. Owner of a nearby property. Her comments related to item 1 and 5. Her issue is road alignment.

Says more northwardly road alignment will cost her once they begin development. Wants centre at common property line for fairness.

Says they have been talking to staff for quite some time; says if they were able to have their concerns addressed earlier, it wouldn't have such an impact on the other nearby applicants. Speakers ends now and will return at item 5.

Owner of another nearby property. Also has an issue with the road alignment: why not in centre? Also wants a change in traffic signals; suggesting one of the intersections have just a left turn signal. Suggests a need to save (industrial) land since it is in such short supply.

The agent for the application now speaking. Directly addressing the road network. Talking about 30 avenue. Says there is a misalignment between the rights of way that needs to be accounted for. This caused the jog in the road.

No other speakers. Onto public hearing 2. Two pieces of correspondance in oppossition. 1 registered speaker (Richard). Says this area has been large single family homes historically (1 acre). Says 31 trees to be cut for two houses. Says not about affordable housing, but for $$$$

Says properties east and west of lot have also been subdivided resulting in 6 lots. This is contrary to historical character of neighbourhood. Asking this application be sent back to staff; too many errors.

Hub engineering rep speaking now. Variations are based on negotiations around access to the new homes to be built. Says most of the trees being removed to facilitate infrastructure (sidewalk widening, etc.,).

Hearing 3. Another subdivision. 2 pieces of correspondance; both against. Richard starts things off. Points out that this property is listed for sale and calls it "entrepreneurial." (Not 100% sure I understand the mechanics of how this is advantageous.)

Owner of the property now speaking. Says this lot subdivision is to build two houses to keep the family together and look after his ill mother (now passed away). Says that this development is in line with neighbourhood.

Public hearing 4. This is a big industrial building. 2 pieces of correspondance in opposition. Richard first. Puts this DP In contect of historical degredation of a once forested area. Also mentions no compensation for fewer parking spots.

Public hearing 5. If I understand correctly, this is adjacent to the property in public hearing 1. 2 submissions against, 1 with concerns. Richard starting things off again. Lamenting how hard Campbell Heights is getting hit.

Richard addressing the agent for the property briefly. Going on to speak about the road realignment. Not 100% sure what the exact alignment issue he is referring to, but he says staff hasn't included this information in its report.

Speaker returning from public hearing 1. Says they have provided a plan for recentering the road and hopes it can be accepted in an expedited. Says the private contract involved in this development should not impinge on the city as the city is not a party to it.

She also says that due to road issues, this might result in a landlocked parcel of land. Something the city should be avoiding. Calling again for a centered road out of fairness. Also says a straight road would help with future building design/layout.

Next speaker. Another return from public hearing 1. A landowner in the area. Emphasizing that a straight road will help traffic move; less idling or slowing down.

Number 6! 2 correspondance against, 1 concerns. First speaker Richard. He is bringing up some nearby parks which have rights-of-way running through them. Says application will destroy over 150 trees. He also laments biodiversity concerns aren't addressed by staff.

Agent for Hub engineering speaking now. Mike Compter. Saying some paths to be installed in area. Also saying they are working with city staff to deal with root rot cases in the area.

Public hearing 7. A CD amendment to allow a childcare space. No correspondance. No registered speakers.

Public hearing 8. Rezoning to allow a 6 storey apartment building. Richard starting us off again. Says he is familiar with area due to previous defense of Hawthorne park. Says there are plans to develop stormwater infrastructure; but there are mature trees there already.

Richard is now stressing the increased traffic this will bring; says developments like this strain all local infrastructure. Says TIA is not done and will come to late to help council make a decision.

Small mixup. Stated speakers not for this item, but for next item. Agent for the property speaking during open call. Very hard I am sitting like 2.5m away and I can't make it out. Cole swoops in and saves the day adjusting the mic so we can better hear the speaker.

He is now speaking to traffic analysis. Says report mentions site specific traffic report not needed, as it is below city threshold. Says it is a "really nice development." Says they have been working on it since 2018.

Last public hearing item (9). This is another 6 storey apartment. Richard Landale now. Objects to application. 6 trees cut with no contribution to Green City Fund. Says he realizes he won't be able to sway council, but says in the future people will hate driving in this area.

Agent from Zentarra speaking now. Saying they have programs to help out with urban forests/trees and highlights a community event they hosted recently. Very quick presentation.

Onto board/comission reports. Just one recommendation from Surrey Heritage Advisory Commission. Passes 9-0.

Mayor's report and governmental reports now. Of note is that Locke reads the proclamations while McCallum would have councillors do it. Not sure I particularly care one way or another, but that's a change.

There are also announcements of appointments to committees. There are only a few of these left (council needs to reform these, probably in Jan/Feb from what their work schedule looks like).

Corporate reports! R210 passes 9-0. Now R211 is a big deal. Annis moves and seconded by Hepner. Annis speaking. Suggests they endorse option 2, to reverse previous objection and accept report. Hepner complimenting staff on previous report. Elford now speaking to this now.

Elford says he supports Metro Vancouver sticking to just core services. He also said he was a Metro Vancouver environmental officer; I thought he was a _VANCOUVER_ environmental officer? Complaining about Metro Vancouver getting involved in city planning (See South Campbell)

Says he supports option 1. (Option 2 will win 7-2) Locke calling for division now. Nagra wants to comment. Nagra says since they are elected councillors they should make decision about Surrey (in truth, Metro makes very few decisions in Surrey. South Campbell Heights was 1-off).

Recommendation 1 fails. Considering 2 now (endorsing Metro 2050 as currently written). Elford is doing a really weird 1 finger hand up when voting now.

R212 passes. R213 passes. R214 passes. R215 passes. R216 passes. R217 widening of 80th (clerk points out a memo clarifying name of company). Elford is happy with this. Doug now talking about 84th avenue. What a nitwit. Nagra wanting to double many roads. Passes.

R218 passes. R219 passes. R220 passes. R221 passes. R222 passes. R223 and R224 pass.

Item 1 now... Hepner speaking to 30th ave extension. He asks about 30th avenue in the future. Nagra has similiar questions about that road dedication. Passes.

Item 2 passes. Item 3 passes. Item 4 passes. Item 5 now. This is the other property related to 30th ave. Passes. Item 6 passes. Item 7 passes. Item 8 passes. Item 9 passes. Item 10 passes. Item 11 passes. Item 12 passes. Item 13 passes. Item 14 passes.

Clerk's report now. Passes. Asking for notices of motion. None.

Hepner now saying he had an email that he forwarded to city staff. Some kind of a change from a residential property to a school property. Asking for a report from staff in future on this.

Bose wishes everyone a happy new year and a merry christmas. "I'm bot going to say it was awesome, but it was something." - @brendalockebc Mayor now also wishing happy holidays to city residents. Motion to adjourn.

Done.