Committee of the Whole

Good afternoon, View Royal, and welcome to this meeting of the Committee of the Whole.

Um this will be this will be a budget meeting in particular for the entirety of the meeting.

Uh I'm got a so I'm going to call this Committee of the Whole meeting to order.

We recognize the Lakwungan speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This afternoon we will hear from the public during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

And for members of the audience, the council chambers is a safe, respectful, and inclusive place.

All members of the audience are asked to refrain from clapping, cheering, or openly expressing your opposing opinions when others are speaking or when they are done speaking.

When it's your turn to talk, do not speak disrespectfully about anyone else, including council and staff.

Do not make statements or allegations that call into question the character of anyone else.

Do not use rude or offensive language.

Do not speak or act in an aggressive, bullying or harassing way.

Council wants to hear the views of those participating in the meeting in an open and impartial forum.

To provide comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during question period, you'll see a QR code or a URL on the live webcast stream screen or a URL on the town's website under live Webcast.

Scan the QR code or type in the URL and through the forum that pops up, type in your comment or question to be read out loud at the appropriate time by a member of our webcast team.

You will need to provide your name and street name on the forum or if you're speaking in council chambers.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda.

Question period is open to any question and is limited to two minutes for each speaker.

You will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

You're consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

So moved by Councillor Brown.

Secondary, secondary by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Motion approved, agenda approved.

And minutes of the previous meeting, motion to adopt.

Second.

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor, move adoption.

Chair's report, as I stated earlier, this is a budget meeting in which we'll be looking at the financial plan.

And uh through that, we'll be looking at uh various projects throughout that are proposed for the coming year.

And uh hopefully this will be a smooth and effective meeting, hopefully, and we hope to end end the evening.

This meeting will go into the evening, um, with some knowledge of what the tax rates could be um so uh public participation period we've got nobody in the in the chambers um carl anyone online or any calls chair we have uh no message on the message system this evening okay thank you very much and uh reports staff um it's over to you.

Staff reports 2025 draft financial plan.

Director vella, I would think this it's over to you.

Thank you, Madam chair.

Good afternoon, Council uh this report presents the 2025 draft financial plan for council's consideration.

I have just a couple of slides.

Little has changed since this information was brought forward during meetings in March, but I'll go over the highlights for you again.

My ask is that I may finish reviewing the information with you and then open it up for questions afterward if that works for you.

The budget is being prepared based on maintaining status quo service levels from the 2024 financial plan, plus non-discretionary increases, and new services or staffing either approved by council or referred to the 2025 budget.

The result is an increase in taxation revenue of $1.4 million or 11.25%.

Table two of the report breaks out the $1.4 million to display the main cost drivers.

Here is a chart displaying the same information.

You should also have a copy of the pie chart in front of you.

You can see that the uh increases relating to protective services make up the majority at a combined $900,000 of the $1.4 million.

Council's commitment to sustainable funding of asset infrastructure replacement accounts for $400,000 through contributions to reserves.

$60,000 for cost escalations relating to Greater Victoria Public Library and West Shore Parks and Recreation, including the continued shift from casino funding of West Shore Parks and Rec.

Staffing the IT coordinator position full-time contributes $54,000.

Staff project that development permit revenue will decrease by $72,000 in 2025.

This reduction, coupled with other operational expense and revenue changes, result in increased taxation of approximately $150,000.

Staff increased the budget for investment income, which has been quite favorable over the past couple of years.

While maintaining a conservative outlook, staff feel the $150,000 increase is appropriate, resulting in a slight offset of the overall taxation revenue requirement.

I'll just touch on strategic non-corn capital projects.

Given its size and staff capacity.

Projects are detailed in Schedule 2.1 and 3.1 of appendix A of the report.

Staff have provided committee with individual project summaries for information, and later we will deliberate the projects with a focus on the first two years of the plan, keeping in mind that outcomes of your decisions will have little impact on tax revenue as projects are funded from grants and reserves.

Two amendments have been identified which will be identity will be added to the financial plan for council approval.

They are the school district crossing guard program moving from an annual grant and aid to a core service item.

2025 funding was omitted from the draft budget in error, and $45,000 will be added to the transportation operations budget for 2025 to 2029, funded from Casino Reserve in 2025, then moved to taxation funding in 2026.

Capital Project C54, the Helmick and Curbs sidewalk from Eagle Creek Village to Aspire will be removed from the budget as per council motion at the March 18th, 2025 council meeting.

The 11.25% increase to an average home based on 2024 tax multiples and 2025 revised roll values, which is the final role for tax purposes, is detailed in Table 1 of the report and comes in at $249 per average valued home this year.

In terms of tax revenue reduction strategies, there are options available while maintaining existing service levels and the budget drivers as presented.

For every percent reduction in taxation, alternative funding of approximately $120,000 is required.

2024 saw an operating surplus of approximately $1.2 million, contributing to an unrestricted accumulated surplus of $8.4 million.

This number is not final with the town's financial statement audit being undertaken this week.

Staff recommend the use of unrestricted accumulated surplus as the tax reduction strategy.

Use of surplus is preferred over reduced reserve contributions while a contra while a combination of the two is a possible alternative.

Staff cannot stress enough the importance of maintaining the positive work council has done thus far to implement recommendations brought forward by sustainable by our sustainable infrastructure replacement plan, specifically increasing contributions to reserves.

Staff recommendation is that committee recommend to council that staff prepare the 2025 to 2029 financial plan bylaw for consideration based on the feedback received during the public financial plan consultation and today's financial plan recommendations both the financial plan and tax rates bylaws require final reading by may 14th thank you that is all for now and um happy to take questions thank you state um just before we get into questions can you um repeat did you give a number for the school crossing guard program right now we have a placeholder of forty five thousand dollars based on uh previous costs the most recent information uh that may be subject to change in the near future and so with that addition is that included in the 11.25 or would that even that's or would that be operational it is casino funded so there's no taxation impact on that okay thank you all right um questions for my colleagues counselor rogers are there did you sorry staff did you mention that um we had uh the feedback from the community was there a a table or or uh some survey results there are survey results attached to the draft financial plan report oh there's an appendix there okay um what it in this?

Or you don're doing no the the j the staff report actually.

Okay.

Okay.

Right, I'll I'll dig into that in a minute.

Uh if I may, another question.

Yeah.

That's the Rogers.

Uh oh, are we good?

Okay.

I was waiting for you to come back somewhere.

Hi there.

Okay, so um the recent um stock market turmoil.

Uh how does do how do we prove um consider, project, ponder uh the impact on our um revenue savings that is a good question.

Uh the town currently has as of as of the end of 2024 has 52 million dollars in cash.

And the money is sitting in um three of the chartered banks as well as MFA invested in uh interest-bearing financial instruments.

So in terms of the market risk, we we don't really worry about that.

It's mostly interest rate risk, which is affected by the economy if there's a recession and then um monetary policy by the the Bank of Canada could affect that.

And and so there is a little bit of risk there.

Uh that would be how I'd see that.

So are I gather then um our monies are we're in conservative um uh streams versus the uh uh tenuous situation that we see right now.

Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Okay, good.

Um I'm curious, um the the property assessments um uh uh can anyone speculate what kind of uh increased tax uh revenue benefits um we could receive with the new uh Canadian tire building?

I do not have that information in front of me here.

Because uh that would that would be interesting um to compare the tax revenue of of what we have today and and uh with the massive new building that's going on.

I'm sure that would be a considerable increase in tax benefit next year.

Okay.

Um that's uh my two main questions right now.

No other questions?

Um Mayor Tobias.

Yeah, thanks for um the report, Steve.

So um I uh can you walk us through a little bit about what you left for us?

Or is that later on the agenda uh on our tables about kind of explaining the pie chart and the um and this is specifically for the increase drivers for the um 1.4 million uh for increase saying i i just signed the e comm 911 just that uh sorry I didn't have my microphone on um uh some of the other things i think council's already aware of.

Victoria Public Library, we've already approved the information technology coordinator um position.

The uh the other ones seem to make uh sense, but I'm wondering if you the RCMP contract and civilian support, uh is that for another member plus another support staff?

Maybe that's a Scott question.

It's something that council had agreed to, but it's coming out of this budget as new increase, correct?

Um we might want to take advantage of the fact uh Chief Hurst is here, although he's maybe immersed in an emergency.

Um do you want to do you want to talk about the staffing increases for the fire department?

Yeah.

Just in in particular, um, you know, what was budgeted for last year and as part of the unionization and the service improvements related to the staffing?

Thank you, Mayor.

Of course.

So as a result of the uh unionization, there was some uh letters of understanding entered into with the with the local with respect to changes in their hours and shift patterns and that resulted in us having to acquire additional staff to make that happen.

So there was a uh proposal for I haven't got that document in front of me so about 99% here.

Um two positions uh last year and then two this year.

We had to shuffle that to take on uh three firefighter positions last year to achieve and satisfy that letter of understanding to get the staff to the two-day, two-night.

We we had until December 31st to switch over to that shift model.

Um so the original plan was a total of five people.

It was four firefighters and one assistant chief.

Um my apologies.

Um, so we hired um three firefighters uh right away to satisfy the MOU and then an assistant chief uh in secured that position in November of last year with a January start.

So there won't be any additional hires until there's one on the books for 2026 that we can discuss at a later later date.

But there's no more hirings for 2025.

Those have been satisfied, and we've met the uh the terms of the collective agreement with the unionized staff.

Okay, so for operational expenses for increase for this year, is that 100% staff or is anything coming out uh for the increase that is not capital?

Is that all staff right there, Paul?

For uh the half a million dollars or 400.

That is pretty much 100%.

And that's the the staff that we've already hired plus the assistance chief that we've already hired.

That's all that's done.

That's correct.

Thank you.

And that's for the full year, Mayor.

That's for the full year of 2025.

Full year.

Okay.

Thank you.

And none expected for next year, correct?

Out of that.

There is one position uh on the books for 2026, but we can have that discussion as we go into 2026 deliberations.

And so the e com uh is understandable.

Thanks, Paul.

I think you went through that, uh, Scott.

And with the e com as well, can you just confirm that there was another police officer the council had already been uh approved of commencing this year?

Uh there is no additional police officers added this year.

Uh last year we decided to add one to bring us to a complement of 14.35.

Um based on the cops to pop ratio.

We don't expect another police officer for a few more years.

Okay, and so the and and and but there was an increase to support staff or no?

Um there was about a seven and a half percent increase per officer uh cost for the RCMP.

And uh due to the sharing we do with Langford and Callwood and now Machosin as well, there was a new formula derived for splitting the costs of the municipal support staff.

Um council agreed to uh pay our fair share back in November or December of last year.

Um so I'm not sure how many uh municipal support employees that will relate to, but it's it's basically a a percentage share of the entire cost of the rule of clerical support.

Thank you.

That's all the questions I have, Chairman.

Councillor Manson.

Thank you.

I've expressed concerns over the years that we keep adding and adding and adding and we never look at the services that we are providing on whether there are savings to be achieved.

And I see this year we're adding 1.4 million dollars that's added to the taxes and will be carried forward forever.

Uh so 11 and a half percent increase and we will do something similar next year.

It might be a smaller number, but we continually add, but we don't ever subtract.

I know some of our residents think that we have great services in View Royal but they're really expensive at times.

And so I my question is have you looked at where we can make cost savings and reductions in services from what we currently provide?

Well, as you know, Councilor Mattson, it was a bit of an expedited budget process this year, but it it's important to have an ongoing service review for all of our expenditures.

So I would say one thing we're looking at this year uh is our contract with VIC contracting.

Um we provide the most amazing boulevard maintenance services.

Uh I think are the envy of the CRD.

Um but based on uh based on a recent quote, um we we may not be able to afford that.

So council's direction to staff has been maintain service levels.

Um we we got that loud and clear last year through the budgeting process.

So this budget is based on maintaining service levels.

Um if council would like us to look at changing service levels, we can um create a list of low-hanging fruit and bring bring those recommendations back to council.

I thank you.

And I I guess my comment is to my colleagues.

It's never ending, and maybe we should start looking at low-hanging fruit and the types of services we provide.

That's Fit Brown.

Just a quick comment on our fire service.

Uh kudos.

We had two calls for service to our residents at 199 Atkins.

Um as usual, you beat the ambulance, which I'm not downplaying the ambulance service.

They I know they're just have staffing shortages, but it was really impressive to see the chief and the deputy chief attend.

And for a change, it wasn't me you were coming to see.

So but but thank you for that.

And he's back home.

The fellow you took, he's back home now.

Uh Councillor McKenzie.

Yeah, just just a comment.

I I wanted to echo what Councillor Mattson was saying.

We just need to look to you know, provincial government.

They are not increasing funding, they're reducing funding, they're not staffing, they're not doing things like that.

And um, I'm sure the same thing is happening at the federal level and across all um governments, levels of governments.

So I think it's only fair that we also look to see where we can um reduce some of that impact on our residents because you know, the if you're talking about the stock market, things are just going to increase and we need to prepare for um not a great time ahead financially.

So thank you.

Councilor Roger.

Um it's one thing that we've we've identified that we want to maintain a level of service, but if the cost of maintaining that level of service, that seemed to be a great idea when we had lots of money.

And now, if I've heard uh correctly, the um the roads maintenance contract may be uh uh considerably more.

So I I think it's it's something in a lot of um residents have said um, you know, when the you know, the flower beds and so forth, um, it may be time to really start re reevaluating that level of maintenance and uh to um a scaled-down version that um would still be adequate, beautiful, but not as costly.

So that um I I went do we know when the next uh roads maintenance contract is coming due?

Ivan.

Thank you, Madam Chair Ivan Leoung, Director of Engineering.

Uh report, we're endeavoring to get one to council at the next council meeting.

Um kudos to Ben Lubertz, who's been working with Victoria Contracting on that contract and providing with myself and um Scott Somerville with numbers.

At this point, the contract will amount to pretty much the same as what you see in their budget.

What I mean by that is that uh staff have been doing estimates over the last few months as to what it could look like.

Uh we have asked Victoria contracting to sharpen the pencils a bit.

Um we're only out of probably a 1.8 million dollar.

She scratched that, but basically, there's only going to be a point zero or 0.3% increase to uh our transportation budget.

So there's only been a $5,000 difference between what you see in your operational package and what our contract is.

There's been several numbers going along.

This is the most recent numbers that we've gotten.

So it's pretty much on par with what we have estimated right now.

That said, it's a five year contract that we'll be presenting to council.

And should council wish to for us to explore other options, we can certainly do that.

Contract is expected to expire in May, though, so time is kind of the essence, which is why we want to present this to you on the ASAP.

And so that that'll be coming to us soon.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um if I may another another point that um uh yeah, I appreciate uh staff raising at the report is um the level of DCCs and fees and so forth from construction, as we've obviously seen in the monthly the comparisons uh year to year, uh, it's been significantly decreased.

Do we have a sense of um or a budget projection of what um reduction of um fees and services and DCC contributions from developers are likely to occur from the difference of two thousand last year to this year?

Any projections of reduction?

Uh Madam Chair, so DCCs are predicated predominantly on master planning.

So the soon the sooner that the town can get started on updating its master plans, the faster it can update its DCC bylaw, which as you know it's uh coming up in their five-year plan.

Uh we have generally uh provided increases um based on CPI, which is uh through the local government act we're allowed to do that, but that's as far as as we can do in terms of increases at this time uh until council adopts our future master plans.

We do have uh two this year and one next year.

Okay, so that I I guess that's um we were getting um maybe that that table and that showed us uh a simple one line color graph of you know one year after the next, and and we were doing reasonably well.

But um I guess I wonder how much less we anticipate we're going to receive, how that's gonna be spread, what those number those um those amounts typically went into and you know have we anticipated that and is that anticipation reflected in this budget increase what is reflected in the budget increase is the reduction in permit fees so that can be extrapolated um to the fact there there's not a lot of development going on in 2025 we shouldn't expect a lot in DCCs and and those typically go into reserves and form the pool of money that we draw from to do our capital projects.

So, you know, depending upon how how much is rolling in for DCCs and what the list of projects is that Ivan is speaking about will dictate how those DCCs are used in the future.

But I I would anticipate, I would expect them to do the contributions in uh DCCs to decline over the next year.

And on the same point, if I can, with uh Council McKenzie raised a good good point.

The province is scaling back, and we all know that the provinces canceled the gas tax.

They're cheaper at the pump, but that means we gather less revenues.

And so the um the gas tax contributions that municipalities will receive, and even though it's through UBCM, that's not a certain certainty anymore, is it?

Do we know when and uh how much that is likely to decrease if the provinces broke the bad news to us?

Uh we have not heard anything about a decrease in in uh gas tax.

Um can't guarantee it won't happen.

But uh I will state that unlike other levels of government uh municipalities um have to have a balanced budget.

So we we don't find ourselves in the same situation as the federal government or provincial government.

Um we're we're legislated.

I would say luckily we're legislated not to spend more than we have, and and so we don't have huge debt maintenance costs.

Um they're actually quite quite low in V Royal.

And hopefully we'll be insulated um from those impacts, but um hard to predict right now, isn't it?

I guess it, yeah, and it's also when looking at that gas tax column, well, which we have always taken for granted.

There's always going to be what half a million each year, no problem guaranteed.

Um, but uh I I think we have to think about um the uncertainty that it comes that comes about.

Um yeah.

Yeah, that would be a curious to see.

Okay, thank you.

Oh no, one more question.

One more question.

Um I'm trying to figure out the five year estimates of tax increase of it's 11 to 12 this year, how much next year, how much next year, how much for the five years.

Do we um do we have a breakdown of that?

I do not have that information here.

Because I'm wondering if we were going from a twelve to say a seven percent in the following year, would it be of strategic uh consideration that we might want to go half and half one year to the next?

We do show on page fifty-six of the report, um we do show a seven percent budget increase uh in twenty twenty-six, seven percent in twenty twenty-seven, six percent in twenty twenty-eight, five percent in twenty twenty-nine.

Um that that can be diluted by non-market change, which is new construction, um, but that is the total amount of taxation that we require to maintain the levels of service we currently provide.

So I I get I'll ask the question, knowing if, and thank you for the information.

If we're going from a 12 this year and we got a seven projective for next year, could we shift some of the uh projects to the following year to um uh keep it under 10?

Well two two things I I need to correct there.

Um the tax increase is not 12 percent.

Uh we're currently looking at 11 and a quarter.

Um and shifting projects does not reduce the tax burden.

Um contributing to the reserves reduces the tax burden.

Um so if we contribute less to the reserves um we push a problem further down the road and create an infrastructure deficit for future councils uh thanks and just um for colleagues i i know we've discussed service levels and reviewing those which i think we should do on a on a course but we've got to be a lot more specific than that like what services are we actually talking about what do we want to see done.

I think it's perfectly okay for council to go to staff and ask for uh a a staff report on adjusting those service levels and what it would actually look like as far as cost goes.

That's one thing as a council we have and we haven't done yet this term anyway is saying and I'm not sure Ivan if we're talking about boulevards does that come under parks or does that come under road maintenance?

Does come under road maintenance, right?

So we got to be specific about it.

We obviously don't want potholes like Montreal, but we might want to revisit boulevard maintenance, right?

Or whatever.

So as long as we're specific about that or give staff options to go uh to to deliver for us.

Um so I I'd be happy to second or or or move a motion that staff generate a report um that that is a review of services so uh council's informed on on what that looks like so uh our decision making would be our our current level of services if we consider that high um what would the impact be at a medium level of services means no flowers and I guess low would be putting astroturf like Langford on Oliver Boulevard uh which there's now weeds growing from um which needs maintenance so I I think there there's if we we just need to to make a motion for staff to come back so that uh in in in a way that council can make a decision on service levels, and if it's anything specific, then we could do that.

Councilor McKenzie, to your point, it could mean what what would the impact be if we didn't mow the first time in a park until I don't know, June, you know.

Um some of those things that could provide not only savings but might have some other benefits.

But I'm happy to second your motion that you were just referring to, which again to my mind would also include staff's opportunities for low hanging fruit as well as drops in service levels.

So if that's what you're looking at, that's your motion for, I'm happy to second it.

Yeah, and and I would that be for this, probably not this go-around, right?

Because we're kind of tight to get a staff report on service levels and have to make a decision by May, but that could be further.

But I we'd have to go to Scott for that to see if it was even viable for service levels.

I'm just maybe the low-hanging fruit ones they could pick out as for this year and maybe next year look at the service levels.

I'm I'm I'm cognizant that we're um talking over the chair, and that's never a good practice.

So was that a motion?

And did you let you now I can phrase it as one chair?

Okay.

So the the specific motion would be for staff to generate a report on service levels for council for uh in two parts.

One is for this fiscal year for anything that might be possible, particularly with contracts coming up, and number two, a more fulsome report going into next year for service levels for council to decide on.

Okay.

Um questions.

Council Brown.

Well, personally, that's just me.

I'm a retired police officer.

So to me, no call too small is important.

Whether it's police fire, ambulance, it doesn't matter.

People call and they want the service, and I uh I don't hear complaints from people.

I hear people say there was a pothole.

I called an engineering, well, not engineering, but our contract was out and prepared the pothole.

Um, I wouldn't want to start seeing this prioritizing calls.

Um, I know they did that in Burnaby, prioritizing calls.

And uh guy wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper said, you know, they should have a contest in Burnaby.

Everyone gets their complaint put into a hat and they draw one out of month, and then again an investigation.

And that's the last thing I would want to see.

We have good service, we have good staff.

Um, and as far as I know, our contractors do a good job as well.

Uh uh it's great.

You want low-hanging fruit, maybe we should take a look at um counselors' expenses.

I wouldn't want to be, I won't name the municipality, but you know, when you have all seven counselors going to AVICC, UBCM, uh, some going to the federal one, and people see that, and they are pissed off when they see that.

And there's no need.

We have no policy.

There's nothing to stop all of us from going to ABICC, staying in a nice hotel room.

In fact, when it's UBCM is here, you bet some counselors, I'm not going to name any names or count councils, some of them are going to be staying in a hotel, even though they have a house right here.

So low-hanging fruit, that's a good one to start at.

It it is, although you um you're right to to suggest it's not on this council.

No, it's not this council.

Right.

Um, who is next?

Council Councillor McKenzie.

Uh, just two comments on uh I think what Mayor Tobias was speaking about.

I do think some of the reductions could uh relate to this year's budget.

I know in again, different levels of government uh we've said here's our target reduction.

We want to reduce it by one percent, and then let staff figure out how they would meet that.

So that's uh and obviously that they might not get to that, but that's the goal, and they could um do that for this year.

And then um the other thing I just wanted to um touch on around you know, our levels of service in that survey in the report, you know, most of them are extremely satisfied.

And while that's great, we are a public service.

And how many other public services do you know are consistently getting extremely satisfied?

Um, so again, that's great to hear, but I think that's you know, we can we can um lower that service level to just satisfied.

Thank you.

Um there's room.

Councillor Rogers.

Speaking of the motion.

Um so I I I agree that um um we should be looking at uh the um particular road service maintenance contract that's um staff are going to be bringing us to to us very soon.

I would be very keen to hear uh since that report is coming to us, that we break out and understand the costs of the boulevard maintenance and to be able to in that um um avenue uh be prepared to negotiate for a um uh a lower standard of of maintenance because we're gonna have different plantings.

We're gonna have ones that will be a lot less labor intensive and still giving the the town uh a good um good look so um and uh to to councillor brown of course um dealing with safety issues like potholes obviously we would expect that to continue and snow removal and you know all those um important things but the um the beautification thing has to be reevaluated and i would appreciate staff coming back on that report when it comes to us to itemize that out and see what that costs so we can be informed ourselves as well as the public.

Thank you.

So um let's vote on the motion.

All those in favor of the motion to for a staff report on services.

Motion passes.

A question to staff and and my colleagues and this just to guide me here as chair uh we have we have several projects um associated with the financial plan do do we staff do we um colleagues um wrap those into the the um staff reports a one.

Or do we vote on the um staff recommendation that staff prepare the financial plan bylaw for consideration?

Thank you, Chair.

I believe what we're trying to accomplish tonight is have each of the directors present the new projects in 2025 and the new projects in 2026.

Um kind of the spirit of no surprises.

Uh a lot of these projects you've seen before.

Um, but we really wanted to focus on on the projects council hadn't seen yet or had changed.

So we we've sort of uh arranged ourselves to uh make director presentations and we would uh I guess we were hoping council would um what what uh Sarah Jones calls a negative billing option.

If there's a project in there that you don't want on the list, um, you know, certainly raise a motion at that point and and we could we could remove it or modify it.

But it's it's fairly pared down already.

And uh I like to think there's nothing on that project list that will surprise council.

Okay, great.

So once we've seen heard the the staff project um uh proposals, that at that point then we'll vote on the financial plan as a whole.

Yeah, we're we're seeking direction and recommendations tonight.

Um ultimately uh we've got to go away and and develop a uh bylaw, um and that will ultimately be uh council's final say on the financial plan.

But um we're we're really seeking guidance here tonight.

Okay, so then can we move on to the projects starting with still have a question?

Go ahead.

But you were first.

You were you were first.

Uh I I think there's an a number of ways we could do it.

We could go through this, but um just for my colleagues, if we want at the end of this to turn to staff and say we would like a a uh tax increase of no greater than X after we hear everything, please give us some options to reach X uh in a report that would come for a meeting next week, Scott.

Am I saying that right?

Uh that report is before you this evening.

So if council would like to set a a target for taxation um we have a few recommendations that director provided earlier um and and keep in mind that projects do not affect taxation so um this is more about uh the the merit of the projects themselves as opposed to any perceived impact on taxation but certainly setting um setting a uh tax rate that council's comfortable with is is a good way to go about it and and staff's recommendation is we can borrow from prior years accumulated surplus to balance the budget.

We don't want to do that every year um it it's kind of a rainy day fund, but it it's uh it's a way to reach that goal of taxation without disturbing the budget too much.

Thanks, Scott.

And I uh j just for my colleagues, I think we were a bit overzealous last year of cutting deep into capital projects that didn't affect taxation at all.

We just got on a bent and started doing what we could to save things, and we got all wound up about saving money where it probably didn't affect the the operate or the operational budget, which is really our taxes.

So I council can do as it wills.

I'm not supportive in postponing or shipping problems to the future of us doing a project because it's uh out of casino funds or or reserve that if we don't do that, then it it will cost us more next year as we're seeing now cost of construction or building anything is not going down.

So if we're deferring something, then all I'm saying is we gotta be prepared to pay more later.

Uh and if it's not going to affect taxation, then I would uh need strong justification to support uh putting off a project that in the end we've asked for either through a master plan or some sort of other planning.

Thanks, Chair.

Council Swimetsk.

So one of the concerns I've expressed over the years was the amount we spent on consultants year after year after year.

And one of the things I'd heard was we need these additional staff, different increased staffing levels because it's going to reduce our uh the amount we need to spend on consultants.

And uh I still have concerns that the number of dollars I see spent on contractors, even in this budget.

So I I guess when staff go through these, if they could take provide comments on why staff can't do some of these and we have to hire consultants.

And I'm all for when we've actually have a grant from someone to spend that money doing a project.

That's fine.

But you know, it may be from casino or or from another pot from the town has, but it's still the town's money that we're spending on consultants.

And in general, I'm I find that very frustrating because I think we've got a lot of staff and maybe work can be jigged around so that the work can be done by staff as opposed to the consultants the and the other thing i heard from staff was sometimes we have too long a list of projects whether they be capital projects and staff just can't get to them all in a year so it'd be nice to actually see whatever the list is prioritized on the things that staff feel that absolutely have to do this year versus those that can be delayed just because some of them might not get to anyway but they're on the list and they can be pushed back uh and they may be pushed back just because we don't have time energy or staffing resources versus we're trying to just save money on projects okay counselor routers then we can perhaps so uh just point a clarification in uh the presentation there was uh there's an eight million dollar surplus uh where have we put that and how we use that so far that is a portion of the 50 million dollars i referred to in uh in terms of the end of 2024 it's not committed it's available for use for general operations.

It's not not committed in this budget at this point.

Thank you.

Yeah and and to uh uh council maxie's point um um, I see we have a number of projects, but what impresses me is that we are having to update all our master plans.

And I really respect that, but uh updating those master plans.

But we are saying we've got projects we want to do before we update the master plans, but maybe if we do those right now, the uh master plans may have said, no, you don't need to do it, or we could have been more efficient in having that opportunity to get the community public their response and feedback about a particular project, as opposed to investing, you know, in um 12 different parks.

So that's just one of the things that I'm thinking, I'm seeing here.

You know, I see the projects, I see what we're spending now.

Could we do those before or after those master plans?

So that'll be the point I want to focus in on today.

Okay, so what's your pleasure that we move on to the projects now?

Good.

Dr.

Taylor.

Good evening, uh Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Leanne Taylor, the Director of Development Services, and I will be presenting on three new projects that are coming forward in 2025 and 2026.

So if you I hope everyone has their draft financial plan.

So I will take you to the first summary, project summary, which the number is N-083.

The project name is Secondary Suites Online Renewal.

And this project council considered a few years ago with a project budget of $25,000.

And the purpose of this project is to allow type 2 secondary suite permit holders to renew their permits online, similar to how we do that for business license renewals.

And there is a desire with our ever increasing online world that the community is seeking convenience of interacting with the municipality in an online format.

And this will also help streamline and reduce the amount of staff time that is involved in doing manual renewals of 244 type 2 secondary suite permits on an annual basis.

Back in 2020, the project budget was 25,000 and we were able to reduce it to 5,500 because a lot of the work was done in-house and then it was put on pause.

However, we do need a consultant to help us get it to the finish line.

And this proposed funding is going to be uh sourced through casino revenue.

Um Leanne, would this be a standalone this or would it be linked in?

There was another project that that encompassed, well, what did it encompass?

This will be a standalone project.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Um in this binder here, um, the one that we received, uh, there was a N130 and a C 185, both of which, with respect to uh this this uh project, permits and licensing portal.

So, you know, I've got one and both were the same amounts of money in year one, year two.

So does that mean that we're going to spend um 440,000 this year for N130 and 40,000 for 185?

Through the mayor, they are both, or through the chair, they're both separate projects.

And so the secondary suite renewal work was done by the town in-house several years ago, but it was put on pause because um there was a thought that these permits are not licenses or not licenses, and so we don't want to treat them as licenses in terms of um renewals, but we're just we're not talking about the type of is it a permit or a license, we're just talking about the ability for our residents, people who have type two secondary suite permits to renew their licenses online instead of coming down to town hall to renew.

And we've done this, we've done a lot of the work has been done.

We just need to get to the final stages and getting up and running.

Okay.

Um, I'm not making myself clear.

There is a N130, which is the permits and licensing portal.

Then there is a C185, exactly the same title, exactly the same cost.

Or are there is it is it uh so that's my confusion.

Why is it in the N?

Why is it in the C section?

And um are we actually going to be paying 80,000 in year one or 40?

Um there's two separate projects, and so I will get to um uh N dash one hundred thirty and C dash one hundred eighty five afterwards.

Okay.

And um the reason why it's like this is because well let me uh the there are two separate projects, so I d I don't want to I don't want to muddle the two of them.

And that that was my question, um Councillor Rogers, and she's you did say it was stant away.

Uh council McMurdo.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a typical fee cost?

The renewal fee is a hundred and fifty dollars.

And um is it safe to assume that now the provincial government's pushing more secondary suites, carriage homes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that possibly the revenue from that will go up?

The um council may recall back in 2023, staff brought forward a report to um get rid of type one secondary suite permits because these are secondary suite permits that comply with the BC building code, and we're just we're double dipping and we are creating more bureaucratic bureaucratic process um um for for secondary suites, whereas uh type two secondary suites are ones that do not comply with the BC building code.

So back in 2007, I believe when counts when council approved the secondary suite permit policy and bylaw um at that time people in the community who had uh secondary suites that were that were built um likely not with permits um were able to keep those provided that they keep they apply for a type two secondary suite permit and renew it annually and it basically it's it's to um to to protect the town of of any of any liability of something that were it ever to occur in these these secondary suites so and it's also important for renters to know that just FYI the suite does not have a uh building permit and of course with the system it would give staff time to do work and other other things right any number of things correct there are staff spend a lot of hours dealing with um sending out secondary suite permit letters um through our mailing system where we could just make this all digital right and the mailing system would cost about five thousand a year as it is yeah I'm not sure how much it costs do we have a motion to um approve staff recommendation oh director jones i i would suggest that um as we we could just do the negative option billing which is things can stay in unless they come out if that would be acceptable to the committee yeah okay so it stays in yeah does that mean someone needs to ask for a vote if they don't like something okay next.

Thank you, Chair.

The next project summary is n 130 permits and licensing portal.

Or C one or C 185.

Yeah.

And I'll explain why there's two.

Yeah.

Yes, C-185 and N-130 are the exact same project summary.

The reason why they have two project numbers is that in year one, uh 2005, the the funding source will be uh casino revenue.

And uh the second year it will be, well, they're both be, pardon me, um yes, so it takes uh casino revenue, and then into the future it would be uh capital.

So let me explain what this project summary is about.

So in the 2025-2027 IT strategic plan, the development services department identified business goals, barriers to achieving those goals, and strategic initiatives to overcome the barriers to provide a high level of customer service and processing building permit applications, to support building inspection services, which are crucial for maintaining health, safety, and compliance with the town.

A building permits portal has been identified as a strategic initiative to significantly improve business value, workflow efficiencies, streamlined application processes, and customer service.

Furthermore, a portal will make it easier for the public to request, submit, and pay for permit fees online to eliminate the need to visit town hall in person.

This project would be undertaken in two phases.

So the first phase would be exploratory, so in 2025.

And what this would include is looking at the building permit workflows, the context, integrations, and processes.

We'll undertake a thorough requirement, thorough requirements for elicitation with all stakeholders.

And then we will review modern web-based software services and carry out a cost benefit analysis to determine the optimal software to meet the stakeholder requirements.

So that would be the first phase.

And then phase two would be to develop a portal.

So that would be in 2026.

And this would be funded using casino revenue.

Yeah, I'm just gonna if you don't mind.

Um this would be residential, largely commercial, but it wouldn't it wouldn't apply to developers.

Am I right?

This would uh apply to building permit applications, and so all building permit applications as well as plumbing permits.

Uh it is a it's it is a very big project.

There are other municipalities within the region that who have started this project, it's a multi-year project, um, to try to get uh your the workflows into a digital format, into a digital application format.

And so again, it's to improve workflow efficiencies.

This is the way of the future.

Uh there are a lot of different uh software options out there.

Um the province has also is also establishing a portal.

We have met with them and unfortunately um their portal is is used um on a different um with Tempest, and we don't have Tempest, and so but there's other options out there.

Honey, anyways, it's a uh a way to um improve workflows, business values.

Got it.

But my question was it excludes development permits, simply building permits.

Currently, but we're hoping in the future that it will incorporate um development applications.

Um it is easier to start with building permits, uh, and there's a lot, building permits are a lot more um involved, and there's a lot more documents going back and forth uh through the building permit process and inspections, and uh it will make our building services department uh a lot more efficient.

Thank you, Leanne.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, now I understand it one one is the um uh capital and the other one's the operational right and um it it kind of confusing that there would be the capital in year two when the operational is year one consultant to do with the operational is that a consultant it's a consultant that is correct we will we will require consultant to assist us with this okay project so this is then um the consulting and then the implementation correct uh huh-huh.

And thereafter it uh falls under taxation as is as an ongoing maintenance or whatever.

I will have to refer that question to our director of finance.

Okay.

It would, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

That helps.

It would be helpful, you know, for um it took a while for me to grasp this, but um, yeah, additional words were to help me along.

Thank you.

Yeah, so again, my frustration of having to hire a consultant.

Uh the other part I don't know is like how many of these are there a year and what what's the cost of processing now versus what will the savings be if this was implemented?

Like is the town gonna save money, is gonna keep us from needing to hire somebody else, uh, or if we're already currently doing all the building permits and plumbing permits in person.

Um what's the benefit to the town for spending 90 000 and will we make that money back through the uh through the chair i i can't answer the question if we're gonna um get our money money back that's kind of a a loaded question um but what i can say is that uh our processes are very manual and take a lot of staff time and there are other projects that it would be great that staff could work on, but they just don't have time to work on it because we we deal with because our processes are quite manual.

Um when we look at our mailouts, when we're looking at um our sending out um notifications, when uh there's back and forth between the applicants on the different applications.

And so uh it's it's a way to improve customer service, um streamline the process, improve efficiencies, and um and also um protecting our records as well as we move to more of a dig into the digital world.

So McKenzie.

Yes, so you mentioned the provincial governments um system that they've been developing.

So I I don't know a ton about it, but I have heard about it, and it's part of the, you know, the province's goal of expediting, you know, development and and the housing targets.

Um so I was wondering, do you know would there have been a cost if we had gone with their portable portal?

Or the province is still developing their portal.

And again, it it's it wouldn't be compatible with our our software that we have.

It's comp they've been working with municipalities who have Tempest.

And so I have met with the province on on their portal to learn more about it.

They're in the sort of the infancies of it too and they have they're piloting it with other municipalities.

And it's it's um but it's it might not be sort of a one fit, you know, it uh what is the word I'm looking for so uh sock can be it might be not a one fit all like it's that's not coming out right but it it might it as part of our exploratory work we will look into it a little bit further but at the same time too they might have a long I don't know what their time frame is go ahead um yeah sorry I I'm not sure what Tempest is but um I just know like they're probably going to be continuing to look at it that portal and whatever they're doing is going to continue to work and and I wouldn't want us to lock ourselves into a system that um in the future might not be compatible with additional um things that their system can do.

So for instance if they move to a thing for prefabrication and in the in their portal you can have the measurements that are uh in line with our bylaws already set up in there and that's something that the province's system can do in the future I wouldn't want us uh to be with a system that we couldn't benefit from that in the future so I I would probably want to align with the provinces system if we could it's really hard to it's really hard to say um again we'd have to do like um the first the first year is is exploring the different the different options out there and uh I I I can't make assumptions right now because there's a lot of work to be done.

Um Leanne, my struggle with this is that there's there's months when you report to us on building permits and it's like a deck, and that's all there was.

Um there's so few building permits come our way, and and uh you know, granted I don't know all the work that goes on behind it, and and we do have a small staff.

Um that you know, sometimes I'm surprised at how little building there is in this town.

That's all.

That's all I've got to say about that.

Council Brown.

Just a comment, uh t tempest is amazing.

Is that what you're gonna use, Tempest?

No.

No, we don't have that.

Okay, because uh that's what uh that's what C or D uses for uh dog licensing uh file uh for electronic files um system and uh I know the revenue increased dramatically when they use that, but anyways, if not using it then as a moot point.

Counselor Matt.

That's a quick one.

Do you Scaff have the skills necessary to do the work that the consultant is gonna be hired for to do?

No.

Um Mayor Tobas.

Everybody's chiming in, I guess.

Um uh I've just got uh uh one point, and I uh similar to the um comment that Councillor McKenzie had, I'm really supportive in you digitizing and being able to offshore some of the boring stuff off your desk and getting on to meaningful work.

I think that's important.

Um, but I don't know how you would build this for the amount that you've got for $90,000, to be honest with you.

Um that's specific to View Royal, the same with um the next project.

My concern there is that um we'd greatly exceed that and then probably look at operational, what's the total cost of servicing that over a period of time?

I would be really supportive of looking at combining um this into something that we could work with other communities on, like um surely Langford or Callwood or Sanich has a system that's online and does everything that uh they need to do that could create some efficiencies.

But are we able to replicate some of the work that's already been done or are we creating a bespoke system for VROF?

Um so the places uh so Sanaich, um actually Sanich is one of the the pilot the is part of the province's pilot project, but they also have uh they have tempest.

Uh Victoria has Tempest.

I've you I've I'm I you've I've used Tempest.

Uh Langford does not have Tempest.

Uh Central Sanich as well, they also have Tempest, and they're also doing this work right now as well.

Um that I'm aware no, uh they have a different, and uh they are also working towards um having uh an application portal as well.

One more question.

Operational costs.

I mean, I've seen us put systems in place where we then have like a 10 or twenty thousand dollar a year cost to maintain these and keep them up and running.

And so do we know what the operational costs for whatever this is, if and when it's created would cost uh we do not have that information yet.

It will really depend on um the results of the phase one of exploring the different options out there and those costs and how much it would be to build and making sure that the software is compatible with our current software that we use in in in the finance department.

Okay, um colleagues keep it or drop it.

Well, I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy, so I'm happy to have a vote.

Okay.

Yeah, I I would I'll I'll toss this motion out there, colleagues, and see if there's a secondary.

I for this one and for the next one, and maybe even including the permitting thing that we didn't have an issue with.

I would be more than happy for staff to come back with uh an options analysis uh for us that might be a little bit of money, right?

To look at options that might meet staff's needs.

Um, but it's an overall how we're gonna blend that into total cost ownership to your point, um Councilor Mattson.

Like what's it gonna cost to maintain over time some of these questions and how compatible might it be with the province?

So I I'm I'm not suggesting that we don't need to do this.

What I am suggesting is if we're gonna look at this and probably look at a greater IT project, then um let's get some options analysis for the sum of things we need.

So um I would be in support of not supporting these, but uh have staff come back and replace it with an options analysis that would fit in with their system if I could get a seconder.

I'd be happy to second that especially if it includes seeing if we can work with other municipalities.

Doesn't make any sense that each of us goes and creates our own system.

All those in favor of um the motion for staff to develop an options analysis disposed motions passed.

Just to clarify, is that an option analysis with um that we do in-house without a budget or how I'm I'm not totally clear.

I I was thinking that there if you came back to us with um we would need a consultant for an options analysis, it might cost some money to do it, but it would probably uh working with director of finance and the uh CAO look at the sum of everything, like would it make sense to move to Tempest or whatever?

But yeah, I would come back to us with a dollar amount that what it would cover and that would might be uh a thing.

That's what I meant.

Council Brown.

I'm certainly not an IT specialist, I'm not a salesman for Tempest, but um to me it it it it it it potentially uh it's it's basically off the shelf.

So I I don't know have you even have has it been considered or even looked at?

Um we're not considering changing our accounting software.

We were on our third director of finance in the last six months.

Now is not the time.

I'm just hoping we can be a little more binary about these projects and just a a simple yes or no will work.

We don't need to problem solve and come up with options.

Um we hear you loud and clear this project will be shelved for for the 2025 budget, and uh we'll move on to the next project if the chair sees fit.

Director Jones.

I just wish to seek clarification.

Is that C one eighty five and n 130 okay one is one is getting the contract consulting the other thing offer and going to think that you have probably one follow the other so effectively we're shelving it for now got it okay so the last project summary that i'm going to present this evening is the parks and trails master plan n 129.

The town's 2023 2026 strategic plan contains a goal under Strategic priority A, Enhance Livability, which states the following Goal 6: sufficient and appropriate parks and open space.

To achieve this goal, the work plan includes two projects: update the parks master plan and develop a trails master plan in 2026 and 2027.

This is stated in the strategic plan.

Given the interconnectedness between parks and trails, it is recommended that the town develop a combined parks and trails master plan.

This plan will guide the future of the town's parks, shoreline accesses, and trail networks, and ensure they will reflect the evolving needs of the community, promote active lifestyles, and protect the natural environment over the next 10 years and beyond.

This would uh follow the OCP review and update.

Combining the two projects will likely save the town money because we will be doing engagement on both.

Engagement is a huge uh cost, and uh we would likely um do uh do that in-house, and um it makes sense to do both concurrently.

So this project would uh start next year in 2026 and uh be completed in 2027.

But I'm speaking to it because uh we're talking about our first the projects over the next two years.

This project would be funded under our local government climate action program.

We have LG Cap money that must be used up by a certain time.

This is the perfect project for that because it'll have a climate focus, and um it will also be funded with casino revenue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I fully support uh what you're proposing.

But my question is that we have, and as we've identified in the uh staff's report uh on the front, uh we've got a um this parks master plan, we have a Helmican Centennial Park Master Plan, we have a View Royal Master Plan.

So is and and one of the things that concerns me, but the Helmican master plan is happening in the same year, proposed year two, um, yeah, as this one right here.

Could we there would be an uh and because everyone's gonna be coming together, everyone's using the same parks, we don't have a uh you know, a lot.

Is there any um rationale to separate these three parks into separate plans with the um through the chair?

No, the town, it's important that town has an a master plan of our park all parks and trails in the town.

Um, you may recall um by considering the Halkin Centennial Parks Master Plan, that is more of um a detailed getting into the weaves, we weaves, weeds uh master plan.

It's very specific.

Uh whereas a parks and trails master plan is a bit to a certain extent more high level in terms of policies.

Um, but um a master plan gets down to the details like where are you gonna put a plague around?

Where are you, you know, where are you gonna undertake some greenshores work where it gets into the specifics?

Whereas a parks and trails master plan doesn't get into the the design of a park specifically.

So they are two separate projects.

However, you make a really good point, Councilor Rogers, is that some of these parks projects, there's um going to be quite a few of them take place in 2026.

Um some of these have been um in the in the strategic plan for a couple of years now.

Makes sense to complete them after the OCP, and we'll be able to combine engagement on them.

So we're not reinventing the wheel multiple times, and so um we don't get engagement fatigue.

But um it's it the both projects are separate, um, but we will there'll likely be some synergies between the two as well.

So if I if I can just clarify or understand, you're suggesting that um we carry on with the Parks Master Plan, because it was 2017 and pretty old, uh, but we would probably leave the Helm to uh a subsequent year after that.

Uh no, it's in the budget for the Helmkinson Tennessee Parks Master Plan to um to be um kickstart in next year in 2026 as well.

Um, because again, we're looking at the whole town.

Um the Parks and Trails Master Plan is looking at the entire town, um, not into the the the details of a specific park.

And uh again, uh this is also comes out of the strategic plan as well.

Okay, thank you.

Good to keep it a question another question yeah so did you say two questions one of them did you say it was being done in house and two what are we getting for what's that cost of a hundred thousand for no we're not doing the master plan in house uh we'll be doing the similar to the OCP we would likely do the engagement in house because we have um the entire we have a team um but when you do a parks and trails master plan there are um uh and who knows if you know if council wants to um hire uh a temporary you know to someone to has a park background to to do a to do um to work on this plan in-house um on a temporary basis that's something that we can definitely look into but um no the it's um it's a fairly large project and um we we would be looking at consultants um for for that in uh this isn't again in in 2026 okay thank you so for me it's a lot of money and I'm not sure what we're getting still so I'll have a motion that probably won't go anywhere but I don't want to do we have a secondary I'll second it.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Do you want to motivate?

Again, it's another $100,000 worth of consulting money.

I don't know what how better off we will be at the end of this than we currently are now.

And so because of that, I'm reluctant to spend the money.

Yeah, and I um unfortunately I don't think we're going to be expanding our our parks in any way.

If anything, the land is getting more scarce with the developments.

So I'm not sure how uh, as Counselor Matson said, the value to review and and do this, what is the uh additional value that residents and us get from that?

Um, I don't see it given that we're not expanding our parks and trails.

I'm gonna speak in favor of it mainly because we do have park land that is undeveloped, that's a little road.

We've got the largest density densification that we've ever done right next to it.

We do need a plan, right?

Otherwise, people will be using that piece of land for whatever they desire to use it for uh without a plan, without any support.

And I think as we densify, our parks are gonna become that much more important to us.

Um, you know, my my question uh that I get frequently is balancing out not only the dog parks, but also children's play areas.

I I don't believe it's the responsibility of developers to put those things on what limited land they do have available uh for us.

So I think I think we do have an obligation to look to the future on this one.

And I think if I had a heuristic that was guiding me, it's saying don't cut anything that's forward looking that's possibly gonna cause us problems down the road.

I think having a plan that we could get is is important for uh our planning is just as important as the OCP to ensure that we do that.

I in my mind I question um how what is our balance for park space um proximity to that park space with new developments, right?

Are we being fair about it right um you know even to something like land banking or if land does become availability we've got a very high density area council should at least be considering um you know uh with that development uh the purchase of of land next to us for green space so i i i'm supportive of this um i think uh it says it's it's view royal we're about parks and spots and uh i think we need to look to the future with our densification to balance that it thanks chair.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah i i speak in favorites well.

Um we have um had uh a number of trail projects and and thank you very much for putting trails and embedding this into the plan.

Um we made a huge mistake um um when we were doing back in 2017, we took trails out.

It was a really dumb idea, but we took trails out.

And I think it was because we were frustrated with the limited funds and the limited skill sets of our consultants to be able to handle the whole concept of trails.

So um uh we got what we paid for.

Um but uh indeed um you know the the whole high high level of you know, like the little little road.

We could do a local plan, but this is has uh regional municipal ramifications that you can put on there, and it's an opportunity to tell everybody about that.

Yes, we will have uh parkland uh that is uh you know extremely valuable, ecologically uh remarkably sensitive, that we uh should be considering protection of.

So it's um uh it's it's very much necessary necessity and necessary necessary.

And the other thing too is that if we're going high density in any particular places and we have these really pocket parks, that's going to be an aspect that um I think we've never had a concept of that we should now start seriously assessing.

So thank you for uh putting this forward.

Just my last comment.

One last kick at the can.

Yeah, we've had a number of parks plans that come out, and a number that I've been really unimpressed with, and um, you know, I I don't get any confidence from this that this is gonna be something that's gonna do the things that you suggested.

I don't keep um yeah no sorry um that was my my thought as well like under the proposed project objectives I fully think yeah what um mayor uh tobias was saying is important but it's only one bullet in in that list and I hope should this continue this um project go forward I would hope that would be the focus as opposed to reviewing existing parks and how we make improvements to existing parks.

Okay, well personally I think this says Vie Royal like no other project um so I'm in support.

All those in favor of um councillor mattson's motion to deny this councillor mattson and counsel McKenzie though um those opposed to councillor mo counselor matsen's motion motion defeated so we keep the parks and trails master plan thank you director taylor.

Hello.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council, uh Paul Hurst, Fire Chief and Director of Protective Services.

Um I'm gonna go over our project summaries for 2025.

Um I'll note that all of the uh fire emergency program and bylaw uh capital projects for 2024 were completed on budget.

There are no outstanding twenty twenty-four projects.

For twenty twenty-five, there's six projects um that I have proposed for a total of two hundred and nineteen thousand.

The breakdown of those six projects, there are three involving the fire department worth 56,000, two in the emergency program for 108,000, and one in the bylaw department for fifty fifty fifty-five thousand.

Of those six projects, five are funded by casino.

One is funded by grant.

So the casino funding for four of the projects is 171,000, and the grant funded project is 48,000.

I just wanted to note before I go any further.

Um Captain Mullen in the emergency program and firefighter Eason in the FireSmart program for 2025 have already secured uh 518,000 in grants and funding for projects for 2025-2026.

As for existing projects in the 2024-2025, um, over the next three to five years, those will expire.

I don't anticipate any significant capital projects for the years 26 and 27.

Focus will be on um collective bargaining and uh upcoming labor costs.

So as I move into the capital projects, I will point you to C 190.

Project summary is for the bylaw department and it's in office reconfiguration.

It's moving our bylaw officer and clerk from inside the fire station to upstairs to one of the vacant spaces that is currently a vacant apartment.

As part of the department's uh construction plans and expansion plans, when we built the four apartments upstairs, it was anticipated that as the fire department expanded and services grew.

Those um units, as they became vacant, we could convert those into office or storage space.

Uh currently, one two of the units are rented out to paid on call members.

One of the units is now occupied by the emergency management uh department, the ESS group, and we have a vacant one that we're going to move the bylaw office upstairs into simply because we need the office space in the fire department.

There is a capital cost of approximately $55,000.

That includes uh all building renovations, office furniture, wiring, IT, computers, that's all uh baked in our preliminary cost estimates or quotes that we've been received down.

I've shown it's uh under fifty five thousand,000.

So I anticipate that coming in under budget, and I'll adjust the budget accordingly with the director of finance when those final numbers come in.

The second project.

Oh, sorry.

Any questions on that?

Um, who is first?

My apologies.

Allison.

My uh okay.

My question is um, does the bylaw officer have to be on site?

Is this a job that could be like done elsewhere, like hybrid from home?

Like in my mind, the bylaw officer is often out and about, anyways.

Um, so just wondering if it needs to be at the fire hall.

That's a fair question.

I I'll position my personal philosophy on working from home.

I'm not a I'm not a supporter, I believe, in seeing the lights of the eyes and and interacting with the employee.

You're right, the bylaw officer does spend time outside the office.

Um right now the bylaw clerk and the officer work together.

So of course the clerk takes the complaints, compiles the files, the officer comes in in the morning, grabs those files and and does the business that he does.

Um I'd never considered a hybrid model of being outside.

Uh I did explore the options of moving the bylaw department, the officer and the clerk down to here to the city Hall, but this building is is maxed out in its space, and they're doing a reconfigure there as well.

And I figured with the the available space in the fire hall, moving them upstairs would be the next viable option.

But no, I hadn't I hadn't considered a viable option.

The officer does spend a considerable amount of time in the building other than the patrols in the morning.

It's sort of you pick up your files in the morning, uh, you organize your day, you're out on the road, you're back by lunch, and then you're usually in the office doing the files for the afternoon.

Our First Nations liaison officer, uh Corporal Brewer.

Um, will he be working under that office or is that space available to him?

Thank you.

Good question.

That initiative, um, I think what you could say diet on the vine.

The um the RCMP, it appears they have found uh space out in Langford and they want to keep their office and their their staff all together in one one location.

It was disappointing, I was looking forward to having them move into View Royal.

That's the nuts.

But right now I I believe that's on hold.

So Paul, my my house cost 55,000 when I bought it.

So I'm just wondering why why 55,000 seems a bit excessive and with with all the skilled individuals you have sleeping overnights and working there during the days you can't put some of their time and energy.

That's a good that's a good point.

I I would um I would ask you know our our director Jones to speak on the costs of office furniture these days.

Just to give you an example, um this this will this will shock you two desks um and chairs and some some cupboards was almost $20,000.

I know it it's crazy.

I I was shocked as well.

We're gonna repurpose a lot of the furniture.

Like I said, we're getting quotes in now that's gonna be it's gonna be less than 55, but the initial numbers we had were around 55,000.

So I'm hoping it'll come in far less.

Maybe I can take you to Lunds and we can get some really nice.

We could probably pick up a nice 1800s oak desk and and a credenza, maybe.

I'm hoping that'll come in lower.

But no, I I I echo I was a little surprised as well.

And I was kind of serious about you you can't do any of the work like in-house with all those very skilled people you have prior to March 3rd, 2023, pre-union.

Absolutely.

Not now.

That's the job of a painter and a carpenter.

All right, are the apartments never always are is there always a vacancy or are they never fully in use?

It's very fluid it it comes and goes right now we have we we've gone down to zero we've been full at four we have two right now I I see that program winding down and and as we I have two choices I can I occupy the association space which wouldn't be popular I can occupy that space which we anticipated anyway.

Great I move approval okay the next on the list is uh C 193, uh secure outdoor storage.

That's for $24,000.

That's just for um to put a roof over top of a shipping container.

And when we constructed the public safety building, there was a approximately about a $500 or $600,000 reduction in the scope of the building, which eliminated a significant footprint and square footage of the building, which eliminated my storage.

So the plan is right now our emergency program has trailers that are outside and uncovered.

This is just to put a roof structure over two existing shipping containers, the electrical, the fence, and store the um store the items uh undercover so they're not damaged by the weather.

Okay, we good with that.

The next item is C199, that is a emergency support services vehicle replacement.

Currently, our volunteers are driving a handed-down 2002 Chevy Venture, which is sitting in a parking lot at the fire hall, um, not functional.

This is their primary response vehicle when they support us on fires and emergency call outs for displaced residents.

Um this is a project that'll be managed by the emergency management coordinator, uh Captain Mullen.

Uh he's been successful so far in locating used vehicles.

We plan on uh purchasing a used something along the lines of a transit van or uh an Astra van uh with seats and an area where they can store their paperwork, just a more reliable uh as part of the fleet replacement plan.

It was identified several years ago to replace.

We anticipate we should be able to cover those costs for for about sixty thousand dollars.

That's the beginning.

Oh wondering too if we'll take into consideration uh electric vehicles.

I believe that's part of our um one of our objectives too.

Yeah.

I'd be more than happy to explore that as an option.

I know um Director Leonga's been more versed in the electrical vehicle market right now, and I'll I I can look into electrical vehicles.

I'm I'm sure there's a probably a lot of used Teslas out there right now that we could look into.

You mentioned non-functional.

Did you define that?

Yeah, if I if I asked you to go jump in it and start it, it probably wouldn't.

And uh it's it's on its last legs.

It um yeah, it's it's not a reliable vehicle anymore.

It's uh it was used by the engineering department for many years.

Uh and then it was handed down to the fire prevention division, that was handed down to the emergency social.

We're we're spending more money repairing it than it's actual worth.

It's worth probably $500 now.

It's completely shot.

Yeah, uh just general question, Paul, on uh counselor McKenzie's uh uh if this is an ESS vehicle and it's electric charging, I guess my comment goes uh a bit beyond that for all emergency service vehicles, um, given that they're gonna have to be post-disaster vehicles.

No power, no anything.

Um is is it your policy right now that that would likely involve a gas powered engine at this point?

Um, seeing how if it was a disaster and there's no way to charge an essential vehicle.

Um I'm just wondering if you've got a position on that.

I have a robust position on electrical vehicles at this point.

The there's a lot of debate right now in the emergency services on emergency on electric vehicles for emergency services.

Some applications work really well, I think.

Some don't.

I think the fire truck electric market is experimental at this point and extremely expensive, uh, probably doubles the cost of the vehicle.

I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but I don't know if the technology is there yet.

Um I'm more than happy to explore an electrical option, but you're you you raise a good point.

If if those vehicles are out and about uh for an extended period of time, how long will they last?

Um currently the fire station doesn't have the infrastructure installed uh for charging.

I would have to install that.

And I don't know what that entails.

I don't know if that's as simple as a a 110 outlet on the outside of the building, or I have to install a proper charging station.

I'm not sure what the costs are associated.

I know our director of engineering has uh has a budget proposal for upgrading the electrical services for his building next door, and it's six figures.

So I'm I'm it's something I didn't anticipate.

And just a follow-up.

If um for refueling, um do we have a uh petrol reserve at the fire station?

And that could that be run by battery to refuel in the case of a prolonged uh post-disaster.

Good question.

Yes, we do.

We store just over 6,000 gallons on site at the fire hall, diesel and gasoline.

There was a decision made in 2006 to uh purchase our own fuel tank and and service our own vehicles.

That investment uh in 06 paid itself off about 10 years ago, just in the cost savings of fuel buying the bulk fuel and of course the control of our own fuel.

We're not reliant on going to the shell station or uh uh where we're fighting consumers for for fuel.

That system is also backed up by the generator, uh which is fueled by the diesel in that tank.

So we're we're self-sustaining for probably 15 to 30 days in the event that we lose power.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

So yeah, did we discuss whether this could be an electric vehicle?

We did I've got welcome to the budget meeting.

Okay, right, right.

Uh no, he spoke to it.

Okay.

It's all good.

We good with this, folks.

Make a quick, I have two left.

Yep.

Good.

Uh C one eighty-seven, uh ten thousand dollars for a canopy for a pickup truck just to house some equipment that's currently sitting in the station and sitting um out in the weather.

I I could purchase it out of my operational budget and shuffle shells around, but I would exhaust the operational budget.

It's a it's a minor expense.

I think you missed 194 Paul.

Yeah, 180.

Oh, sorry, my apologies.

One nine one ninety-four.

Oh, now I I can get into battery operated.

So we are we are in the we are in the um process of phasing out all our small tools, all our gas powered, uh small tools, whether it be saws, jaws, cutters, anything like that.

Um this is just replacing an old piece of technology that's gas powered.

It's a it's a cutting tool for auto extrication.

It's uh $22,000.

So educate me about yes.

Why electric over gas that's been used forever.

Yeah you know I I wasn't a believer until we used them they're faster they're quieter they're lighter they last longer they're they're more reliable the the technology in the in the hand tool like we our lawn mowers are we everything at the fire hall now is electric this is the only piece of equipment we have left that's uh that's gas powered and i would i would choose the uh the battery operated over the the gas powered any day and it's just new technology is working now all good good um 122 and 122 is indigenous engagement requirements now this is emergency management this is a grant funded um it's a this you'll notice this is a 2024 grant uh that we received for $48 000.

I just want to point out that money.

Um sorry, the $10 000 for the truck canopy.

Did we uh sorry?

I thought we talked about that one.

There's a canopy for uh for one of the pickup trucks.

I was saying I could I could cover it in the operational budget, but it would exceed the uh it would exceed my operational budget, and then our new director of finance would send me a nasty note that I've expended further than I was allowed.

So that's why the 10,000 for the capital.

Any comments on that, questions?

No, and then just in discussion there.

So was are are you talking about N122?

N122.

I'm gonna get to that one.

Uh yeah.

Uh C 187 was the 10,000 for the canopy, and the previous one, the C194 was the 22,000 for the electric uh rescue tool.

Yeah, the those $48,000 have been ex have now been allocated and expended.

And I'm pleased to report that Troy was able to secure another $48,000 for uh 2025.

Those funds were used um in conjunction with the city of Esquimalt to set up a scholarship for the Esquimalt First Nations for uh emergency management initiatives and also a larger uh indigenous engagement initiative with uh throughout the CRD.

So these are provincial funds that we uh that we received.

That's it for you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you, Chief.

Yes, you're welcome.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Ivan Young Director of Engineering.

Um, I have a few projects here.

What else uh chair, what I'd recommend is I just do a quick five minute spiel on all of these, and then if there's any questions that comes up, I'd be happy to go over them again.

Um, there's a few in here that are operational in nature, um, and then certainly some that I'm sure that there'll be some discussions.

Uh so uh these are new projects for the next couple of years that council has not seen.

Um, main of it has been thanks to our uh Ben Lubers and their asset management program, they've been able to identify programs uh on the adage of no surprises.

So we're creating programming to help um uh efficiently replace infrastructure.

Um, there are some items that are uh emergent in nature in the sense that uh some some items have um finished, they're basically uh dead in the water, or they've they've basically obtained it, they've gone through this useful lifespan.

Um, and then there's a couple of non core uh planning related ones too.

So the first one is the town hall partial roof and gutter replacements.

So basically, through inspections, we found that the gutter needs to be replaced, and only a partial a portion of the roof needs to be replaced.

Figure that uh we don't need to do the whole roof just yet.

Um that could be done later on as part of a better more of a depreciation report that we would likely do in the future.

$20,000 under uh capla works.

The the bridge rehabilitation program, so that's C 184.

Again, that's a minute I think we have a question on that.

Oh okay.

Never thank you Madam Chair.

So the bridge replacement program, C 184.

This one is um again, Ben has been working hard on creating a a uh rehab program for many of the bridges.

A lot of them are super important.

So what was identified is basically within the next five years, um, two years in which we have to do some improvements.

Fiscal year one would be uh expansion, uh expansion joint replacement um on Craigflower Bridge, repairs of corroded structures on Highland Bridge South, and then the Garbell replacement on the Parsons Bridge Pedestrian Walkway.

Um, and then fiscal year three would be when we would do the remaining that's in the table there.

We want to do a we want to give ourselves a one-year break to reassess.

How'd you come up with 150,000?

Has somebody gone out and done an evaluation and costed it?

Or is this just sort of a the real high end and the costs are going to be lower?

Like um yeah, Madam Chair, this was done through structural engineers that we've hired to do the assessments.

They're the ones that are qualified to do the work.

Yeah, Ivan, it's good on the bottom of the recommendation that um the funding source is kind of a question mark.

So just is this operational?

Is this gonna be coming out of taxes for this year, or is this something that the reserve kicks into or the continuous improvement?

Uh yeah, Madam Chair, that's uh no not to taxation is capital renewal reserve.

Go ahead.

Yes, thanks.

That's right.

So um the uh with respect to the uh bridge um Watkissway Highland, I don't know which which what's which one it's called, but um um I I guess one of the problems was the bridge where um I think we've leveled it off, but underneath the bridge is um when um the the stream keepers and a variety of folks were looking at the uh with with the ministry of highways looking at the replacing of the Gallup and Goose Trail, that bridge and and so forth.

Um the concern was the large boulder that had been placed in Craigflower Creek and its um um propensity uh to create a a um nasty flood back backing uh the uh debris backing up and flooding weaver.

And um uh we saw that obviously in in the last uh um atmospheric river 2021, and uh one of the houses had uh you know significant water damage, insurance costs, and so forth, road got flooded, and they attributed that lot to the boulder.

Have we given thoughts of um removing that impediment?

Uh Madam Chair, with respect to this project summary, uh I can't comment on that, but we can certainly take a look and see what can be done operationally.

So once once you're there, the um it's it's reasonable to have as you're doing the estimate of remediation, you could uh assess that as well.

Uh Madam Chair, again, I can't comment on that because it's not within this project summary, but we'll take a look at at that.

Wacus Bridge is not identified within this program at this time.

Um, but certainly should the come up again, we'll take a look.

But that said, you know, we'll we'll take your comments in consideration and uh look at see to see where this uh boulder is.

Okay.

Yep, thank you.

I thought we were talking Highland, but uh see we're talking another bridge.

Okay, thank you.

Well, good, good.

Carry on.

Perfect.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

This third one was uh C 175.

Council's actually seen it before.

I'll breeze through it.

Um is that it's slated for this year.

However, it's best to time this with the 339 Island Highway development.

So that's the big one that's next to the the public safety building.

We haven't seen any works around that area, so we recommend deferring this another year.

Um we won't be spending any time on it anyways.

Uh yeah, um question to whomever.

Perhaps it's to Director Taylor.

Is there any indication that there is going to be a build there?

We haven't heard from the developer since the line was rezoned.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I I don't I would be surprised.

Um, Councilor Rogers.

Yes, um it's not likely that the uh 339 345 Island Highway project will will go ahead.

They're they're now focused on um uh the project in Esquimal.

This is last on their list.

So um with that in consideration is this um even if we didn't have this uh particular project possible um uh the work that you're recommending is it still um important enough to proceed on uh madam chair n I don't think so I mean the road's operating well enough as it is right now the only reason why we want to do as part of the development is because when that development happens, half that road's gonna go.

And so we need to push it over.

So would mean make it contingent upon getting more news if the project is going ahead?

Uh yeah, Madam Chair, that'd be correct.

Um, usually like big developments like this take about 18 months to complete.

We'll we'll usually see furniture improvements, you know, maybe 12 months down the road, and that's like after building permit.

So we have plenty of time and staff can certainly provide uh informed um information for for council.

Okay.

Um second.

Second.

Okay.

Favor.

All um all in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh so the next uh project is C 186, the traffic signal renewal program.

Um so bands it's been going through our traffic signals to see how many are outdated and how many are good.

Right now it looks like we have an eight signal replacement program that we want to undergo.

These basically haven't been updated since they were installed.

So there a lot of them are due for replacement.

Council has uh approved traffic signal replacements for us in the last uh few years, and uh those signals work like a hot dang.

So they um we're looking to see more uh improvements.

These are the ones that do see regular problems.

Uh we do have staff that have to spend after hours to um go to the site and um and review and call Raylect to get them done.

So by installing these signals, you would reduce the amount of staff time and consultant times to to uh to fix the issue.

Um project C195 GPS unit replacement.

We do have one GPS unit.

Uh it's predominantly meant to reduce the amount of consultants that to do fuel pickups for us.

Uh we do it ourselves and then we provide it to consultants when they do our designs.

It is a good cost-effective manner of of uh of um managing our infrastructure.

That GPS unit that was purchased 15 years ago is now uh the technology does no longer support it, so it's basically dead in the water.

So the idea is to uh replace it with a new GPS unit.

Um, it's about $13,000, which is why we're going coming forward the council.